İki taraflı yatırım anlaşmalarında sıklıkla yer verilen hükümlerden biri yatırımcıya ev sahibi devlet mahkemelerinde dava açmak veya tahkime başvurmak konusunda bağlayıcı bir seçim imkânı tanıyan “yol ayrımı (fork in the road)” kayıtlarıdır. Söz konusu kayıtlar yatırım anlaşmalarından doğabilecek uyuşmazlıkların çözüm yöntemleri arasındaki ilişkiyi düzenlemelerinin yanı sıra, aynı uyuşmazlığın farklı yargı mercileri önüne getirilmesinden doğacak paralel yargılama sorununa karşı da bir araç olarak görülmektedir. Uygulamada yol ayrımı kayıtlarına ilişkin temel sorun, davacının ulusal mahkemede herhangi bir dava açmış olmasının, söz konusu kayıtta düzenlenen seçimlik hakkını kullanmış olduğu anlamına gelip gelmediğidir. Çalışmada, bu sorun Devletler ve Diğer Devletlerin Vatandaşları Arasındaki Yatırım Uyuşmazlıklarının Çözümlenmesi Hakkında Sözleşme ile kurulan Yatırım Anlaşmazlıklarının Çözümü için Uluslararası Merkez (International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)) bünyesinde verilen hakem kararlarıyla sınırlı olarak ele alınmış ve söz konusu kararlarda benimsenen temel yaklaşımların belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu kapsamda, konu, iki farklı yaklaşımı temsil eden 2001 tarihli Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil Genin v Republic of Estonia ve 2009 tarihli Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v Republic of Albania kararları çerçevesinde ele alınmış ve tartışılmıştır.
One of the provisions frequently included in bilateral investment agreements is the "fork in the road" records that give the investor a binding choice of appealing or applying for arbitration in the host state courts. These records are seen as a tool against the parallel trial issue that will arise from the settlement of disputes that may arise from investment agreements, as well as the settlement of the relationship between the methods of settlement of disputes that may arise from investment agreements. The main issue in the application concerning road distinction records is whether it means that the applicant has filed any lawsuit to the national court and has exercised the right of choice provided for in that record. The study addressed this issue limited to the arbitration decisions made by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), established by the Convention on the Resolution of Investment Disputes between States and citizens of other States, and aimed at determining the fundamental approaches adopted in those decisions. In this context, the subject represents two different approaches: 2001 Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil Genin v Republic of Estonia and 2009 Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v Republic of Albania has been discussed and discussed in the framework of the decisions.
The fork-in-the-road clauses in bilateral investment treaties provide for a right for the plaintiff to apply to the national courts of the host state or to arbitration as regards disputes arising from such treaties. However under such clauses, by initiating proceedings before the court or tribunal the plaintiff makes an irrevocable choice, thus, once one of the dispute resolution mechanisms is initiated by the plaintiff, then he is bound by his choice. As such the fork-in-the-road clauses not only regulate the relationship between different methods of dispute resolution but are also accepted as a tool against parallel proceedings that may arise from taking the same action before different courts and tribunals. In fact the main question is whether the plaintiff must be deemed to have exercised his choice under such a clause by bringing any action before the courts of the host state. This paper aims to determine the answers to this question as regards decisions given by International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitral tribunals. In this regard decisions of Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil Genin v Republic of Estonia of 2001 and Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v Republic of Albania of 2009 shall be explained and discussed as the main examples of two different approaches.
Alan : Hukuk
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Benzer Makaleler | Yazar | # |
---|
Makale | Yazar | # |
---|