1. Introduction介绍
在分析问题之前，本文首先介绍了整个案例。此案涉及在Aquatopia注册的Aquatopia政府，Rough和Ready Ltd三家，一家在Mariland注册成立的投资商Digit Ltd;和两个BIT，他们是2012年8月的Mariland-Aquatopia BIT和Aquatopia-Piristan BIT。
Before analyzing the questions, this essay first goes through the whole case. This case involves three parties, Aquatopia government, Rough and Ready Ltd which is registered in Aquatopia, an investor Digit Ltd which is incorporated in Mariland; and two BITs, they are Mariland-Aquatopia BIT in August 2012 and Aquatopia-Piristan BIT.
在这种情况下，Aquatopia向所有国内外投资者颁发钻井许可证，以在大陆架上钻油。 2012年4月，发生严重事故，造成Aquatopia政府巨大的经济和生态系统损失，因为负责的公司Rough and Ready Ltd宣称破产。然后Aquatopia政府必须支付事故。为了避免这种情况和改善安全，Aquatopia政府颁布了一项法令，并引入了一个新的地区，损害了Digit Ltd.等Digit Ltd等外国投资者的利益。Digit Ltd希望向国际投资争端解决中心（ICSID）提起诉讼），但是根据Mariland-Aquatopia BIT，它必须等待18个月的时间。由于Aquatopia-Piristan BIT允许投资者在没有任何等待期的情况下启动ICSID仲裁，Digit有限公司希望根据“Aquatopia-Piristan BIT”根据Mariland-Aquatopia BIT第3条规定的最惠国条款提出索赔。此外，Aquatopia政府承诺赔偿受到禁令影响的投资者，但赔偿金额限制在每家公司最多10万美元。数字有限公司不同意赔偿，因为实际损失超过2.5亿元。数字有限公司热衷于通过向ICSID提起诉讼追回全部金额。为避免这种无法承担的赔偿责任，Aquatopia应提出必要的保护，以避免责任。In this case, Aquatopia issued drilling licenses to all domestic and foreign investors to drill oil on the continental shelf. In April 2012, a severely accident occurred, which caused huge economic and eco-system loss to Aquatopia government because the responsible company Rough and Ready Ltd was claimed bankruptcy. Then Aquatopia government has to pay for the accident. In order to avoid such a situation and improve safety, Aquatopia government issued a decree and introduced a new region which harmed benefits of foreign investors such as Digit Ltd. Digit Ltd wanted to initiate litigation to the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disput (ICSID), however it has to wait for a period of 18 months according to the Mariland-Aquatopia BIT. Because Aquatopia-Piristan BIT allows investors to initiate ICSID arbitration without any waiting period, Digit Ltd wants to initiate its claims based on the Aquatopia-Piristan BIT in accordance with MFN clause regulated in Article 3 of the Mariland-Aquatopia BIT. Besides, Aquatopia government promises to compensate investors who are affected by the ban, although compensation is limited to a maximum of $100,000,000 per company. Digit Ltd. does not agree with the compensation, because their actual loss is over 250,000,000. Digit Ltd. is keen to recover the full amount through initiating litigation to ICSID. In order to avoid such an unaffordable compensation, Aquatopia shall to claim defence of necessity so as to avoid the responsibility.
2. MFN clause and Digit Ltd.’s claim
3. Essential security interest and defence of necessity of Aquatopia
4. Conclusion
To sum up this case briefly, Digit Ltd. may not allowed to use MFN clause stipulated in Mariland-Aquatopia BIT, to enjoy the treatment stipulated in Aquatopia-Piristan BIT, unless Digit Ltd. could prove Digit Ltd.’ claim is: 1)with some material aspects; 2) not against any public consideration of Aquatopia.
For Aquatopia, because the essential/national security interests were harmed severely, Aquatopia could rely on a defence of necessity to avoid liability to foreign investors such as Digit Ltd., furthermore, because the treaty responsibility is exempt from, the compensation liability shall be exempt from accordingly.
Reference
