مطالعۀ تطبيقي جايگاه و كاركرد نظرهاي فردي (جداگانه، مخالف و اعلاميه)در رويۀ ديوان بين‌المللي دادگستري و نظام داوري حل اختلافات دولت- سرمايه‌گذار

The Comparative Study of Position & Function of the Individual Opinions (Separate, Dissent and Declaration) in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the International Investor –State Dispute Settlement Arbitration

نظرهاي فردي قضات/ داوران (مخالف، جداگانه و اعلاميه‌ها) يكي از مهم‌ترين شكل‌هاي دكترين به‌منظور كمك به احراز قواعد حقوقي‌اند. هرچند ديوان بين‌المللي دادگستري و داوري دولت- سرمايه‌گذار دو نظام متفاوت‌اند، اما هر دو به نظام حقوقي حل و فصل اختلافات تعلق دارند. از‌اين‌رو مطالعۀ تطبيقي در خصوص كاركرد و آثار نظرهاي فردي قضات/ داوران در اين دو نظام گامي در يافتن تفاوت‌ها و شباهت‌ها در رويه‌هاي اين دو نظام و توسعۀ ادبيات حقوقي حل و فصل اختلافات است. قضات ديوان بين‌المللي دادگستري از طريق نظرهاي انفرادي خود، چه در آرا و احكام ترافعي و چه در آراي مشورتي، در توسعه و احراز قواعد حقوق بين‌الملل و ايفاي يك نقش پادماني براي ديوان سهيم بوده، با توسعۀ اكتيويسم قضايي، رشد قاعده‌سازي و ايجاد گفتمان حقوقي و پر كردن خلأهاي حقوقي به تصميم ديوان و نيز عدالت بين‌المللي اعتبار مي‌بخشند. درمقابل، جايگاه و كاركرد نظرهاي فردي داوران در نظام داوري بين‌المللي دولت- سرمايه‌گذار (به‌ويژه در داوري‌هاي نهادي مانند ايكسيد) با چالش‌هاي متعددي روبرو است؛ چراكه از يك طرف داوران از ارائۀ نظرهاي فردي به‌ويژه مخالف خودداري مي‌كنند و از طرف ديگر نظرهاي مخالف اغلب وسيله‌اي براي طرف بازنده براي هدايت پرونده به سمت ابطال‌پذيري بوده و همين امر باعث عدم اتكا به اين نظرها در داوري‌ها شده است. مقالۀ حاضر نشان خواهد داد با توجه به پيچيدگي‌هاي حاكم بر دعاوي سرمايه‌گذاري، استفاده از نظرهاي فردي داوران در شكل صحيح خود همانند آنچه در ديوان بين‌المللي دادگستري وجود دارد امري ضروري است، لكن دستيابي به اين مقصود نيازمند برخي اصلاحات و تغييرات در داوري‌هاي سرمايه‌گذاري است. كليدواژه‌ها

Individual opinions of the judges/ Arbitrators are one of the main forms of Legal Doctorin, which assist to determine the rules of law. However, the International Court of Justice and Investor- State Arbitration are two different systems, but both of them belong to dispute settlement legal system and recognized the individual opinions. Therefore, comparative study of these two systems on functions and effects of individual opinions of judges/arbitrators is a step for finding the differentials and similarities of jurisprudences in this two systems and development of legal literature of dispute settlement as well. The Judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by their individual opinions, both in contentious and advisory judgments contributed in development and determination of rules of international law and have taken role as safeguard of court, and also have had role in accrediting the decisions of the court as well as international justice through development of judicial activism, law-making, dialogue of law and removing the gaps of law. Vice-versa, the functions & performances of Individual Opinions of arbitrators in investor-state arbitration (in particular ICSID) faces with various challenges. Because on one hand the arbitrators withdrawals of individual opinions in particular dissent, and on the other hand the dissent is often a tool for looser party to conduct the case on the way of null procedures, and this caused unreliability on these opinions in arbitrations. Due to thelack of the appeal mechanism in investment arbitrations, the awards would be fallen in annulment process just for minor reasons. According to research which has been taken on awards of the ICSID, the arbitrators announced their dissents in most cases in favor of the party who loosed the case fully or partially. For this reasons, the concerns has been increased about individual opinions of arbitrators. Therefore it cannot be expected that individual opinions in investor –state arbitration would be in favor of development of international law. Other important point which should be taken in to account, is the independency of the judges in comparison to arbitrators. Since in the international Court of Justice (ICJ) as the focal point for resolving the disputes among States and the parties have less interference in selection of the judges, therefore judges have enough independency and they have some privileges and immunities as well, based on the status of (ICJ) which backup them to provide their individual opinions, in particular dissents. But in investor-state arbitrations, since the arbitrators are designated by the parties, they are under the influence of the parties and face with some challenges in providing the dissents. With regard to the complexity of the investment cases, the use of the individual opinions in correct forms like (ICJ) is necessary, but achieving this aim needs some changes and amendments in investment arbitrations mechanism. One of the proposals which proposed for decreasing the challenges in this respect is the establishment of the Investment International permanent court. This mechanism has already included in some of the new agreements like as Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership-(TTIP), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement(CETA),Trans-Pacific Partnership-(TPP), etc. It seems that the establishment of this mechanism will pave the way for the judges/ arbitrators to provide their individual opinions with more independency.