ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
2017
№
3
♦
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
78
I.R. Rustambekov
DSc in Law, Associate professor of Tashkent State
University of Law
INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND SOME LEGAL
MECHANISMS OF INVESTMENT DISPUTE
RESOLUTION
Abstract:
Nowadays questions of legal regulation of
investments and investment dispute resolutions are very
actual for the Republic of Uzbekistan. In accordance with
that, the author analyses questions of emergence of the
investment disputes. In the basic part of the article, legal
mechanisms of investment dispute resolution are exam-
ined. In conclusion the author comes to opinion that in
investment dispute resolution ICSID arbitration is very
popular, but there is the need to use and improve such
mechanisms of ADR as negotiation, mediation and concil-
iation
Key words:
investment, foreign investment, invest-
ment disputes, bilateral investment treaty, dispute resolu-
tion, conflict of laws.
Аннотация
:
В
настоящее
время
вопросы
правово
-
го
регулирования
инвестиций
и
разрешения
инвести
-
ционных
споров
очень
актуальны
для
Республики
Уз
-
бекистан
.
В
соответствии
с
этим
,
автор
анализирует
вопросы
возникновения
инвестиционных
споров
.
В
основной
части
статьи
исследованы
правовые
меха
-
низмы
разрешения
инвестиционных
споров
.
В
заклю
-
чении
автор
приходит
к
выводу
,
что
при
разрешении
инвестиционных
споров
особую
популярность
обрета
-
ет
МЦУИС
,
но
при
этом
возникает
необходимость
в
использовании
и
совершенствовании
таких
механиз
-
мов
альтернативных
способов
разрешения
споров
как
переговоры
,
медиация
и
примирение
.
Ключевые
слова
:
инвестиции
,
иностранные
инве
-
стиции
,
инвестиционные
споры
,
двусторонние
инве
-
стиционные
соглашения
,
урегулирование
споров
,
кол
-
лизионные
нормы
.
Аннотация
:
Бугунги
кунда
инвестицяиларни
ҳуқуқий
тартибга
солиш
ҳамда
инвестиция
низоларини
ҳал
этиш
Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
учун
юқори
аҳамиятли
масалалардандир
.
Шунга
асосан
,
муаллиф
инвестиция
низоларини
вужудга
келишини
таҳлил
қилган
.
Мақоланинг
асосий
қисмида
инвестиция
низоларини
ҳал
этишнинг
ҳуқуқий
механизмлари
ўрганилган
.
Мақола
якунида
муаллиф
инвестиция
низоларини
ҳал
этишда
Инвестиция
низоларини
ҳал
этиш
халқаро
марказининг
ўрни
ва
аҳамияти
ошиб
бораётганлигини
,
лекин
низоларни
ҳал
этишнинг
муқобил
усулларини
,
жумладан
музокара
ва
ярашув
институтларини
қўллаш
ва
ривожлантириш
зарурати
вужуждга
келмоқдалигини
кўрсатган
.
Калит
сўзлар
:
инвестиция
,
чет
эл
инвестицияси
,
инвестиция
низолари
,
иккитарафлама
инвестиция
шартномалари
,
низоларни
ҳал
этиш
,
коллизион
нормалар
.
Each country is widely interested in attraction of for-
eign investments into the economy and for this purpose
carries out reforms, applies legal and organizational
measures to ensuring appeal of economy to investment
and also providing with the corresponding guarantees. In
the investments attraction system, their protection and
encouragement the integral role is played by the system of
permission of investment disputes. More precisely what
ways of permission of investment disputes the state guar-
antees for the investor, at emergence of those.
Foreign investment has a critical impact on the world
economy and development [6], and there is keen competi-
tion in the developed and developing world [14] to attract
investment [8]. Traditional methods to lure foreign invest-
ment involve liberalizing an economic sector, providing tax
incentives [15], and improving dispute resolution systems
[3]. Another potential method of promoting foreign invest-
ment involves signing an investment treaty [10].
It can be mentioned, that in regulation of such ques-
tions a big role plays international agreements, in particu-
lar Bilateral investment treaties. Today, nearly 170 coun-
tries have signed onto one or more BITs [1]. These trea-
ties offer foreign investors a series of economic rights,
including the right to arbitrate claims, in hopes of attracting
Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”) that will bring a country
infrastructure projects, financing, know-how, new jobs and,
economic stability [11].
The existence of an investment treaty is one variable
that may affect decisions to invest internationally. Other
critical variables influencing investment choices can in-
clude the potential financial risks and benefits to the inves-
tor, the stability of an investment environment, the availa-
bility of appropriate human capital, access to effective
enforcement procedures, embedded personal and profes-
sional relationships, and other factors. While the availabil-
ity of investment treaty arbitration may play some role in
influencing investment determinations, the specific scope
and impact of that role has not been articulated. Neverthe-
less, to the extent that dispute resolution mechanisms in
investment treaties may influence an investor’s decision to
invest or affect the manner in which they structure their
transaction, they are worthy of consideration — particular-
ly as countries are targeting effective alternative dispute
resolution systems as a method of fostering foreign in-
vestment [12].
International investment law has experienced a par-
ticular growth. While the number of bilateral investment
treaties (BITs) expanded in the past years, there has also
been a more recent growth of disputes arising under these
agreements [7].
Unsurprisingly, the escalation in the availability and
use of the dispute resolution process has led to a teething
period. The boundaries of States’ previously untested in-
ternational law obligations are being sketched; and parties
and non-parties have both cheered and jeered the effica-
cy, efficiency and fairness of the system for resolving in-
vestment disputes. Given these developments, the system
may have evolved to the point where it would be useful to
clean the proverbial clock [13].
The resolution of international investment disputes has
changed over the past century or so. Disputes that were
once handled only on a state-to-state basis are now com-
monly resolved through arbitrations in which private par-
ties bring their own claims. The evolution of dispute reso-
lution from diplomatic protection to direct claims involves
two related developments: first, the establishment of fora
for direct claims; and second, the growing use of treaties,
breaches of which might be raised either in those fora or
sometimes even in domestic courts [18].
Conflict between investors and host country govern-
ments can occur when there is dissatisfaction with an in-
teraction, process or result. Conflict can be a positive
force, however. For investors, it can create opportunities
for commercial innovations, and governments can use it
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
2017
№
3
♦
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
79
as an occasion to adapt how they legislate and regulate
those they govern [13].
It is essential to place the resolution of investment dis-
putes in its wider context. “The settlement of any dispute,
not just investment disputes, requires the adoption of the
most speedy, informal, amicable and inexpensive method
available” [16]. Finding the most “appropriate” mechanism
for resolving specific categories of types of investment
disputes, however, can be challenging. Nevertheless,
there are decided benefits to tailoring a design to the
unique needs of the particular system. These benefits
might include the promotion of democratic values, mini-
mizing resources exerted on dispute resolution, increasing
productivity, increasing satisfaction with outcomes, de-
creasing the recurrence of disputes and improving public
relations [9]. Finding the appropriate dispute resolution is
therefore a matter of some importance [13].
Nowadays, the most popular mechanism of solving in-
vestment disputes is international commercial arbitration.
Mostly in BITs it is always shown that disputes can be
solved in The International Centre for Settlement of In-
vestment Disputes (ICSID), ad-hoc or other international
commercial arbitrations. But the most popular is ICSID.
ICSID was established in 1966 to hear “any legal dis-
pute arising directly out of an investment, between a Con-
tracting State and a national of another Contracting State,
which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to sub-
mit to the Centre” [2]. ICSID has proved to be one of the
most suitable mechanisms for the resolution of disputes
arising out of international investments, between one
country and a national of another country, under the Con-
vention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes between
States and Nationals of Other States. Although the pace of
its caseload development was very slow in the first years
of its existence, it blossomed during the nineteen nineties
to become now a very important Dispute Resolution
mechanism chosen by the actors at international invest-
ment [5].
The role of ICSID is essentially supportive. ICSID itself
does not monitor investments or resolve investment dis-
putes. Rather, it performs the administrative functions
necessary to establish and support the operation of inter-
national arbitration tribunals. The ICSID Convention and
associated rules regulate the conduct of arbitration and
conciliation procedures under auspices of ICSID. The
Convention also provides for the determination of chal-
lenges to awards rendered by ICSID tribunals, and for the
recognition and enforcement of final awards by the courts
of ICSID States Parties.
While both arbitration and conciliation are possible un-
der the ICSID Convention, arbitration is much the more
popular option. There have been only a handful of concil-
iations, and the most recent, involving a French electricity
company and the Government of Togo, ended in failure
and the dispute was referred to arbitration.
The great advantage of the ICSID system is that it is
comprehensive and self-contained. Clear rules for arbitra-
tions are laid down; and the tribunals, whose members are
freely chosen by the disputing parties, are given a great
deal of support by the highly skilled and experienced legal
staff at the ICSID headquarters in Washington DC. That
helps to ensure that arbitrations proceed smoothly and
professionally. The ICSID Convention sets out very limited
grounds on which alone ICSID awards may be challenged,
in proceedings before specially appointed
ad hoc
ICSID
annulment panels; and this helps to minimise challenges
to the validity of arbitral awards; and the Convention also
provides that ICSID awards must be given the same
recognition and enforcement in ICSID Member States as
would be given to a final judgment of a court in that State.
ICSID awards are, therefore, very secure, and they are
generally complied with promptly and fully [17].
ICSID is very popular, but this mechanism demands
essential expenses to its parties and also, usually, it needs
a long time for adopting an award on investment dispute,
so that is shortcomings of such system.
In this case, use of other alternative dispute resolution
systems (ADR) are actual. In solving investment disputes
it can be used such mechanisms of ADR as negotiation,
mediation and conciliation.
Theoretically, there are a variety of options for resolv-
ing investment treated disputes. The classic formulation in
dispute resolution circles is that the “forum [should] fit the
fuss” [4]. In order to make an informed choice of the ap-
propriate of the design of a dispute resolution system, it is
useful to consider the options along the dispute resolution
continuum that might be employed individually or in com-
bination to resolve investment-related disputes. Once the
spectrum of choices is clear, designing dispute systems is
more efficient.
Reference
1. Antonio R. Parra, Settlement of Investment Dis-
putes: The Experience of ICSID in Transition Countries
and Elsewhere, in European Bank of Reconstruction and
Development, Law in Transition: Contract Enforcement 39
(2001),
Available
at
http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/legal/5083.htm
2. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Dis-
putes Between States and Nationals of Other States art.
25, 4 I.L.M. 532, 536 (1965) (entered into force Oct. 14,
1966) [hereinafter ICSID Convention].
3. Effective ADR Mechanism Can Fetch More FDI than
China, EXPRESS INDIA, Nov. 5, 2005, available at
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=57809
4. Frank E.A. Sander and Stephen Goldberg, “Fitting
the Forum to the Fuss: A User-Friendly Guide to Selecting
an ADR Procedure,” 10 N). –J. 49 (1994) [Hereinafter
Sander and Goldberg 1994]
5. Ignacio D’Alessio. “A Comment on ICSID’s Jurisdic-
tional Issues. Problems, solutions and recommendations
for a better understanding in international commercial rela-
tions”. Amsterdam, June 2008.
6. R. Doak Bishop Et Al., Foreign Investment Disputes:
Cases, Materials and Commentary 2–7 (2005); Encyclo-
pedia of Public International Law, Vol. II 435–37 (1995).
7. Research Developments in International Investment
Agreements, UNCTAD Research Notes, UNCTAD/
WEB/ITE/IIT/2005/1,
30
August
2005
(http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/webiteiit200
51_en.pdf) [Hereina er UNCTAD 2005a], pp. 1–3, 13–15;
and “Investor-State Disputes Arising from Investment
Treaties:
A
Review,”
UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2005/4,
(http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiit20054_en.pdf) [Here-
ina$ er UNCTAD 2005b], pp. 4–6.
8. Robert O. Keohane & Van Doorn Ooms, World Poli-
tics and International Economics: The Multinational Firm
and International Regulation, 29 INT’L ORG. 169, 170
(1975); Malcolm J. Rogge, Towards Transnational Corpo-
rate Accountability in the Global Economy: Challenging
the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in In Re: Union
Carbide, Alfaro, Sequihua, and Aguinda, 36 TEX. INT’L
L.J. 299, 314 (2001); Teresa Edwards, The Relocation of
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
2017
№
3
♦
ЎЗБЕКИСТОН
ҚОНУНЧИЛИГИ
ТАҲЛИЛИ
♦
UZBEK LAW REVIEW
♦
ОБЗОР
ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВА
УЗБЕКИСТАНА
80
Production and Effects on the Global Community, 13
COLO. J. INT’L ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 183, 190 (2002); Law-
rence Jahoon Lee, Barcelona Traction in the 21st Century:
Revisiting Its Customary and Policy Underpinnings 35
Years Later, 42 STAN. J. INT’L L. 237, 265 (2006).
9. Richard C. Reuben, “Democracy and Dispute Reso-
lution: Systems Design and the New Workplace,” 10 Harv.
Negot. L. Rev. 11 (2005) [Hereinafter Rueben 2005]; CPR
Institute for Dispute Resolution, Resource Book For Man-
aging Employment Disputes (2004); Ury et al. 1998.
10. Susan D. Franck. Integrating Investment Treaty
Conflict and Dispute Systems Design, 92 MINN. L. REV.
161, 171 (2007).
11. Susan D. Franck. The Legitimacy Crisis in Invest-
ment Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law
Through Inconsistent Decisions, 73 Fordham L. REV.
1521, 1522-23 (2005) [hereinafter Franck, Legitimacy Cri-
sis]; see also Susan D. Franck, The Nature and Enforce-
ment of Investor Rights under Investment Treaties: Do
Investment Treaties Have a Bright Future, 12 U.C. Davis
J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 47 (2005) [hereinafter Franck, Bright Fu-
ture].
12. Susan D. Franck. Foreign Direct Investment, In-
vestment Treaty Arbitration, and the Rule of Law // Global
Business & Development Law Journal. Vol. 19, 2007. –
P.339.
13. Susan D. Franck. “Challenges Facing Investment
Disputes: Reconsidering Dispute Resolution in Interna-
tional Investment Agreements” // Washington & Lee Pub-
lic. Legal Studies Research Paper Series #1427590. Ac-
cepted Paper 2008. February 12, 2008. –P.143-144.
14. Tom Ginsburg, International Substitutes for Do-
mestic Institutions: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Gov-
ernance, 25 INT’L REV. L. & ECON. 107, 108–09 (2005).
15. The World Bank, World Development Report 2005:
A Better Investment Climate for Everyone 20 (2004),
Available
at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2005/Resourc
es/ complete_report.pdf.
16. UNCTAD 2003b, p. 11.
17. Vaughan Lowe. Changing Dimensions of Interna-
tional Investment Law // University of Oxford Faculty of
Law
Research
Paper
Series
is
located
at:
<http://www.ssrn.com/link/oxford-legal-studies.html>
18. William S. Dodge. Investor-State Dispute Settle-
ment between Developed Countries: Reflections on the
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement // Vander-
bilt Journal of Transnational Law. Volume 39, JANUARY
2006, Number 1. –P.5.
Ш
.
А
.
Исмоилов
,
ТДЮУ
докторанти
МЕҲНАТ
МУНОСАБАТЛАРИНИ
ҲУҚУҚИЙ
ТАРТИБГА
СОЛИШДА
ДИФФЕРЕНЦИАЛЛИК
:
МДҲ
ДАВЛАТЛАРИ
ТАЖРИБАСИ
Аннотация
:
мазкур
мақолада
меҳнат
ҳуқуқида
дифференциаллик
масалалари
,
айрим
тоифадаги
ходимлар
ва
улар
меҳнатини
тартибга
солишнинг
хусусиятлари
,
МДҲ
давлатлари
меҳнат
қонунчилигида
дифференциалликка
оид
нормалар
қиёсий
таҳлил
қилинган
.
Калит
сўзлар
:
дифференциаллик
,
айрим
тоифадаги
ходимлар
,
чеклов
,
имтиёз
,
меҳнатни
тартибга
солишнинг
хусусиятлари
,
меҳнат
тўғрисидаги
қонун
ҳужжатлари
.
Аннотация
:
в
этой
статье
рассматриваются
вопро
-
сы
дифференциации
в
трудовом
праве
,
отдельных
категорий
работников
и
особенности
регулирования
их
труда
,
сравнительный
анализ
норм
дифференциации
трудового
законодательства
государств
СНГ
.
Ключевые
слова
:
дифференциация
,
отдельные
категории
работников
,
ограничение
,
льгота
,
особенно
-
сти
регулирования
труда
,
законодательные
акты
о
труде
.
Annotation:
in this article questions of differentiation
in the labor law, separate categories of workers and
feature of regulation of their work and norms differentiation
of the labor legislation of the states of the CIS is analyzed.
Key words
: differentiation, of separate categories of
workers, limitation, immunity, special procedures for work,
the legislation on work.
Ижтимоий
меҳнат
соҳасида
янги
муносабатлар
(
масофавий
меҳнат
,
якка
тартибдаги
тадбиркорнинг
иш
берувчи
мақомига
эга
бўлиши
,
оилавий
тадбиркорлик
)
нинг
вужудга
келаётганлиги
ва
айрим
тоифадаги
ходимлар
меҳнатининг
ўзига
хос
хусусиятлари
чуқурроқ
намоён
бўлиб
бораётганлиги
(
давлат
хизматчилари
,
нодавлат
нотижорат
ташкилотлари
ходимлари
,
ижодкор
ходимлар
,
педагог
ходимлар
)
меҳнат
ҳуқуқида
дифференциаллик
билан
боғлиқ
нормаларни
такомиллаштиришни
тақозо
қилмоқда
.
Зеро
,
бугунга
келиб
хориж
давлатлари
меҳнат
ҳуқуқида
дифференциаллик
қоидаларига
асосланган
“
айрим
тоифадаги
ходимлар
меҳнатини
тартибга
солишнинг
хусусиятлари
”
алоҳида
бобда
ўз
ифодасини
топган
.
Жумладан
,
Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Меҳнат
кодексининг
14-
боби
ҳам
айрим
тоифадаги
ходимлар
(
аёллар
ва
оилавий
вазифаларни
бажариш
билан
машғул
шахслар
,
ёшлар
,
ишни
таълим
билан
бирга
қўшиб
олиб
бораётган
шахслар
)
учун
қўшимча
кафолат
ва
имтиёзларга
бағишланган
.
Бироқ
мазкур
боб
бошқа
давлатлар
меҳнат
қонунлигидаги
худди
шундай
боб
нормалари
билан
солиштирилганда
зарур
ва
етарли
даражада
ривожланмаганлигини
кўриш
мумкин
.
Шу
ўринда
меҳнатчи
олим
М
.
Гасановнинг
қуйидаги
фикрларини
келтириш
ўринли
бўлади
: “
мазкур
бобга
жамланган
нормалар
меҳнат
ҳуқуқининг
мустақил
соҳавий
институтини
шакллантирмайди
,
балки
унинг
бошқа
институтларига
(
меҳнат
шартномаси
,
иш
вақти
,
дам
олиш
вақти
,
меҳнатга
ҳақ
тўлаш
в
.
б
.)
тааллуқли
бўлади
.
Бироқ
бундай
нормалар
Меҳнат
кодексининг
