mgimolawМосковский журнал международного праваMoscow Journal of International Law0869-00492619-0893Moscow State Institute of International Relations10.24833/0869-0049-2022-1-113-127mgimolaw-2679Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЕ ПРАВОINTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAWЭпоха COVID-19: ограничительные меры государств и требования иностранных инвесторовThe Era of COVID-19: Restrictive Measures of States and the Claims of Foreign Investorshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1228-1183ЛифшицИ. М.LifshitsI. M.

 Илья Михайлович Лифшиц, доктор юридических наук, профессор кафедры международного права

119285, Москва, Воробьевское шоссе, д. 6 А 

 Ilya M. Lifshits, Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor at the Department of International Law 

6 a, Vorobiyovskoye shosse, Moscow,  119285 

i.lifshits@edaslawfrm.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3771-888XШаталоваА. В.ShatalovaA. V.

 Анастасия Владимировна Шаталова, магистр международного частного права, юрист 

119180,  Москва, 1-й Голутвинский переулок, д. 1 

 Anastasiya V. Shatalova, Master of Private International Law,Lawyer 

1, 1-i Golutvinskii pereulok, Moscow, 119180 

a.shatalova@edaslawfrm.ruВсероссийская академия внешней торговли Министерства экономического развития Российской ФедерацииРоссияRussian Foreign Trade Academy of the Ministry for the Economic Development of the Russian FederationRussian FederationАдвокатское бюро «ЭДАС»РоссияEDAS Law BureauRussian Federation20220404202201113127Copyright © Лифшиц И.М., Шаталова А.В., 20222022Лифшиц И.М., Шаталова А.В.Lifshits I.M., Shatalova A.V.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/2679ВВЕДЕНИЕ

ВВЕДЕНИЕ: В декабре 2019 года в г. Ухань (Китай) была зарегистрирована вспышка инфекции коронавируса (SARS-CoV-2). В течение нескольких месяцев вирус распространился по Европе и Азии, в дальнейшем – по всему миру. Государства в связи с возникшей чрезвычайной ситуацией были вынуждены ввести различные ограничительные меры, в том числе закрытие границ, общественных мест для посещения населения. Данные меры могут повлечь обращения со стороны иностранных инвесторов за защитой своих прав в инвестиционные трибуналы.

МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ

МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ: В качестве материалов для исследования были использованы положения двусторонних инвестиционных договоров, практика международных судов и арбитражей в связи с национальными мерами по охране здоровья и защите окружающей природной среды, а также труды российских и зарубежных ученых. Методологическую основу исследования составляют общенаучные и специальные методы.

РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ: В статье анализируется возможность характеристики принятых государствами ограничительных мерв качестве себе-подсудных положений, а также возможность применения ст. 25 Статей об ответственности государств за международно-противоправные деяния о состоянии необходимости в качестве обстоятельства, исключающего противоправность. Констатируется нежелательность понимания этих мер как себе подсудных положений, так как такое понимание предоставит государствам слишком широкие возможности для изъятий из международного режима защиты инвестиций. Также для целей применения ст. 25 Статей об ответственности является спорной квалификация охраныздоровья населения и предупреждения экономического (финансового) кризиса в качестве существенного интереса, который государство защищает от серьезной и неминуемой опасности.

ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ

ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ: Авторы предлагают установить критерии или принципы, которые могут рассматриваться инвестиционными трибуналами в рамках процедуры оценки мер, принятых государствами. Такими критериями являются законность и пропорциональность, соответствие цели и недискриминация. Данные критерии могут толковаться с учетом практики, сформированной инвестиционными трибуналами по спорам об ограничении основных прав и свобод человека (право на охрану здоровья и право на благоприятную окружающую среду). Принципы могут получить закрепление в типовом протоколе к инвестиционным договорам (Memorandum of Understanding), разработанном под эгидой ЮНСИТРАЛ.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION: In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) was registered in Wuhan (China). Within a few months, the virus spread across Europe and Asia, and later around the world. Due to the emergency situation, the States were forced to implement various restrictive measures, including the closure of borders and public places to visit. Tese measures may lead to claims to investment tribunals from foreign investors for the protection of their rights.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Te authors researched the provisions of bilateral investment treaties, case law of international courts and tribunals in connection with national measures to protect health and the environment, as well as the manuscripts of Russian and foreign scholars. Te methodological basis of the research contains general scientifc and special methods.

RESEARCH RESULTS

RESEARCH RESULTS: Te authors analyze the possibility of treatment of restrictive measures taken by States as self-judging clauses, as well as the possibility of applying Article 25 (necessity) of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts as the circumstances precluding the wrongfulness. It is stated that it is undesirable to treat states’ measures as self-judging clauses, since such a treatment will provide States with too wide opportunities for exemptions from the international investment protection regime. At the same time the treatment of public health protection and prevention of economic (fnancial) crisis as an essential interest that the state safeguards against a grave and imminent peril is controversial for the purposes of applying art. 25 of the Articles on Responsibility.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Te authors propose to establish certain standards or principles that may be used by investment tribunals in the course of proceedings in order to assess measures taken by States. Tese principles are legality and proportionality, consistensy with the purpose and non-discrimination. Te principles can be interpreted with respect to the case law of investment tribunals for disputes on the limitation of fundamental human rights and freedoms (the right to health protection and the right to a favorable environment). Te principles can be consolidated in the model protocol to investment treaties (Memorandum of Understanding), developed under the auspices of UNCITRAL.

COVID-19ограничительные меры государствISDSсебе-подсудные положениязащита иностранных инвестицийнедискриминацияпропорциональностьзащита здоровьяCOVID-19state restrictive measuresISDSself-judging clauseforeign investments protectionnon-discriminationproportionalityhealth protectionReferencesБоклан Д.C., Шауберт М.В. 2019. Спор Россия – Меры, связанные с транзитом грузов: исторический доклад Третейской группы Органа по разрешению споров ВТО. – Международное правосудие. №2. С. 20–30. DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2019-2-20-30Alcolea L. C. The COVID-19 Crisis: Core Investment Law Issues Revisited. – Transnational Dispute Management. 2020. No.2. URL: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2803 (accessed 30.10.2021).Воробьева. Н.Н. 2013. Налогообложение и право собственности: позиции Европейского Суда по правам человека. – Международное правосудие. №4. С. 32–39.Benvenisti E. The Coronavirus Tests the Limits of International Law. – Lauterpacht Centre News. 2020. Issue 30. P. 3–5. URL:https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.law.cam.ac.uk/fles/images/www.lcil.law.cam.ac.uk/Documents/LCN/lcn_issue_30_newsletter_lent_2020_interactive.pdf (accessed: 30.10.2021).Пак В., Яценко И. 2004. Практика Европейского Суда по правам человека в отношении дел, связанных со спорами фискального характера. – Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. №4. С. 113–118.Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Brewin S, Maina N. Protecting Against Investor-State Claims Amidst COVID-19: A Call to Action for Governments. 2020. 10 p. URL: https://www.iisd.org/system/fles/publications/investor-stateclaims-covid-19.pdf (accessed 30.10.2021).Смбатян А.С. 2021. Международные медико-санитарные правила: эволюция и современное состояние. – Российский юридический журнал. №1. С. 103–114. DOI: 10.34076/20713797_2021_1_103Boklan D., Bahri A. The First WTO's Ruling on National Security Exception: Balancing Interests or Opening Pandora's Box? – World Trade Review. 2020. Vol. 19. Issue 1. P. 123–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000430Толстых В.Л. 2021. СOVID-19 и международное право: общие вопросы. – Московский журнал международного права. №3. С. 45-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/08690049-2021-3-45-62Boklan D.C., Shaubert M.V. Spor Rossiya – Mery, svyazannye s tranzitom gruzov: istoricheskii doklad Treteiskoi gruppy Organa po razresheniyu sporov VTO [Russian Federation – Measures concerning trafc in transit case: WTO Dispute Settlement Body Panel’s historic report]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2019. No. 2. P. 20–30. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2019-2-20-30.Alcolea L. C. 2020. The COVID-19 Crisis: Core Investment Law Issues Revisited. –Transnational Dispute Management. No.2. URL: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2803 (accessed 30.10.2021).Burke-White W. The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability Under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System. – Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy. 2008. Vol. 3. Issue 1. P. 199–234.Benvenisti E. 2020. The Coronavirus Tests the Limits of International Law. – Lauterpacht Centre News. Issue 30. P. 3–5. URL:https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.law.cam.ac.uk/fles/images/www.lcil.law.cam.ac.uk/Documents/LCN/lcn_issue_30_newsletter_lent_2020_interactive.pdf (accessed: 30.10.2021).Cristani F. How the Coronavirus Crisis Challenges International Investment (Customary) Law Rules: Which Role for the Necessity Defense? – Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 2021. Vol. 53. Issue 1-2. P. 89–116.Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Brewin S, Maina N. 2020. Protecting Against Investor-State Claims Amidst COVID-19: A Call to Action for Governments. 10 p. URL: https://www.iisd.org/system/fles/publications/investor-stateclaims-covid-19.pdf (accessed 30.10.2021).Habibi R. [et al.]. Do not violate the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 outbreak. – Lancet. 2020. Vol. 395. Issue 10225. P. 664–666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30373-1Boklan D., Bahri A. 2020. The First WTO's Ruling on National Security Exception: Balancing Interests or Opening Pandora's Box?. – World Trade Review. Vol. 19. Issue 1. P. 123-136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000430Hagemann T. Corporate Wealth Over Public Health? Assessing the Resilience of Developing Countries' COVID-19 Responses Against Investment Claims and the Implications for Future Public Health Crises. – Pace International Law Review. 2021. Vol. 34 Issue 1. P. 25-80.Burke-White W. 2008. The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability Under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System. – Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy. Vol. 3. Issue 1. P. 199–234.Kabra R. Return of the Inconsistent Application of the ‘Essential Security Interest’ Clause in Investment Treaty Arbitration: CC/Devas v India and Deutsche Telekomv India. – ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 34. Issue 3. P. 723–753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siz021Cristani F. 2021. How the Coronavirus Crisis Challenges International Investment (Customary) Law Rules: Which Role for the Necessity Defense?. – Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. Vol. 53. Issue 1-2. P. 89–116.Katsikis D. Necessity due to COVID-19 as a Defence to International Investment Claims. – ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal. 2021. Vol. 36. Issue 1. P. 46–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siab009Habibi R. [et al.]. 2020. Do not violate the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 outbreak. – Lancet. Vol. 395. Issue 10225. P. 664–666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30373-1Pak V., Yatsenko I. Praktika Evropeiskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v otnoshenii del, svyazannykh so sporami fskal'nogo kharaktera [The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights in Relation to Cases involving Disputes of a Fiscal Nature]. – Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2004. No. 4. P. 113–118. (In Russ.)Hagemann T. 2021. Corporate Wealth Over Public Health? Assessing the Resilience of Developing Countries' COVID-19 Responses Against Investment Claims and the Implications for Future Public Health Crises. – Pace International Law Review. Vol. 34 Issue 1. P. 25-80.Ranjan P., Anand P. Covid-19, India, and investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS): will India be able to defend its public health measures? – Asia Pacifc Law Review. 2020. Vol. 28. Issue 1. P. 225–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2020.1812255Kabra R. 2019. Return of the Inconsistent Application of the ‘Essential Security Interest’ Clause in Investment Treaty Arbitration: CC/Devas v India and Deutsche Telekom v India. – ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal. Vol. 34. Issue 3. P. 723–753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siz021Schill S.W., Briese R. If the State Considers: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement. – Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. 2009. Vol. 13. P. 61–140.Katsikis D. 2021. Necessity due to COVID-19 as a Defence to International Investment Claims. – ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal. Vol. 36. Issue 1. P. 46–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siab009Sefriani S., Monteiro S. Potential investor claims and possible state defences during the COVID-19 emergency. – Sriwijaya Law Review. 2021. Vol. 5. Issue 2. P. 236–246. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol5.Iss2.1067.pp236-246Ranjan P., Anand P. 2020. Covid-19, India, and investorState dispute settlement (ISDS): will India be able to defend its public health measures? – Asia Pacifc Law Review. Vol. 28. Issue 1. P. 225-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2020.1812255Smbatyan A.S. Mezhdunarodnye mediko-sanitarnye pravila: evolyutsiya i sovremennoe sostoyanie [International Health Regulations: evolution and a current state]. – Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2021. No. 1. P. 103–114. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.34076/20713797_2021_1_103Schill S.W., Briese R. 2009. If the State Considers: SelfJudging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement. – Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. Vol. 13. P. 61-140.Tejpar A., Hoffman S. Canada’s Violation of International Law during the 2014–16 Ebola Outbreak. – Canadian Yearbook of International Law. 2017. Vol. 54. P. 366–383.Sefriani S., Monteiro S. 2021. Potential investor claims and possible state defences during the COVID-19 emergency. – Sriwijaya Law Review. Vol. 5. Issue 2. P. 236–246. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol 5. Iss 2. 1067. P. 236–246Tolstykh V.L. СOVID-19 i mezhdunarodnoe pravo: obshchie voprosy [Сovid-19 and International Law: general issues]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2021. No. 3. P. 45–62. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/08690049-2021-3-45-62Tejpar A., Hoffman S. 2017. Canada’s Violation of International Law during the 2014–16 Ebola Outbreak. – Canadian Yearbook of International Law. Vol. 54. P. 366–383.Tzouvala N., Knox R. International Law of State Responsibility and COVID-19: an Ideology Critique. 2021. 12 p. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3930470 (accessed 30.10.2021).Tzouvala N., Knox R. 2021. International Law of State Responsibility and COVID-19: an Ideology Critique. 12 p. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3930470 (accessed 30.10.2021).Van den Bossche P., Zdouc W. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials. 5rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2022. 1170 p.Van den Bossche P., Zdouc W. 2022. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials. 5rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1170 p.Vorob'eva. N.N. Nalogooblozhenie i pravo sobstvennosti: pozitsii Evropeiskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Taxation and Property Law: positions of the European Court of Human Rights]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2013. No. 4. P. 32–39. (In Russ.)

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.