mgimolawМосковский журнал международного праваMoscow Journal of International Law0869-00492619-0893Moscow State Institute of International Relations10.24833/0869-0049-2018-4-54-63mgimolaw-286Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОЕ ПРАВОINTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAWНОВЫЕ ПОДХОДЫ В СООТНОШЕНИИ ПРАВА НА ЗАЩИТУ ИНВЕСТИЦИЙ И ПРАВА НА РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЕ В РАМКАХ МЕГАРЕГИОНАЛЬНЫХ СОГЛАШЕНИЙNEW APPROACHES TO THE BALANCE BETWEEN INVESTOR PROTECTION AND THE RIGHT TO REGULATE WITHIN MEGA‑REGIONAL AGREEMENTShttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1493-4221ЛабинД. К.LabinD. K.

доктор юридических наук, профессор кафедры международного права, заведующий кафедрой публичного права

Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor at the Department of Intenrational Law, Head of the Department of Public Law

d.labin@inno.mgimo.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9441-3823МуратоваР. Р.MuratovaR. R.

аспирант кафедры международного права

postgraduate student at the Department of Intenational Law

renata.muratova@hotmail.comМосковский государственный институт международных отношений (Университет) МИД РоссииРоссияMoscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA RussiaRussian Federation201826022019045463Copyright © Лабин Д.К., Муратова Р.Р., 20192019Лабин Д.К., Муратова Р.Р.Labin D.K., Muratova R.R.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/286

ВВЕДЕНИЕ. Еще в 2015 г. ЮНКТАД предложила дорожную карту реформы международных инвестиционных соглашений, нацеленную на приведение режима таких договоров в соответствие с сегодняшними императивами устойчивого развития. На протяжении длительного времени именно вопрос о соотношении прав иностранного инвестора на территории принимающего государства и права этой страны на регулирование в рамках международных инвестиционных и торговых соглашений вызывал полемику среди юристов-международников. В частности, нередко международные договоры наделяли иностранного инвестора большими правами, ограничивая тем самым суверенные права принимающего государства. В настоящей статье приведен сравнительный анализ положений по защите и поощрению инвестиций в рамках двух соглашений нового поколения: Соглашения о всеобъемлющей зоне свободной торговли между Канадой и Европейским союзом (СЕТА) и Всеобъемлющего и прогрессивного соглашения для Транстихоокеанского партнерства (ВПТТП или ТТП-11). Впервые в отечественной доктрине рассмотрены изменения, происшедшие при подписании странами-партнерами Соглашения о ТТП-11 8 марта 2018 г. без участия США. МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ. Настоящее исследование основано на анализе отдельных положений глав Соглашения о ТТП-11 и CETA, регулирующих иностранные инвестиции. Кроме того, в статье были рассмотрены труды отечественных и зарубежных исследователей в области международного инвестиционного права. Важную роль при сравнении положений по защите инвестиций и права на регулирование сыграли доклады о мировых инвестициях, подготовленные ЮНКТАД в 2016–2017 гг. РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ. Углубленный анализ глав Соглашения о ТТП-11 и CETA, посвященных регулированию инвестиций, позволил определить, что данные договоры содержат в себе новые подходы к регулированию инвестиций, которые практически не встречаются в действующих двусторонних инвестиционных соглашениях. Это касается не только уточнения прав иностранного инвестора при осуществлении деятельности на территории принимающей страны, но и улучшенной модели суверенного права государства на регулирование. Кроме того, были рассмотрены детально оформленные обязательства государств и предоставляемые ими гарантии, а также порядок урегулирования споров между инвестором и государством. ОБСУЖДЕНИЕ И ВЫВОДЫ. Рассматриваемые в статье мегарегиональные соглашения содержат достаточно объемную часть, посвященную достижению максимальной прозрачности при урегулировании споров, причем CETA идет дальше и вводит собственную систему инвестиционных судов, в рамках которой действует постоянный апелляционный трибунал. В то же время Соглашение о ТТП-11 впервые среди уже существующих инвестиционных договоров исключает договорную защиту инвесторов не только в чувствительных секторах сферы услуг, но и в производственном секторе национальной экономики – табачной отрасли. Хотя ни одно из рассматриваемых в настоящей статье соглашений пока еще не ратифицировано сторонами, важно определить, каким образом положения по регулированию инвестиций могут повлиять на будущий облик международных инвестиционных соглашений и двусторонних инвестиционных договоров.

INTRODUCTION. In 2015 UNCTAD elaborated a roadmap for international investment agreements reform, aimed at bringing the terms of such agreements in line with modern sustainable development imperatives. For a long time the question of the balance between investor protection in the territory of the host state and the right of this state to regulate within international investment and trade agreements has caused controversy among international law scholars. In particular, very often international agreements endow foreign investors with greater rights thereby limiting sovereign rights of the host state. The present article provides a comparative analysis of the investment protection and promotion provisions under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPP-11). Also, for the first time among Russian scholars, the authors give an analysis of the changes that occurred during the signature of the CPTPP Agreement on March 8, 2018 after the US withdrawal at the beginning of 2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The research in the article is based on the provisions of the CPTPP and CETA that regulate foreign investments as well as the works of Russian and foreign international investment law scholars. It is necessary to mention the significant role of the World Investment Reports, published by UNCTAD in 2016 and 2017, in making a comparison of provisions dedicated to investment protection and the right to regulate, contained in different international investment agreements and bilateral investment treaties. RESEARCH RESULTS. In-depth analysis of CPTPP and CETA provisions that regulate foreign investments showed that these agreements contain unique and innovative provisions that could rarely be found in contemporary international investment agreements. These provisions not only clarify the foreign investor rights when carrying out activities on the territory of the host state, giving more detailed description of the states obligations and the guarantees provided, but also specify rules for the investorstate disputes settlement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Both megaregional agreements, analyzed in the present article, contain extensive chapters devoted to achievement of maximum transparency in dispute settlement, while CETA introduces its own Investment Court System which includes a permanent appellate body. At the same time, the CPTPP Agreement for the first time, compared with already existent investment agreements, carves out a specific product – tobacco – from protection when settling investor-state disputes. Although neither CETA, nor CPTPP have yet been ratified by the parties, it is important to consider how these provisions on investment regulation would shape future international investment agreements and bilateral investment treaties.

инвестицииВсеобъемлющее экономическое и торговое соглашение (CETA)Всеобъемлющее и прогрессивное соглашение для Транстихоокеанского партнерства (ВПТТП или ТПП-11)защита инвестицийправо на регулированиереформа механизма международного урегулирования споров между инвестором и государствомсистема инвестиционных судовinvestmentsComprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)investment protectionright to regulatereform of the investor-state dispute settlementInvestment Court SystemReferencesAlvarez Jose E. Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Investment Chapter the New “Gold Standard”? – Institute for International Law and Justice Working Paper. 2016. No. 3. 49 p. URL: https://wp.nyu.edu/megareg/wp-content/ uploads/sites/3134/2016/03/Alvarez_IILJ-Mega-Reg_2016-3.pdf (accessed date: 09.05.2018).Alvarez Jose E. Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s Investment Chapter the New “Gold Standard”? – Institute for International Law and Justice Working Paper. 2016. No. 3. 49 p. URL: https://wp.nyu.edu/megareg/wp-content/ uploads/sites/3134/2016/03/Alvarez_IILJ-Mega-Reg_2016-3.pdf (accessed date: 09.05.2018).Benvenisti E. Democracy Captured: The Mega-Regional Agreements and the Future of Global Public Law. – GlobalTrust Working Paper Series. 2015. No. 8. 23 p. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2646882Benvenisti E. Democracy Captured: The Mega-Regional Agreements and the Future of Global Public Law. – GlobalTrust Working Paper Series. 2015. No. 8. 23 p. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2646882Chuvakhina L.G. CETA: novyi etap v razvitii otnoshenii Kanady i Evropeiskogo Soyuza [CETA: A New Stage in the Development of Relations between Canada and the European Union]. – Vestnik Astrakhanskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Seriya. Ekonomika. 2018. No. 1. P. 51–58. (In Russ.). DOI:10.24143/2073-5537-2018-1-51-58Chuvakhina L.G. CETA: novyi etap v razvitii otnoshenii Kanady i Evropeiskogo Soyuza [CETA: A New Stage in the Development of Relations between Canada and the European Union]. – Vestnik Astrakhanskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Seriya. Ekonomika. 2018. No. 1. P. 51–58. (In Russ.). DOI:10.24143/2073-5537-2018-1-51-58Flynn S.M. [et al.]. The U.S. Proposal for an Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. – American University International Law Review. 2013. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 105–202. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2185402Flynn S.M. [et al.]. The U.S. Proposal for an Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. – American University International Law Review. 2013. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 105–202. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2185402Gaukrodger D. The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: a scoping papers. – OECD Working Papers on International Investment. 2017. No. 2. 40 p. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.3147346Gaukrodger D. The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: a scoping papers. – OECD Working Papers on International Investment. 2017. No. 2. 40 p. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.3147346Gudkov I. Soglashenie o Transatlanticheskom torgovoinvestitsionnom partnerstve: ot zashchity ekonomicheskikh interesov investorov k zashchite suverennykh interesov prinimayushchikh storon? [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: from protecting the economic interests of investors to protecting the sovereign interests of the host parties?]. – Vsya Evropa. 2015. No. 10 (103). (In Russ.) URL: http://alleuropalux. org/?p=12248 (accessed date: 05.06.2018).Gudkov I. Soglashenie o Transatlanticheskom torgovoinvestitsionnom partnerstve: ot zashchity ekonomicheskikh interesov investorov k zashchite suverennykh interesov prinimayushchikh storon? [Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: from protecting the economic interests of investors to protecting the sovereign interests of the host parties?]. – Vsya Evropa. 2015. No. 10 (103). (In Russ.) URL: http://alleuropalux. org/?p=12248 (accessed date: 05.06.2018).Hufbauer G.C. Investor-State Dispute Settlement. – Assessing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Vol. 1: Market Access and Sectoral Issues. Peterson Institute for International Economics. 2016. P. 109–119. URL: https://piie.com/ system/files/documents/piieb16-1.pdf (accessed date: 15.08.2018).Hufbauer G.C. Investor-State Dispute Settlement. – Assessing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Vol. 1: Market Access and Sectoral Issues. Peterson Institute for International Economics. 2016. P. 109–119. URL: https://piie.com/ system/files/documents/piieb16-1.pdf (accessed date: 15.08.2018).Ispolinov A.S. Kuda idet sovremennyi investitsionnyi arbitrazh? [Where does the Modern Investment Arbitration go?]. – Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2015. No. 3 (102). P. 80–96. (In Russ.)Ispolinov A.S. Kuda idet sovremennyi investitsionnyi arbitrazh? [Where does the Modern Investment Arbitration go?]. – Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2015. No. 3 (102). P. 80–96. (In Russ.)Labin D.K. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo po zashchite i pooshchreniyu inostrannykh investitsii [International Law on Protection and Encouraging of Foreign Investments]. Moscow: Walters Kluwer Publ. 2008. 315 p. (In Russ.)Labin D.K. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo po zashchite i pooshchreniyu inostrannykh investitsii [International Law on Protection and Encouraging of Foreign Investments]. Moscow: Walters Kluwer Publ. 2008. 315 p. (In Russ.)Lebedeva L.F. Transkontinental'nye partnerstva na pereput'e: faktory, riski, posledstviya [Transcontinental Partnerships at the Crossroads: factors, risks, consequences]. – Outlines of Global Transformations: politics, economics, law. 2017. Vol. 10. Issue 4. P. 54–69. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2017-10-4-54-69Lebedeva L.F. Transkontinental'nye partnerstva na pereput'e: faktory, riski, posledstviya [Transcontinental Partnerships at the Crossroads: factors, risks, consequences]. – Outlines of Global Transformations: politics, economics, law. 2017. Vol. 10. Issue 4. P. 54–69. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2017-10-4-54-69Molchakov N.Yu., Yakunin V.I. Fenomen Trampa i amerikanskaya sistema razdeleniya vlastei [The Phenomenon of Trump and the American System of Separation of Powers]. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2018. No. 1. P. 42–62. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2018-1-58-42-62Molchakov N.Yu., Yakunin V.I. Fenomen Trampa i amerikanskaya sistema razdeleniya vlastei [The Phenomenon of Trump and the American System of Separation of Powers]. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2018. No. 1. P. 42–62. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2018-1-58-42-62Nottage L. The TPP Investment Chapter and Investorstate Arbitration in Asia and Oceania: assessing prospects for ratification. – Melbourne Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 17. Issue 2. P. 1–36. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2767996Nottage L. The TPP Investment Chapter and Investorstate Arbitration in Asia and Oceania: assessing prospects for ratification. – Melbourne Journal of International Law. 2016. Vol. 17. Issue 2. P. 1–36. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.2767996Puccio L., Harte R. From Arbitration to the Investment Court System (ICS): The evolution of CETA rules. 2017. 34 p. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/607251/EPRS_IDA(2017)607251_ EN.pdf (accessed date: 05.06.2018).Puccio L., Harte R. From Arbitration to the Investment Court System (ICS): The evolution of CETA rules. 2017. 34 p. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/607251/EPRS_IDA(2017)607251_ EN.pdf (accessed date: 05.06.2018).Rachkov I.V. Kontseptsiya “zakonnykh ozhidanii inostrannogo investora” v praktike mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh arbitrazhei [Concept of “Legitimate Expectations” of Foreign Investors in the International Investment Arbitration Practice]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2014. No. 1 (93). P. 196–220. (In Russ.)Rachkov I.V. Kontseptsiya “zakonnykh ozhidanii inostrannogo investora” v praktike mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh arbitrazhei [Concept of “Legitimate Expectations” of Foreign Investors in the International Investment Arbitration Practice]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2014. No. 1 (93). P. 196–220. (In Russ.)Rachkov I.V. Reforma mezhdunarodno-pravovogo uregulirovaniya sporov mezhdu inostrannymi investorami i gosudarstvami [Reforming International Resolution of Disputes between Foreign Investors and Host States]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2016. No. 3 (19). P. 118– 136. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2016-3-118-136Rachkov I.V. Reforma mezhdunarodno-pravovogo uregulirovaniya sporov mezhdu inostrannymi investorami i gosudarstvami [Reforming International Resolution of Disputes between Foreign Investors and Host States]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2016. No. 3 (19). P. 118– 136. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2016-3-118-136Stephenson A., Carroll L. 2016. The Trans-Pacific Partnership. – The Investment Treaty Arbitration Review. Ed. by B. Legum. London: Law Business Research Ltd. 2016. P. 200–213.Stephenson A., Carroll L. 2016. The Trans-Pacific Partnership. – The Investment Treaty Arbitration Review. Ed. by B. Legum. London: Law Business Research Ltd. 2016. P. 200–213.Van Harten G. Reforming the System of International Investment Dispute Settlement. – Alternative Visions in the International Law on Foreign Investment: Essays in Honor of Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah. Ed. by C.L. Lim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2016. P. 103–130.Van Harten G. Reforming the System of International Investment Dispute Settlement. – Alternative Visions in the International Law on Foreign Investment: Essays in Honor of Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah. Ed. by C.L. Lim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2016. P. 103–130.

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