自华盛顿公约于1993年对中国生效以来，作为全球利用外资最多的国家之一，中国被外国投资者申请至国际投资争端解决中心（ICSID）仲裁的案件仅有两起，其中最新一起是2017年3月9日公布裁决报告的韩国安城公司案。在当前中韩关系敏感时期，该案尤其引人关注。

仲裁庭审理认定的事实如下：2006年12月12日，韩国安城公司与江苏省射阳港口产业园区管委会签订关于高尔夫球场及豪华附属设施开发的投资协议，项目分两期进行，用地共计3000亩（一二期工程各用地1500亩）。项目动工建设不久，中国房地产开发政策发生变化，园区管委会表示不能按照投资协议约定的价格向安城公司提供一期工程所需300亩土地，要求其公开竞买。一期工程竣工后，园区管委会未及时提供二期用地。安城公司于2011年10月将项目低价转让给了一家中国公司。2014年10月7日，安城公司根据中韩双边投资保护协定（中韩BIT）向ICSID申请仲裁。

2016年9月15日，中方代理人根据ICSID仲裁规则第41（5）条，在首次开庭审理前提出了初步反对意见，认为安城公司申请仲裁的时间超过了中韩BIT第9（7）条规定的三年仲裁时效，且中韩BIT中的最惠国待遇条款不适用于仲裁时效，其仲裁请求显然不具法律价值。安城公司代理人答辩称其在知道损害后的两年半时间内向中方政府提交了意向通知，并未超过仲裁时效，即使超过，其有权援引中韩BIT最惠国待遇条款，适用较长的仲裁时效。

概而言之，双方的争议焦点集中在以下两个问题上：

1. 超过仲裁时效的仲裁请求是否构成“显然不具法律价值”？

中方代理人基于两方面的理由认为本案仲裁请求“显然不具法律价值”，一是认为安城公司仲裁申请材料支持其仲裁请求的事实只需要“不可信、轻率、无理取闹、不准确”或者“存在恶意”，而无需达到“明显轻率或者荒谬”的程度；二是时效反对。

安城公司代理人则认为“显然不具法律价值”仅适用于清晰明显的毫无根据的请求，其在意向通知和仲裁申请书中披露的事实满足中韩BIT第9（7）条的时效要求。

2. 最惠国待遇条款是否适用于仲裁时效问题？

中韩BIT第9（7）条规定“[缔约一方]投资者不得自首次知道或应当知道其遭受损失或损害之日起三年以后提出仲裁请求”，同时第三条规定缔约一方应当在其境内给予缔约另一方投资者及其投资以不低于任何第三国投资者及其投资的待遇（最惠国待遇条款）。

安城公司代理人认为最惠国待遇条款的作用为授权投资者援引其他条约中的实体权利，即便将时效问题定性为程序性事项，以往ICSID仲裁实践亦倾向于适用最惠国待遇条款。

中方代理人则主要辩称中韩BIT第三条的适用范围限于“投资和经济活动”，即包括“投资扩张、运营、管理、维护、使用、收益、出售或其他处置行为”，而不适用于争端解决事项。

仲裁庭意见

关于争议焦点一，仲裁庭认可安城公司代理人主张的事实并未“不可信、轻率、无理取闹、不准确”或者“存在恶意”，而径直以仲裁时效已过、缺乏属时管辖权为由，接受了中方代理人的初步反对意见。

关于争议焦点二，仲裁庭认为中韩BIT第三条的字面文义已经清晰地表明最惠国待遇不能延伸适用至缔约一方与缔约另一方投资者的投资仲裁事项，特别是不能适用于中韩BIT第9（7）条的仲裁时效，文义解释已经足够清晰，没有必要进一步考虑其他观点或其他含有最惠国待遇条款的条约和条约实践。

简短评析

该案所涉及的争议由中国房地产开发政策的变动而引发，在供给侧改革不断深入的背景下，无论是中国政府还是中国境外的投资者都有必要高度重视投资争议解决，维护国家利益和海外投资权益。管中窥豹，本案启示如下：

第一，高度重视BITs文本的精细化研究。中方代理人对本案所涉中韩BIT中最惠国待遇条款的适用范围、“首次知道或应当知道遭受损失之日”、“提出请求”等关键术语的文义和体系解释，对仲裁庭支持中方代理人的初步反对意见起到了至关重要的作用。在中国对外缔结的BITs数量众多的背景下，应当尤其注意对文本本身的研究和约文的文义和体系解释的精细化研究。

第二，尽快熟悉国际投资仲裁规则，减少诉累和成本。有关国际投资争议解决的国际条约（如ICSID公约、MIGA公约和BITs等）不可能详尽规定仲裁规则，而由仲裁机构制定。本案适用ICSID仲裁规则，中方代理人利用了该规则中的初步反对条款，成功地以安城公司的仲裁请求“显然不具法律价值”为由，说服仲裁庭决定接受初步反对意见，并据此做出有利裁决，而没有被拖入实质审理阶段而徒费成本。

第三，全面掌握国际投资仲裁案例。虽然包括ICSID在内的仲裁机构和仲裁庭反复强调仲裁并无类似英美法国家的司法先例制度，但不可否认的是，无论是当事人还是仲裁庭，均会援引先前的裁决佐证、支持或论证自己的观点，其说服力亦不容忽视。

Ansung Housing v China administered by ICSID

Over two decades since the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) became effective on China, the country has always been one of the host states that has utilized the largest quantities of foreign investment in the world.

However, only two investment arbitration cases have been filed by foreign investors against China with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

In one of these cases, Ansung Housing v China, the arbitral award was issued on 9 March 2017.

The facts described in the award are as follows: On 12 December 2006, the South Korean company Ansung Housing entered into an investment agreement on a golf course and condominium development project in Sheyang-Xian with the Communist Party of the Sheyang Harbor Industrial Zone Administration Committee (the committee). The project construction was in two phases, each of which would occupy 1,500 mu (100 hectares) of land.

Shortly after the commencement of the first phase of the project, Chinese policies on real estate development changed, the committee could no longer provide the 300 mu of land necessary for the first phase at the price agreed in the investment agreement and Ansung would have to apply for land use rights through a public sale at higher prices. After the completion of the first phase, the committee didn’t provide the additional land necessary for the second phase.

Consequently, in October 2011, Ansung had to sell its assets in the golf business to a Chinese purchaser at a low price. On 7 October 2014, Ansung filed a request for arbitration with the ICSID on the basis of the agreement between the governments of the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (China-Korea BIT or the treaty) that entered into force on 1 December 2007.

On September 15, 2016, before the First Session, China’s representatives filed the respondent’s objection pursuant to ICSID arbitration rule 41(5), contending that Ansung’s claims under the China-Korea BIT manifestly lacked legal merit and should be dismissed. They reasoned that Ansung instituted the ICSID arbitration more than three years after the date on which it first acquired knowledge that it had incurred loss or damage, rendering the claim time-barred under article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT. The Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment (MFN clause) in the treaty couldn’t save Ansung’s untimely claims.

Ansung’s representatives argued that they had met the prescribed three-year time limit on the claim because it served its notice of intent in two-and-a-half years from the date on which it knew the losses had been incurred. Moreover, regardless of the tribunal’s determination, the China-Korea BIT’s MFN clause also allowed Ansung to take advantage of more favorable treatment in any other BITs concluded by China with respect to the time requirement.

In general, the dispute mainly focuses on the following two legal issues:

1. Does the claim that beyond arbitration limitation period constitute “manifestly without legal merit”?

China’s representatives alleged that Ansung’s claims were “manifestly without legal merit” based on the following two reasons: (a) the factual background in the claims advanced by Ansung only shall be “incredible, frivolous, vexatious or inaccurate or made in bad faith” instead of “patently frivolous or absurd”; (b) the objection of limitation period. Ansung’s representatives argued that the factual background set out in its notice of intent and request for arbitration meets the temporal requirement of article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT at a prima facie level.

2. Does the MFN clause apply to the question of time limitation?

The text of article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT bears repeating: “An investor may not make a claim pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article if more than three years have elapsed from the date on which the investor first acquired, or should have first acquired, the knowledge that the investor had incurred losses or damage.” Moreover, article 3 provides: each contracting party shall in its territory accord to investors of the other contracting party – and to their investments and activities associated with such investments by the investors of the other contracting party – treatment no less favourable than that accorded in like circumstances to the investors and investments.

Ansung’s representatives noted that MFN clauses operate to allow investors to import substantive rights from other treaties. Also, even if the three-year period is considered to be procedural rather than substantive, according to the case law in the ICSID, the tribunal is more likely to import the MFN clause.

China’s representatives contended that the wording of article 3 limits MFN treatment to the host state’s territory and covers only “investment and business activities” which is defined as “the expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment, and sale or other disposal of investments”, and does not include dispute settlement.

THE TRIBUNAL’S ANALYSIS

Concerning the first disputed issue, the tribunal accepts the facts pleaded by Ansung’s representatives are not incredible, frivolous, vexatious or inaccurate or made in bad faith. At the same time, the tribunal accepts the preliminary objection advanced by China’s representatives by a decision regarding manifest without legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction.

With regard to the second disputed issue, the tribunal finds that the wording of the MFN clause shall not be extended to MFN treatment for a state’s consent to arbitrate with investors and, in particular, not to the temporal limitation period for investor-state arbitration in article 9(7) of the China-Korea BIT. So it is unnecessary to give further consideration to additional arguments or previous arbitral decisions on the interpretation of other MFN clauses or treaty practice. 

COMMENTS ON THE CASE

The case was triggered by policy changes amid the backdrop of a hot real estate industry in China. Considering the structural reforms on the supply side in industries across China, it is necessary to attach great importance to investment dispute resolution for both the government and investors, protecting their rights and interests in inbound and outbound investments. To sum up, lessons should be learned from this case as follows:

Firstly, targeted studies of proper wording in BITs are necessary. The semantic and systematic interpretation of the application of MFN clauses, the “date on which the investor first acquired, or should have first acquired” and “making a claim” lays great significance on gaining the tribunal’s support on the China representatives’ preliminary objections. Chinese practitioners should pay more attention to the targeted studies of semantic and systematic interpretation of the articles and texts considering the massive quantities of BITs in China.

Secondly, Chinese practitioners should keep a close eye on investment arbitration as well as the prevailing practice and rules, and be capable of cutting litigation exhaustion and maintaining reasonable costs. Treaties related to international investment dispute resolution such as the ICSID Convention, the Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and the BITs usually do not contain detailed arbitration rules, leaving much more room for arbitration institutions to adopt their own regulations. In the case above, instead of being dragged into prolonged proceedings, China’s representatives successfully argued for dismissal by making use of the preliminary objection clause in the ICSID arbitration rules and stating the objection of “manifestly without legal merit”. Not only is the arbitration cost saved, but also the favorable award is thus assured.

Thirdly, Chinese practitioners need to keep up with jurisprudence and precedents of investment arbitration. Although arbitration institutions such as the ICSID and many other tribunals repeatedly denied the stare decisis in investment arbitration, it is a simple fact that parties and tribunals frequently recourse to the arbitral precedents to support their claims and defences. The persuasive influence of the arbitral precedents shall not be ignored.

作者：北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心仲裁员、阳光时代律师事务所合伙人杨卫东。北仲仲裁秘书王绵对本文亦有贡献