Tratados Bilaterais de investimento na perspectiva da Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos tratados : um caminho para a “desfragmentação” do Direito Internacional

A Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados propõe o mecanismo acordado pelos Estados para a interpretação dos tratados internacionais. Os chamados BITs (Tratados Bilaterais de Investimentos) são um exemplo e são específicos do Direito Internacional de Investimentos. No entanto, dentro deste ramo do Direito Internacional, permanecem as preocupações sobre sua correspondência ou não com a aplicação do chamado “tratado de tratados”; e estimulada a partir da corrente promovida principalmente pelos “praticantes”, árbitros ou representantes das partes, a forma como diferentes tratados de investimentos têm sido interpretados, expõe as tensões de um Direito Internacional fragmentado. Quem deve interpretá-los? Sob quais regras? Este trabalho propõe: primeiro, abordar a gênese e a evolução do Direito Internacional de Investimento; em segundo lugar, sua caracterização como exemplo de fragmentação substantiva do Direito Internacional; a fim de abordar, em terceiro lugar, a interpretação de acordo com as regras da Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados entre Estados como instrumento para a solução do dilema apresentado. A conclusão vai ao encontro deste último ponto, entendendo tal instrumento como o único do Direito Internacional Geral que preconiza a interpretação harmoniosa e a integração sistemática. Seu desdobramento daria uma crescente segurança jurídica - cenário favorável aos investidores - e maior respeito à vontade dos Estados, criadores da norma internacional em conflito.

1. Born, G. (2015). Should Investment Treaties Have Their Own Rules of Interpretation? Disponible en: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2015/02/03/should-investment-treaties-have-their-own-rules-of-interpretation/
2. Cremades, B. (2004). Disputes Arising Out of Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America: A New Look at the Calvo Doctrine and Other Jurisdictional Issues Texto. Dispute Resolution Journal, 59(2), 1–9.
3. Koskenniemi, M. (2006a). Fragmentation of Internacional Law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (Vol. A/CN.4/L.6). Disponible en https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf
4. Koskenniemi, M. (2006b). Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the diversifiation and expansion of International Law (Vol. A/CN.4/L.6). Nueva York. Disponible en: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf
5. Laird, I. (2014). Is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Dead in BIT Arbitration?. Disponible en https://oxia.ouplaw.com/page/475
6. Lee, J. (2015). Resolving concerns of treaty shopping in international investment arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 6(2), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv011
7. Muchlinski, P., Ortino, F., & Schreuer, C. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law. The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199231386.001.0001
8. Nilsson, A. O. (2013). Inconsistent Awards in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Is an Appeals Court Needed? Journal of International Arbitration, 30(5), 561–579.
9. Petersmann, E.U. (2006). Justice as conflict resolution: Proliferation, fragmentation, and decentralization of dispute settlement in international trade. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 27, 273–300.
10. Potestà, M. (2013). Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: Understanding the roots and the limits of a controversial concept. ICSID Review, 28(1), 88–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sis034
11. Rappaport, A. (1975). A History of American Diplomacy. Nueva York: Macmillan.
12. Salacuse, J. (2010). The emerging global regime for investment. Harvard International Law Journal, 51(2), 427–473.
13. Schermers, H. & Blokker, N. (1995).
14. Shaw, M. N. (2003). International law, fifth edition. International Law, Fifth Edition. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139051903
15. Shea, D. (1955). The Calvo Clause: A problem of inter-American and international law and diplomacy. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
16. Simma, B. (2009). Universality of international law from the perspective of a practitioner. European Journal of International Law, 20(2), 265–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chp028
17. Sourgens, F. (2017). Supernational Law. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 50(1), 155–216. Disponible en http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=123462654&lang=ja&site=ehost-live
18. Sullivan, J. W. S. N. P. (2009). Do BITs Really Work?: An Evaluation of Bilateral Investment Treaties and their Grand Bargain. In The effect of treaties on foreign direct investment: bilateral investment treaties, double taxation treaties and investment flows (pp. 1–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof
19. Summers, L. (1972). Arbitration and Latin America. California Western International Law Journal, 3(1), 7–17.
20. van Aaken, A. (2008). Fragmentation of International Law: The Case of International Investment Law. Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 17, 91–130. Disponible en https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1097529
21. Walker Jr, H. (. (1957). Modern treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation. Minnesota Law Review, 42, 805–840.
22. Weeramantry, J. R. (2012). Treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Weiler, T. (2005). International Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law. Nueva York: Cameron May.
24. Wellhausen, R. L. (2016). Recent trends in investor-state dispute settlement. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 7(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv038
25. Werner, W., De Hoon, M., & Galán, A. (2017). The law of international lawyers: Reading Martti Koskenniemi. The Law of International Lawyers: Reading Martti Koskenniemi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108147620
26. Whiteman, M. (1967). Digest of International Law (No. III). Washington DC.
27. Wythes, A. (2010). Investor-state arbitrations: Can the fair and equitable treatment clause consider international human rights obligations? Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(1), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156509990409
28. Achmea B.VS. vs. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13 (formerly Eureko B.VS. vs. The Slovak Republic), decisión sobre jurisdicción del 26 de octubre del 2010. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/418
29. AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft vs. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, laudo del 23 de septiembre del 2010. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/193
30. Aguas del Tunari, S.A. vs. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, decisión sobre la jurisdicción del 21 de octubre del 2005. Disponible en https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/74/aguas-del-tunari-v-bolivia
31. Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. vs. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, laudo del 17 de febrero del 2000. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/3414
32. El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, laudo del 31 de octubre del 2011. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/383
33. Pac Rim Cayman LLC vs. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, laudo del 14 de octubre del 2016. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/783
34. Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, laudo del 11 de septiembre del 2007. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/812
35. Philip Morris Asia Limited vs. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12, laudo del 17 de diciembre del 2015. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/851
36. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. vs. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, laudo del 8 de julio del 2016. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/460
37. Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian, & Ellen Baca v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2, laudo del 1 de noviembre del 1999. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/114
38. Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, laudo del 29 de julio del 2008. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/942
39. Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, laudo parcial del 17 de marzo del 2006. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/961
40. Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited vs. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, laudo del 20 de mayo de 1992. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/3300
41. Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, laudo del 29 de mayo del 2003. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/1087
42. UP (formerly Le Chèque Déjeuner) and C.D Holding Internationale vs. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35, decisión sobre jurisdicción del 3 de marzo del 2016. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/6903