{"title":"美国最高法院“Re BG Group plc诉阿根廷共和国案”判决分析:条条大路通罗马吗?","authors":"V. Mazzuoli, D. L. A. Massa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3570057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to analyze the decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 5, 2014, in Re BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, whereby Argentina was ordered to pay the British company BG Group the amount of United States Dollar (USD) 185.3 million in damages as a result of Argentina's decision to impose a freeze on gas prices in 2002.This article discusses the merits of such a decision focusing, in particular, on the fact that basic norms concerning general international law, and more specifically, the law of treaties, have not been taken into account in reaching a decision on a matter involving an investment arbitration provided for in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Furthermore, it seems that extremely different legal institutions, such as international contracts (in the case at hand, an international arbitration agreement) and international treaties have been merged into one thing by asserting that they stand on an equal footing, while in fact they are diametrically opposed legal instruments.","PeriodicalId":313622,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of the Decision Rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Re BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina: Do All Roads Lead to Rome?\",\"authors\":\"V. Mazzuoli, D. L. A. Massa\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3570057\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article aims to analyze the decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 5, 2014, in Re BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, whereby Argentina was ordered to pay the British company BG Group the amount of United States Dollar (USD) 185.3 million in damages as a result of Argentina's decision to impose a freeze on gas prices in 2002.This article discusses the merits of such a decision focusing, in particular, on the fact that basic norms concerning general international law, and more specifically, the law of treaties, have not been taken into account in reaching a decision on a matter involving an investment arbitration provided for in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Furthermore, it seems that extremely different legal institutions, such as international contracts (in the case at hand, an international arbitration agreement) and international treaties have been merged into one thing by asserting that they stand on an equal footing, while in fact they are diametrically opposed legal instruments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3570057\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3570057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文旨在分析2014年3月5日美国最高法院在Re BG Group plc诉阿根廷共和国一案中作出的判决,由于阿根廷在2002年决定冻结天然气价格,阿根廷被要求向英国BG集团支付1.853亿美元的赔偿金。本文讨论了这种决定的优点,特别着重于这样一个事实,即在就双边投资条约(BIT)规定的涉及投资仲裁的事项作出决定时,没有考虑到有关一般国际法,更具体地说,是条约法的基本准则。此外,似乎极端不同的法律机构,例如国际合同(在目前的情况下是国际仲裁协议)和国际条约被合并为一件事,声称它们具有平等的地位,而实际上它们是完全相反的法律文书。
Analysis of the Decision Rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Re BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina: Do All Roads Lead to Rome?
This article aims to analyze the decision rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 5, 2014, in Re BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, whereby Argentina was ordered to pay the British company BG Group the amount of United States Dollar (USD) 185.3 million in damages as a result of Argentina's decision to impose a freeze on gas prices in 2002.This article discusses the merits of such a decision focusing, in particular, on the fact that basic norms concerning general international law, and more specifically, the law of treaties, have not been taken into account in reaching a decision on a matter involving an investment arbitration provided for in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Furthermore, it seems that extremely different legal institutions, such as international contracts (in the case at hand, an international arbitration agreement) and international treaties have been merged into one thing by asserting that they stand on an equal footing, while in fact they are diametrically opposed legal instruments.