مطالعۀ تطبیقی جایگاه و کارکرد نظرهای فردی (جداگانه، مخالف و اعلامیه)در رویۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری و نظام داوری حل اختلافات دولت- سرمایه‌گذار

نظرهای فردی قضات/ داوران (مخالف، جداگانه و اعلامیه‌ها) یکی از مهم‌ترین شکل‌های دکترین به‌منظور کمک به احراز قواعد حقوقی‌اند. هرچند دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری و داوری دولت سرمایه‌گذار دو نظام متفاوت‌اند، اما هر دو به نظام حقوقی حل و فصل اختلافات تعلق دارند. از‌این‌رو مطالعۀ تطبیقی در خصوص کارکرد و آثار نظرهای فردی قضات/ داوران در این دو نظام گامی در یافتن تفاوت‌ها و شباهت‌ها در رویه‌های این دو نظام و توسعۀ ادبیات حقوقی حل و فصل اختلافات است. قضات دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری از طریق نظرهای انفرادی خود، چه در آرا و احکام ترافعی و چه در آرای مشورتی، در توسعه و احراز قواعد حقوق بین‌الملل و ایفای یک نقش پادمانی برای دیوان سهیم بوده، با توسعۀ اکتیویسم قضایی، رشد قاعده‌سازی و ایجاد گفتمان حقوقی و پر کردن خلاهای حقوقی به تصمیم دیوان و نیز عدالت بین‌المللی اعتبار می‌بخشند. درمقابل، جایگاه و کارکرد نظرهای فردی داوران در نظام داوری بین‌المللی دولت سرمایه‌گذار (به‌ویژه در داوری‌های نهادی مانند ایکسید) با چالش‌های متعددی روبرو است؛ چراکه از یک طرف داوران از ارائۀ نظرهای فردی به‌ویژه مخالف خودداری می‌کنند و از طرف دیگر نظرهای مخالف اغلب وسیله‌ای برای طرف بازنده برای هدایت پرونده به سمت ابطال‌پذیری بوده و همین امر باعث عدم اتکا به این نظرها در داوری‌ها شده است. مقالۀ حاضر نشان خواهد داد با توجه به پیچیدگی‌های حاکم بر دعاوی سرمایه‌گذاری، استفاده از نظرهای فردی داوران در شکل صحیح خود همانند آنچه در دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری وجود دارد امری ضروری است، لکن دستیابی به این مقصود نیازمند برخی اصلاحات و تغییرات در داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری است.

The Comparative Study of Position & Function of the Individual Opinions (Separate, Dissent and Declaration) in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the International Investor –State Dispute Settlement Arbitration

Individual opinions of the judges/ Arbitrators are one of the main forms of Legal Doctorin, which assist to determine the rules of law. However, the International Court of Justice and Investor State Arbitration are two different systems, but both of them belong to dispute settlement legal system and recognized the individual opinions. Therefore, comparative study of these two systems on functions and effects of individual opinions of judges/arbitrators is a step for finding the differentials and similarities of jurisprudences in this two systems and development of legal literature of dispute settlement as well. The Judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by their individual opinions, both in contentious and advisory judgments contributed in development and determination of rules of international law and have taken role as safeguard of court, and also have had role in accrediting the decisions of the court as well as international justice through development of judicial activism, lawmaking, dialogue of law and removing the gaps of law. Viceversa, the functions performances of Individual Opinions of arbitrators in investorstate arbitration (in particular ICSID) faces with various challenges. Because on one hand the arbitrators withdrawals of individual opinions in particular dissent, and on the other hand the dissent is often a tool for looser party to conduct the case on the way of null procedures, and this caused unreliability on these opinions in arbitrations. Due  to thelack of the appeal mechanism in investment arbitrations, the awards would be fallen in annulment process just for minor reasons. According to research which has been taken on awards of the ICSID, the arbitrators announced their dissents in most cases in favor of the party who loosed the case fully or partially. For this reasons, the concerns has been increased about individual opinions of arbitrators. Therefore it cannot be expected that individual opinions in investor –state arbitration would be in favor of development of international law. Other important point which should be taken in to account, is the independency of the judges in comparison to arbitrators. Since in the international Court of Justice (ICJ) as the focal point for resolving the disputes among States and the parties have less interference in selection of the judges, therefore judges have enough independency and they have some privileges and immunities as well, based on the status of (ICJ) which backup them to provide their individual opinions, in particular dissents. But in investorstate arbitrations, since the arbitrators are designated by the parties, they are under the influence of the parties and face with some challenges in providing the dissents. With regard to the complexity of the investment cases, the use of the individual opinions in correct forms like (ICJ) is necessary, but achieving  this aim needs some changes and amendments in investment arbitrations mechanism. One of the proposals which proposed for decreasing the challenges in this respect is the establishment of the Investment International permanent court. This mechanism has already included in some of the new agreements like as Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership(TTIP), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement(CETA),TransPacific Partnership(TPP), etc. It seems that  the establishment of this mechanism will pave the way for the judges/ arbitrators to provide their individual opinions with more independency.