국제투자중재에서 부적절 행위의 증명기준

Abstract

Misconduct and impropriety by investors or public officials in the host country occur during the establishment stage or investment operation process of international investment. The parties to the inappropriate conduct may be investors and the authorities of the receiving country. There are various types of corruption, bribery, fraud, and illegality. International investment arbitration has dealt with a wide variety of legal issues regarding the inappropriate conduct of the parties. This paper examines the standard of proof of cases related to improper conduct in International Investment Arbitration. Proofing inappropriate behavior is very difficult. However, due to the nature of the inappropriate conduct, it requires a high standard of proof. The difficulty of proving inappropriate behavior and the requirement of a high standard of proof are contradictory. A lot of criticism from the academic world has been raised. The doctrine argues for a shifting burden of proof for fraud, corruption, illegality, and abuse of procedures. the applicant for arbitration. If the other party asserts inappropriate conduct, the other party bears the burden of proof. However, the current position of the arbitral tribunal has a passive position with respect to evidence and proof. Recent arbitral tribunals apply various standards of proof. First, the high standard of proof applies the standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’. It is also considered that the inappropriate conduct has a criminal nature and that the government of the receiving country is involved, which is a respect for national sovereignty. Second, some tribunal of International Investment Arbitrations apply a lower standard of proof. It appears in some arbitral award cases as a slightly relaxed standard of proof from a high standard of proof. Third, very few arbitral tribunals apply circumstantial evidence. The application of circumstantial evidence has generated a great response in academic and practical circles. This paper examines that the ISDS arbitral tribunal confuses the terms and concepts of evidence and evidence in the case of international investment arbitration. There is no distinction between the legal burden of proof and the evidentiary burden of proof, and both are recognized as the burden of proof. It is used without distinguishing between the shifting of the burden of proof and the inversion of the burden of proof. The reason for this is the lack of evidence and evidence in the International Investment Agreement. Therefore, the rule of evidence in domestic law applies. Confusion of evidence and proof causes problems of predictability of award of international investment arbitration and inconstancy of award. Evidence and evidence in international investment law are still confusing and unclear.