Is collective arbitration against Russia for the expropriations of Ukrainian assets occurring in Crimea possible?
中的一篇文章 纽约时报的历史可以追溯到 11 一月 2015 指出，今天在克里米亚继续大规模掠夺乌克兰拥有的资产. 武装部队被称为 “人民民兵” are invading property wearing black balaclavas, 在地方当局的支持下, 美元以上 1 据报道，数十亿房地产和其他资产从其前所有者手中被剥夺，没有得到赔偿.
据报告，这些资产包括酒店, 银行, 造船厂, 农场, 加油站, 面包房, 奶牛场, 甚至雅尔塔电影制片厂, 前苏联好莱坞. 俄罗斯支持 “政府” reportedly claims that nothing was confiscated, calling this a procedure of forced redemption. 据报道，迄今为止的主要目标是伊戈尔·科洛默斯基, 乌克兰最大银行的主要所有者, 和第聂伯罗彼得罗夫斯克镇的反分裂总督.
Russia has been administering the Crimea since 21 游行 2014 作为俄罗斯的九个联邦区之一, although Russia disputes the label of annexation. 有关没收的当地争议已上诉至俄罗斯最高法院, 普京总统甚至鼓励克里米亚人停止向乌克兰最大的银行偿还贷款, 可以预见的是，据报道，这导致借款人停止偿还贷款. It is laughable to suggest that anyone whose assets were expropriated in the Crimea will have a fair day in court before Russia’s Supreme Court.
Does the bilateral investment treaty signed between Ukraine and Russia in 1998 hold the key to Ukrainians obtaining compensation for the theft of Ukrainian-owned assets in the Crimea through collective arbitration against Russia? This bilateral investment treaty, 哪个可用 这里, 规定了对被征用土地的全额赔偿 5:
“文章 5 – 征用
1. 缔约任何一方的投资者的投资, carried out on the territory of the other Contracting Party, 不得征用, nationalization or other measures, 等于征用的后果 (hereinafter referred to as expropriation), 除情况外, when such measures are not of a discriminatory nature and entail prompt, 充分有效的补偿.
2. 补偿金应与被没收投资的市场价值相对应, prevailing immediately before the date of expropriation or when the fact of expropriation has become officially known. The compensation shall be paid without delay with due regard for the interest, 从征收之日起至付款之日开始收费, at the interest rate for three months’ deposits in US Dollars prevailing at the London interbank market (伦敦银行同业拆借利率) 加 1%, 并应有效实现和自由转让. “
文章 9 also permits investors to initiate an UNCITRAL arbitration against Russia in the event of “任何争议” 俄罗斯和乌克兰投资者之间, 包括与没收投资有关的纠纷:
Resolution of Disputes Between Contracting Party and the Investor of the other Contracting Party
1. In case of any dispute between either Contracting Party and the investor of the other Contracting Party, 这可能与投资有关, 包括纠纷, which concern the amount, terms of and procedure for payment of compensation provided for in Article 5 hereof or with the procedure for effecting a transfer of payments provided for in Article 7 此处, 须提交书面通知, accompanied with detailed comments which the investor shall forward to the Contracting Party involved in the dispute. The parties to the dispute shall exert their best efforts to settle that dispute by way of negotiations.
2. In the event the dispute cannot be resolved through negotiations within six months as of the date of the written notification as mentioned in Item 1 以上, then the dispute shall be passed over for consideration to:
一种) 缔约方的主管法院或仲裁法院, on whose territory the investments were carried out;
C) 一个 “至” 仲裁庭, 符合《仲裁规则》
3. 仲裁裁决为终局裁决，对争议双方均具有约束力. Each Contracting Party shall undertake to execute such an award in conformity with its respective legislation.”
明显地, 签署的双边投资条约 1998 旨在保护乌克兰在俄罗斯土地上的投资, giving Ukrainian investors the right to seek compensation through investment arbitration were their assets to be expropriated by Russia. 正如俄罗斯声称克里米亚现在是俄罗斯的一部分, why should not Ukrainian businesses be able to seek compensation directly against Russia on the basis of the 1998 比特?
据俄罗斯辩护律师说, 这是不可能的, 由于法律问题，根据国际法，克里米亚现在是否已成为俄罗斯的一部分. 国际法的一般原则，例如 的一声，还没有人发现了自己的盾 and good faith, 然而, suggest that Russia may not be entitled to benefit from its own wrongs.
辩护者还声称，不是由俄罗斯来进行征用, 而是克里米亚政府. 虽然存在国家对行为的责任归属问题 “政府” 在克里米亚, many arguments can be made that the acts of the federal district should be attributable to Russia.
辩护律师还声称，俄罗斯未同意在克里米亚与外国投资者进行仲裁，这将阻止对俄罗斯的成功主张。. 双边投资条约, 然而, does not clearly limit itself to the territory belonging to Russia at the time of signing the treaty.
While there is no guarantee of success, 作为辩护者’ 论点是可以克服的, 乌克兰人在克里米亚的财产被没收, 例如《纽约时报》中讨论的内容, should seriously consider the possibility of bringing claims against Russia on the basis of the 1998 乌克兰-俄罗斯双边投资条约.
此外, Ukrainians whose assets have been expropriated in the Crimea might consider targeting Russia in a collective arbitration, along the lines of Abaclat和其他v. 阿根廷, where the arbitral tribunal found that the fact that the claim was a collective claim and that the group of claimants was very large did not hinder the arbitration, since Argentina’s consent to arbitrate included claims presented by multiple claimants. 尽管提出这样的集体索赔有许多法律问题, this could allow the hundreds of individuals in the Crimea whose assets have been expropriated to obtain compensation for the expropriation of their assets and businesses at a relatively low cost.
While collective arbitration against Russia is by no means guaranteed to succeed, 当前的选择, 向俄罗斯最高法院上诉, 对于乌克兰人产生有意义的结果的可能性要小得多. Ukrainians whose assets have been expropriated in the Crimea should consider a collective claim on the basis of the 1998 乌克兰-俄罗斯BIT, 以确保, 即使其行为没有军事后果, 因为俄罗斯武装起来, 俄罗斯在克里米亚的行动还有其他财务后果.