涉气候变化国际投资仲裁的结构性困境与制度因应

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (0)

Download: PDF (621 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract As global climate governance deepens, regulatory measures adopted by states to fulfill their climate obligations under international treaties such as the Paris Agreement are increasingly triggering normative conflicts between climate governance and international investment protection obligations, leading to a surge in climate-change-related international investment arbitration cases. These cases lay bare two fundamental weaknesses in the traditional arbitration framework when it confronts climate disputes. On the substantive side, the expansive readings of indirect expropriation, the elastic applications of the fair and equitable treatment standard, and the cramped invocation of exception provisions have severely constricted host states’ policy space for climate action. On the procedural side, the growing demand for specialized climate expertise, combined with restricted third-party access and lopsided evidentiary rules, has cast a shadow over the legitimacy of arbitral outcomes. To reconcile the tension between investment protection and climate governance, it is urgent to overcome the functional limitations of the traditional international investment arbitration mechanism, which is constrained by the binary operational logic of the legal system. A shift is needed from an adversarial, case-by-case adjudicatory paradigm to a governance paradigm based on “structural coupling” among subsystems such as law and science. This transformation aims to achieve a dynamic coordination between investment rights and climate justice in the global commons. Concretely, at the substantive rules level, constructing a climate-friendly investment treaty paradigm, narrowing the standard for determining indirect expropriation, and activating exception clauses; at the procedural mechanism level, establishing specialized climate arbitration tribunals, improving evidentiary rules, and enhancing third-party participation; at the governance system level, promoting organic coordination among international arbitration, domestic judiciary, and climate finance mechanisms.

Key words： international investment arbitration climate disputes investment treaty regulatory authority conflicts systemic paradigm

Received: 14 January 2026

D996.4

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	YI Zai-cheng
	SHENG Dan-qing

Cite this article:

YI Zai-cheng,SHENG Dan-qing. International Investment Arbitration in Climate Disputes: Structural Dilemmas and Institutional Responses[J]. , 2026, 43(3): 109-121.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2026/V43/I3/109

[1] M. Fermeglia,C. Higham,K. Silverman-Roati,et al.Mapping Climate-Related Investment Arbitrations[J].TDM Special Issue,2024,21(1):1-24.
[2] Jeswald W.Salacuse.The Law of Investment Treaties[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2010.311.
[3] 陈安. 国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.158.
[4] M. Sornarajah.The International Law on Foreign Inves-tment(4th ed.)[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2017.389.
[5] Sedco Inc v.National Iranian Oil Company and the Islamic Republic of Iran, U.S.C.T.R.180(1986)[J].International Law Reports,2021,84:483-592.
[6] 蔡从燕. 效果标准与目的标准之争:间接征收认定的新发展[J].西南政法大学学报,2006,8(6):85-91.
[7] Anatole Boute.The Potential Contribution of International Investment Protection Law to Combat Climate Change[J].Journal of Energy & National Resources Law,2009,27(3):333-376.
[8] Bruno Simma.Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place for Human Rights?[J].International and Comparative Law Qu-arterly,2011,60(3):573-596.
[9] Stephan W.Schill.The Multilateralization of International Investment Law[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2009.76.
[10] Kim Talus.EU Energy Law and Policy:A Critical Accou-nt[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2013.460-462.
[11] 邓婷婷,曹江琪.气候变化措施适用国际投资协定安全例外条款:可行性及其限制[J].中南大学学报(社会科学版),2025,(4):81-97.
[12] Philippe Sands.Principles of International Environmental Law[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2018.209.
[13] 曹兴国. 裁判者信任困境与国际投资争端解决机制的信任塑造[J].政法论丛,2021,(3):137-148.
[14] Carly A. Phillips, L.Delta Merner, Friederike Otto.Attribution Science Insights into Climate Change and Its Consequence[A].Wewerinke-Singh M,Mead S(eds).The Cambridge Handbook on Climate Litigation[M].Cambrid-ge:Cambridge University Press,2025.79-102.
[15] Marcelo A.Somos-Valenzuela1, Rachel E. Chisolm, Denny S. Rivas,et al.Modeling A Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Process Chain: The Case of Lake Palcacocha and Huaraz,Peru[J].Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,2016, 20(6):2519-2543.
[16] Susan D.Franck.The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Pricatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions[J].Fordham Law Review,2005,73(4):1521-1626.
[17] Carolin K nig.Small Island States and International Law: The Challenge of Rising Seas[M].London:Routledge,2023. 2.
[18] 欧阳恩钱. 系统论法学下环境法的整体系统观及其实现路径[J].法治研究,2025,(4):105-118.
[19] 范晓宇. 应对气候变化:国际投资协定的改革及展望[J].国际法研究,2024,(5):61-76.
[20] 漆彤,余茜.从新自由主义到嵌入式自由主义——论晚近国际投资法的范式转移[J].国际关系与国际法学刊,2014,(4):201-217.
[21] 戴昕.作为法律技术的安全港规则:原理与前景[J].法学家,2023,(2):31-46+192.
[22] 林洧. 气候变化诉讼的侵权事实认定:困境、架构与进路[J].法治研究,2024,(4):147-160.
[23] 肖军,康雪飘.国际投资仲裁中国家反诉的仲裁同意问题[J].武大国际法评论,2018,2(5):81-93.