Prigovor korupcije i odgovornost države u međunarodnom investicijskom pravu za koruptivno postupanje svojih službenika
Dr. sc. Orsat Miljenić, zastupnik i predsjednik Odbora za pravosuđe Hrvatskog sabora, Hrvatski sabor, Trg Sv. Marka 6, Zagreb; orsatmiljenic@gmail.com; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9191-3344
Sažetak
U radu se analizira primjena tzv. prigovora korupcije u međunarodnim investicijskim arbitražama kojim se sve više koriste tužene države kao načinom za izbjegavanje odgovornosti. Posebice se upozorava na problem asimetričnog pristupa odgovornosti države i investitora. Naime, prema izgrađenoj arbitražnoj praksi, investitor uvijek odgovara za sudjelovanje u korupciji prilikom poduzimanja investicije, a država ne odgovara jer je praksa izgradila stav da postupanja državnih službenika koji sudjeluju u takvoj korupciji nisu pripisiva državi. Takav stav suprotan je načelima međunarodnog prava o odgovornosti država. Prigovor korupcije stavlja se u kontekst odgovornosti države po međunarodnom pravu, pa se nude moguća rješenja postojeće asimetrije kroz izmjene međunarodnih investicijskih ugovora te kroz primjenu instituta prešutnog prihvaćanja.
Ključne riječi
međunarodna investicijska arbitraža; prigovor korupcije; odgovornost države; pripisivost; prešutno prihvaćanje
Hrčak ID: 220236
URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/220236
Stranice: 187 - 221
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Corruption Defense and Responsibility of the State in International Investment Law for Corrupt Acts of Its Officials
Orsat Miljenić, Ph. D., Member of Parliament, Chairperson of the Judiciary Commitee of the Croatian Parliament, Hrvatski sabor, Trg Sv. Marka 6, Zagreb; orsatmiljenic@gmail.com; ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9191-3344
Summary
The corruption defense is being used more and more frequently. International investment arbitral tribunals tend to accept it as a complete defense – if the state can prove that there was corruption connected with the establishment of an investment, the investor is denied protection of the relevant investment treaty. Such an approach, disregarding the fact that corruption is by its nature bilateral, punishes only one side – the investor, while the state is in a way immunized despite the fact that its officials, sometime even highest-ranking officials, were engaged in the same corrupt act. Such an asymmetrical approach to the responsibility for corruption of the state and of the investor is contrary to the rules of international law regarding the responsibility of states. The article presents an analysis of the relevant rules regarding the responsibility of states in general and specifically for corruption in international public law, and their application to international investment law, arbitral practice regarding the corruption defense and its development. Possible solutions by way of amending international investment law or by applying existing rules of international public law, namely the principle of acquiescence, are proposed.
Key words
international investment arbitration; corruption defense; responsibility of states; attribution; acquiescence
Hrčak ID: 220236
URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/220236
Pages: 187 - 221