打击的前奏
这三周从开始学用普通的锅煮米饭，进阶到做各式各样的焖饭，而这几天的经验所得是茄子🍆切丁放到饭里面去焖，当然是等水第一次烧开之后放进去焖，最后的口感跟炖烂的肥肉一样，几乎以假乱真。
然而这并不是要说的重点。
今天收到了挫折——早晨6点12左右Waibel就发了邮件过来说：
Dear Tianshu,
Thank you for your proposal for a thesis in International Investment Law.
The other lectures and I have now reviewed all proposals, and given the significant number of proposals received, I am sorry to let you know what it will not be possible to supervise you on the proposed topic.
I look forward to seeing you in class.
Best wishes,
Michael
【爸爸妈妈看这里，大概的翻译就是:“亲爱的TS, 非常感谢你提交的关于国际投资法的论文计划书/开题报告。我跟这门课的另一位老师一起检阅了所有的计划书并鉴于收到的计划书数量众多，很抱歉地告诉你我将没有办法就这个题目来指导你。希望能在课上见到你。祝好。Michael。”】
根据ordinary meaning rule，看了一遍又一遍，确认了真正的意思之后，终于承认了一点，那就是：我没有论文可以写了。换一句话说，我原来想的这一年要在一个老师的指导下写一篇论文的任务还没开始就宣告结束了。
完全不在计划之中啊！！！
计划书如下：
The Role of “Persistent Objector” in Disputes Settlement of International Investment Law
Why This Topic
If a state has been expressly and continuously objecting to an emerging rule of customary international law, even if such rule eventually acquires the status of customary law, the state will not be bound by it. As an exception to customary international law’s binding force to all states, the doctrine of “persistent objector” appears controversial and yet has been acknowledged by many international courts and tribunals, including the International Court of Justice and The Special Court for Sierra Leone, and international organizations, like UN International Law Commission and International Law Association.
Some scholar argues that there is no room for the application of “persistent objector” in international investment law on the ground that international investment law is a treaty-based system, and thus “persistent objector” with a prerequisite of an existing or forming customary rule is not applicable in this particular field. However, there are indeed cases before ICSID in which parties presented the “persistent objector” to support their claims. Although the tribunal did not entirely uphold the contentions in the above-said cases, the invocations themselves indicate that “persistent objector” could be used as an alternative argument against the claims based on certain customary international law, either under international investment law or international law in general.
Whether the tribunal upheld such claim is one thing; whether the “persistent objector” could be invoked in international investment dispute is another. Moreover, the uniqueness lying in dispute settlement of international investment law is that investors can bring claims against sovereign states before ICSID, while the relevant bilateral investment treaties or multilateral instruments are concluded between states. By contrast, it is clear that only states can make “persistent objections”. But the norm to which state persistently object may fall into the realm of international investment law, or in a broader scope, it become a general customary rule applying to the international investment cases. Thus, despite investment treaty is the main source used in international investment adjudication and arbitration, customary international law, either general or particular in this field, may still take a place during the process. As such, the possibility for “persistent object” is not excluded from international investment dispute settlement.
Given the legal consequence of the “persistent objector” may shield states from the binding force of an established customary rule, it is interesting to observe that how this consequence may influence the investors who is nationals to that state, how individual investor could rely on “persistent objector” that its own state made against the host state, and under which circumstances the host state is entitled to count on “persistent objector” against investor and how the state to which the investor belongs would be impacted etc.
Why The Thesis
The reason to choose the thesis instead of the examination of this course is that this topic is the missing part of my former master thesis in China. In July 2015, I have obtained a master degree in China University of Political Science and Law with a thesis on “persistent objector” in customary international law. However, due to the length and time limitation, the previous thesis only concentrated on fields of public international law, such as law of the sea, rules on state immunity, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. Nevertheless, during my research on “persistent objector”, I found some cases before ICSID and national courts referring to this notion but without further explanations. Besides, I have deep interest in international dispute settlement and wish to become a practitioner in international litigation and arbitration in the future, as the practice of this area in Mainland China is just at a very primary stage. Therefore, based on the academic resources at Cambridge, I consider this paper would be a great opportunity to complement my previous thesis, to research on potential problems in international investment law, and to advance my understanding of settlement of international disputes.
关于自我检讨和他人开导
一开始知道这个消息第一反应是特别抗拒，因为这并不在我的计划之中。因为这个连昨晚剩下打算今早一个小时扫尾的WTO Reading都没有做完。
* 插播一下
WTO课中确定想要参加ELSA的同学们，来自新西兰、印度和斯洛伐克（貌似是）。然而还是有很多未知。
不知道Faculty会不会给钱，不知道College会不会提供赞助（如果确定参赛的话那就要给Director of Studies写信了），不知道能不能准备好，最后比赛日期（如果能去到Final Round）会不会跟考试日期冲突之类的。说到学校不提供资助的事情，感觉自己在学习的任何一个阶段的学校都遇到这样的情况——WHU还好，CUPL的时候赶上了研究生比赛还能有资助——然而实习就没资助了（今年的小孩一个月由1000刀还包来回机票），来到Cam觉得这下好啦，有无穷尽的学术资源啦，本来虽然没想过要再继续打比赛，但是看到通知的时候想的是无所谓了，反正这点小钱还是有的吧。然而事情完全不是这样：开学的Introduction上，系主任就说我们虽然是世界第二，仅次于HLS,然而他无比羡慕拥有HLS院长一样无穷无尽的资源，这就是一个征兆了。WTO的Dr Lorand Bartels在课上提到的他导师出的新书不知道Squire会不会马上买，“毕竟我们也不是那么有钱。”他说。不过他说他会找Waibel问问看应该向谁找钱，毕竟Jessup有2000镑的拨款，Waibel从来也特别热心Mooting.
* 插播结束
下课之后已经过了1点，既然没有论文写、下课也晚了，我就不去参加那个“反抄袭”的讲座，在LG的餐台买了一个Panini，墨西哥鸡肉加番茄酱，2.8镑。鸡肉满满的，结果还掉在了衣服上，表示很伤心。
边吃边跟Y同学ft了一下。继续接受他早晨上课前的开导之后，问了他一下该怎么做，最后敲定说还是发个邮件说感谢Waibel的来信并接受这个决定，但是还是想要问问看自己的问题在哪里，不知道他是否有时间来分享下他的看法。至少我要知道这个题目是不是不值得写，如果值得写，有哪些弱点，如果不值得写，那么如果我对国际争端解决感兴趣应该看什么材料。写完了发过去，似乎心情也好了点，然而还是比较低落。
可是没有时间低落，下午15点有French Basic（法语基础），骑车到Downing Place的语言中心，连google map都查不到，小小的一个门推门进去。碰到了Branlienov(貌似是叫这个)，也是LLM，而且还有两节课是一起上的——国际投资法和武装冲突法，然而都没有印象。这应该是一个证明我们LLM人太多的好例子。
两个小时笨拙的问好和自我介绍之后，我还没特别习惯这种不教ABCD的发音就直接上来开始对话的教学方法。糊里糊涂地出来，骑车回家，恍恍惚惚。
回来仔细想了一想，其实是自己太贪心了，这并不是一个第一次愿望落空。是目标设定地太高——也不完全对，应该是说什么都想要得到，但是没有想过如果都达成，自己又会是什么样的窘境，可能要放弃另一些事情。
之所以不甘心，正如我跟Y同学吐槽的时候说的一样，总觉得放了这么丰富的学术资源不去写一篇论文，实在是太浪费了。但是这是本末倒置的，难道不应该是有了一个很好的题目再借助着好资源进行研究，而不是因为有了资源所以硬要开发吗？而且我选的课程中武装冲突法和国际商业诉讼是没有论文结课选项的，国际投资法和WTO对我来说是全新的课程，应该是要好好听讲，没有基础可以写论文的。我的proposal硬要拗也是将过去的成果移植到国际投资法上面，然而也特别狭窄，自己也心知肚明。而且这样的感觉就是大二时候刚学习国公的自己要写一篇国公论文一样，不论我这些年进步了多少，却也知道学术这种东西没有研究仔细、想清楚是绝对不能想到好题目的，没有好题目，纵然是金山银山也挖掘不出来什么的。
这样想一下，被拒绝似乎也是理所应当的。反倒是如果被接受了，最后可能会变得骑虎难下。因为我有法语课、划船（一周三次训练——我觉得要坚持）、无数的reading、还有潜在的ELSA,在这种情况下还要写个1,8000字的英文论文，还是我一无所知的部门法。想想这个才是高估自己呢。
那既然这样干嘛不选那些让自己可能更如鱼得水的课呢？比如IHRL,国际环境法，国家的诞生消亡之类的？因为我知道这些并不是我想要的，我对这些可能更舒服，然而并未准备好要从事学术——并不是说斩断后路，而是说未必是要马上从事。而且我还觉得自己处在摸索的阶段，尽管跟已经在读博士的同龄人比，这种拓宽广度的探索似乎很不切实际。然而对我而言这种探索是最切合实际的，原来很抗拒的WTO,在囫囵吞枣了若干个案例段落之后，居然能开始发觉有些滋味——虽然WTO自成一体，但是落实到最后，都是事实跟怎么样去用条约的条文来解释。WTO的解释方法和遵循先例的模式其实跟一般国际法中的国际司法机构（比如ICJ）其实并没有什么区别，甚至有更多细致入微和巧妙的地方。国际投资法的前两节课真是无聊死的经济学原理，然而懂一点经济学从求知欲的角度来说对我是更有用处的。ICL的内容是关于诉讼程序法的考量，更是对我当年打Vis中学到的皮毛进行充实。
从以为自己不感兴趣的部门法挖掘出新的感受，重新学习，才会由更低的姿态开始成长。虽然跟在已知或是已有基础的领域深挖有本质的区别，却也不是坏事。或许能开辟另一块天地，为时从来未晚。
南墙撞一撞，可能头破血流，到时候大不了鸣金收兵，原路返回。然而也有可能撞出新天地呢。
这样想一想似乎释然了一点。
田鼠
2015年10月19日20：32 于剑桥