国投上到第七周，出现了一个不知道的概念，叫做“police power doctrine”, 居然还被Vinuales写成是习惯法概念之一。为什么在国内的时候老师都不教呢？

哦，因为我自己都没有选国投的课啊（怪谁）……这一年的课是两门国经（如果WTO也算国经），一门国私（如果英国国内商业法院和欧盟法也算国私的话——算的啦，毕竟forum selection, choice of law这种还是可以归于国私的），一门国公。

在开始学习这个新概念之前，要马克一下自己来剑桥以后的第一次主动被动缺课。这几天因为要保持跟余同学联系，每天都特别晚睡。于是今早的结果是完全在意料之中的不可避免的——睡过了。九点钟的课八点五十三才醒过来，虽然我已经设定了5个闹铃。这说明，对睡眠的需求才是世界上最大的不可抗力。原本打算趁着课中休息，第二节进去。结果骑车路上因为碰到熊孩子下课和莫名其妙的周五交通堵塞。是的，别看剑桥是小地方，机动车还是很多的，不时还有体积庞大的送货/邮箱货车停在路边（完全不可想象）。好了，我知道我应该早点出门的，但是我也想吃个体面的早餐啊。于是又差了2分钟到法学院，到G24的时候里面已经开讲了，CG的声音隐隐约约从里面传出来，百爪挠心。打算冲进去的时候看到门上贴着一张纸，上书：

“Class of Law of Armed Conflicts” in Process. DO NOT PULL ，Otherwise armed reponse.
【爸爸妈妈看这里：武装冲突法课程进行中， 不要推门 ，否则武力反击。】

赤裸裸的打脸和威胁！！！于是默默去图书馆自习吧。

结果Bartels发邮件过来说下周三的Workshop是moot court形式，我是NZ方第一个发言。结果材料里面什么Position都没有怎么说啊……而且本来约好的递签就要拖到12.2号了……千万别给我改了……诶……

人参就是这么苦涩。

没错，这就是我在法学院图书馆积满9杯咖啡换来的一杯免费咖啡。一年下来是不是都要咖啡因中毒了。

好了，回归正题。为IIL Study Group做的notes, 一篇论文就把我弄成这样……下周的WTO Workshop是模拟法庭形式的==简直要死了……

Vinuales - Customary Law in Investment Regulation

Main purpose

To explore sovereignty in investment regulation by anaylising the relationship between investment treaties and customary international law, which has been neglected by Institut de Droit International (IDI) resolution “Legal Aspects of Recourse to Arbitration by an Investor against the Authorities of the Host State under Inter-State Treaties” (http://icsidreview.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/3/701.extract).

Professor Vinuales thinks that the current trend towards including more regulatory leeway in specific treaty clauses is not appropriate solution because it still confines sovereignty to a few exceptions or at best carve-outs instead of recognizing that , much in the same way as the necessity defence does not need to be incorporated in a treaty to operate, the same is true of other customary expression of sovereignty.

Structure

1. Discussion of how the interaction between investment treaties and CIL.
2. Analysis of four customary concepts that may operate autonomously and in parallel to investment treaties.
3. Display how excessive emphasis on treaties as a lex specialis may be subtly eroding the room for customary law investment regulation and thereby the legitimate expression of sovereignty.

Content

There are three ways in which CIL may apply together with investment treaties:

1. Treaty interpretation; (IDI resolution implied)
2. As governing norms superseding treaty provisions (either because of lex superior principle or potentially as a lex specialis, e.g. if two states have developed a bilateral custom on the application of a treaty); (IDI resolution implied)
3. As governing norms supplementing treaty provisions for questions not addressed by the latter. (Vinuales suggests)

**Four concepts **in CIL:

1. Police power doctrine

*** Tecmed v Mexico: para. 109 “the principle that the state’s exercise of its sovereign powers of within the framework of its police power may cause economic damage to those subject to its powers as administrator without entitling them to any compensation whatsoever is undisputable.”

*** Methanes v US, para. 7: “as a matter of general international law, a non-discriminatory regulation for a public purpose, which is enacted in accordance with due process and, which affects, inter alios, a foreign investor or investment is not deemed expropriatory and compensable unless specific commitments had been given by the regulating government to the then putative foreign investor contemplating investment that the government would refrain from such regulation.”

*** Chemtura v Canada, para. 266: “The Tribunal considers in any event that the measures challenged by the Claimant constituted a valid exercise of the Respondent’s police powers. As discussed in detail in connection with Article 1105 of NAFTA, increasing awareness of the dangers presented by the lindane for human health and the environment. A measure adopted under such circumstances is a valid exercise of the State’s police powers and, as a result, does not constitute an expropriation.”

*** Saluka v Czech Republic, para. 262: “the principle that a state does not commit an expropriation and is thus not liable to pay compensation to a disposed alien investor when it adopts general regulations that are ‘commonly’ accepted as within the police powers of State’s forms part of customary law today.”

*** He considers the reference is useful because:

(1) this authority has been often referred to in subsequent arbitration awards as well as by the IDI discussion in expropriation;

(2) the reference to the police power doctrine is placed in the dispositiv part of the relevant claim other than merely a obiter dictum;

(3) the award was unanimously adopted by an eminent tribunal;

(4) the reasoning of the award on the relations between customary law and the applicable investment treaty is ambiguous. Therefore, it provides a starting-point for the analysis of how the understanding of this relationship may influence the operation of the police powers doctrine.

*** He notes that the Saluka tribunal seemed to suggest that the police power doctrine could only be applied if it had been incorporated into the applicable treaty (see Saluka para. 254), which is very debatable.

*** Problem with the Saluka reference: if the police power doctrine is CIL, its application doesn’t depend on a clause incorporating into the investment treaty, unless the treaty otherwise excludes it (lex specialis principle). A relevant customary norm may continue to apply to shape the applicable treaty provision – supplementary function.

**2. Necessity defence **

*** The overlapping part of emergency clauses (which excludes some matters from the scope of the treaty) and the necessity defence in CIL.

*** (Professor V considered it erred) CMS v Argentina (followed by two subsequent cases): the tribunal determined that:

a. The customary necessity defence is not applicable in the present case. Nevertheless, some conditions in the emergency clauses may be the same as those of the necessity defence in CIL.

b. Although the requirement was met, nothing in the treaty clause calls for the application of this requirement. (necessity still not applicable)

*** Opposite decision: LG&E v Argentina

*** Criticism towards the CMS award by an ad hoc commission mandated to review the award: the requirements under Art. XI are not the same as those under CIL as codified by Art. 25, as the Parties in fact recognized during the hearing. On that point, the Tribunal made a manifest error of law.

*** He argues that two disputable points regarding the CMS awards in the function of the necessity defence to interpret or supplement a treaty provision remain:

(1) the necessity defence was not relevant to interpret the emergency clause because they have different scopes of applications. (Necessity assumes a breach of international law exist, while the emergency clause is a threshold requirement.)

(2) a conflation of the treaty and customary requirements is an error of law concerning the actual content and operation of customary law.

*** Assuming the emergency clause can be properly characterized as an exception (not a carve-out, as Article XI), then the requirements of the necessity defence would still not applicable, either as interpretive guidance or as a supplement addressing matters left unaddressed by the clause. Why? Because application of such clause would amount to a restrictive interpretation of a treaty clause that expresses sovereignty, which would be inconsistent with the customary rule that limitation of sovereignty are not to be presumed.(See Wimbeldon, PCIJ, 24-25, Lotus, PCIJ, 18; Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, PCIJ, 167)

*** Even if this rule is not applicable, a conflation as such would be inconsistent with a neutral interpretation.

*** A proper application is to analyze the two norms separately. The customary necessity defence would operate autonomously according to its own requirements.

3. Countermeasures

Whether/how countermeasures in CIL can be excluded by NAFTA and the nature of investment protection standards

(1) NAFTA - ADM v Mexico: the tribunal reasoned that NAFTA chapter 11 neither authorised nor prohibited the use of countermeasures. Therefore, the customary regime on countermeasures remained applicable if certain conditions are met.

(2) Nature of investment protection standard - Corn Products v Mexico: countermeasures concerned inter-state relations and therefore cannot operate in an investor-state context.

*** However, the tribunal conversely admitted that if the same facts trigger an investment dispute and give rise to diplomatic protection, in which the countermeasure doctrine in CIL becomes applicable against the claim of the home state.

*** He considers that the distinction between obligation owed to other states and obligations owed to investors may not be a sufficient basis for excluding the operation of the doctrine of countermeasures. The inter-state character of the countermeasure doctrine does not necessarily exclude its operation from investor-state disputes.

4. Transnational public policy

Legality clause condition the protection afforded by the treaty to the legality of the investment under domestic law.

*** Legality clauses and the transnational public policy: the legality clauses are broader than the transnational public polity as many situations are illegal under the law referred to by the clause would not necessarily violates transnational public policy.

(1) Investment made illegally is not protected by the tribunal, which can reject the claim without proceeding to the merits. (initial illegality)

(2) Subsequent illegality can serve as a defence in the merits of the case

• Suggestion: the conducts prohibited by transnational public policy calls for the rejection of a claim before reaching the merits (in jurisdictional or admissible grounds).

Conclusion

1. Customary international law (CIL) and investment treaties’ relationship is more complex than the assertion that investment treaties are lex specialis or special regime. Many cases demonstrated that resort to CIL is necessary and useful.
2. Relationship between CIL and investment treaties can be divided into three ways: interpretive function; norms superseding investment treaties and norms supplementing investment treaties. While the IDI Resolution only dealt with the first two ways, Professor Vinuales disagreed with the Rapporteur on the way he framed the regulatory powers.
   o He stressed that most of the CIL norms expressing sovereign character have no peremptory norm character and thus cannot supersede the investment treaties. Therefore, the supplementing function should be elaborated more.
3. Most expressions of sovereignty contained in CIL are broad and non-specific, amounting to general customary international law. Failure to identify the supplementing function of CIL in investment treaties may deprive such concepts of a proper role in foreign investment law.
   o Four concepts have been analysed: police power doctrine, customary necessity defence, countermeasures and transnational policy. Their application in investment treaty arbitration is ambiguous and inconsistent.

我现在也大概能明白ZL当初在oxon的挣扎纠结。原来总以为自己不一样，不会那么难受。其实现在才明白，有一条线在那里，低于那条线的差距是可以忽略不计的。一句话就是，从表面上看，优秀的人总是相似的，但是差劲的人总是各自差劲。

天哪我怎么会说这种话！！！！真是抑郁到一个程度了！！！

抛一张在前几周去约克（唯二的出城）刚下车照的河景吧。

这篇日志是为了记录下verbal reasoning test里面自己犯下的错误。

第一种类型：

Question:

It takes time for someone living with chronic pain to experience increased sensitivity to pain more generally.

True

False

Cannot Tell

• 我之前选的是False，因为以为这个应该找最后一段。 答案解释是：

We know this is true because in the first paragraph we are told that ‘Individuals living with chronic pain eventually become more sensitive to pain overall….’. It is the use of the word ‘eventually‘ that tells us that this increase in sensitivity happens over time rather than just occurring immediately.

Question 11

Some people living in the region are likely to see an increase in the money they have available to spend.

True

False

Cannot Tell

*我选成了cannot tell. 答案解释是：

We know this to be true as the passage states that businesses are passing on the savings they are making (linked to lower oil prices) to consumers in the region and as a result we see an increase in disposable income, i.e. the money people have available to spend.

Question 12

Many sectors have actually benefited from the recession.

True

False

Cannot Tell

我选择成了True. 犯下的错误是以偏概全。

We do know there has been a boom in travel comparison sites but the passage only tells us about this sector. We have no information about whether any other sectors have seen any benefit.

Question 14

Most businesses in the region believe that the cost of oil is highly likely to rise in the near future.

True

False

Cannot Tell

*我选了cannot tell.犯下的问题是没有意识到关键句的潜在含义，而是单纯的认为关键词oil没有重复出现，就表示关键信息并没有给出。

The passage tells us that we are experiencing a ‘sustained reduction in the cost of oil’ and that ‘businesses are now more confident and are passing on the savings…’. From this we know that oil costs are low and have been for some time and that many businesses expect it to remain that way.

[第一次test的正确率是10/15，略低于平均数。这个可不行！！！]

今天，台灯坏了。准确说是昨晚坏的，闪了一下就烧坏了。给学院的maintainance staff发了邮件，应该明天就会来修吧。上周知道了原来学院的维修人员有我们所有房间的钥匙，而且对于校外人员而言不一定能接到通知邮件，直接导致上周从Peterhouse Formal回来发现所有的电器插头上都贴着一个蓝色小标签（见下图）。感觉还是不舒服，得写个邮件转达一下我的意见。

我现在的照明是手机的闪光灯放在咖啡罐上，有种囊萤映雪的即视感。这么一个跟浪漫不沾边的遭遇居然能被我描绘成一个非常幽美的情景有没有。对的我就是天生有这样的技能。

好了回归重点，上周申请某个vacation scheme的时候被要求写一个人生中最值得骄傲的时刻，我想了又想，自己并没有经历什么人生巅峰时刻（不像某人有过各种金牌银牌之类的╭(╯^╰)╮），唯一觉得做了一件了不得的事情是跟自己参加IHL的比赛有关的，并不是拿冠军的时刻，而是在半决赛对阵约翰霍普金斯时开赛的那前几分钟。

当时Z老师因为家里有事没有来赛场，我当时也不以为意，毕竟回到武大是我的主场。刚去政法半年，对武大无比怀念，所以报名参加了比赛，想借着免费的机会回去看看母校。然而没想到的是，政法历年来没有出过IHL前三，最差就是前一年的季军，所以不能掉出这个范围真是压力山大。不过还好一路顺利以初赛第二名进入前八，pk掉了外交学院之后在半决赛面对的是南大约翰霍普金斯。早年参加杰赛普的经历就耳濡目染了他们“一个中国人一个外国人”的配搭，总觉得在语言上落了下风，不禁与我心有戚戚焉。

果不其然，对方一个外国教练带着风度翩翩的夫人，霸气地坐在教室后头，对方搭档是prosecution，美国男生+中国女生。我跟ZL说不用害怕，没有问题的。三位法官，其中有一位忽然发言说，“在比赛之前，我觉得我有必要披露以下信息给辩护方。”我忽然就愣住了：什么情况啊？以前都没有碰到过。那位法官说：“辩方你们听好，我跟控方的教练相识。虽然十几年都没有面对面交流过，但是有邮件往来。我告诉你们这个信息，你们自己决定对此是否介意这种情况。”

“嗯，他一定是客套一下，用这种场面话和所谓的礼节把这场比赛尽量往‘专业化’方向靠拢。”没错，我就是这么想的。但是……为什么不试一试呢？

试什么？传说中的recuse（回避制度）。

为什么？他是在香港执业多年的澳大利亚大律师。模拟法庭中最难应付的法官一定是律师出身，因为他们不像学者法官对法律分析和研究具有独特的偏好，相反他们在意的是对事实的挖掘、证据的使用方法和法律运用，而且提问风格会非常激进和push，不会见好就收，会穷追猛打。

其实我是比较喜欢这种类型的法官，因为有更高的可能性会碰撞出思维的火花，对案情有更深入的挖掘——对之后的比赛/学习/研究也更有帮助（前提是如果赢了进入下一轮的话）。但是ZL小师妹比较堪忧，一是她的国际法基础和英文当时没有那么扎实，有可能会被问得节节败退，二是她的心理可能会因此受影响，连我们自己的观点和立场都没有办法合理表达出来。另外，对于见惯法庭中刀光剑影的“冷酷”大律师而言，她的卖萌必杀技是否有用比较存疑。

没错，我用了大概5秒钟时间深入思考了之后，向那个法官说：“法官大人，请准许我们1分钟的考虑时间。”他愣了一下，大概是没想到我的“将计就计”，于是就点头答应了。

我转过去跟Nancy和ZL商量，她们显然不太明白到底发生了什么，我大概解释了一下问ZL觉得怎么样。她说没关系啊。“真是小（大）笨蛋！”我就又简短地痛陈利弊，最后她们就说师姐你拿主意吧。对了啦，我只是客气一下了，毕竟最后还是我拿主意。

于是我就站在了一个IHL历史节点上（自封的），面对着可以启用一个从来没有人用过、也没人想到会用、然而确实是在比赛规则里面存在的条款。

用还是不用？

用，最差的结果就是他拒绝了，但是我毕竟提出了回避，在其他法官和对方面前就留下了一个印象，即便他存在对对方偏袒的意思（which我觉得不会因为他肯定很专业……而且敢披露这个信息就表示说他自己一定会公正的）。如果成功了，我们会换上另一位法官，以我对比赛的了解剩下的法官中比他更严格的人选出现概率极低。更重要的是，我们可以成为这个比赛历史上第一次用这个条款的人，是不是很厉害呢！

当然我们的实力也是能配得上任何结果的！是的！我对我们的研究水平就是这么有自信！

于是我转过来，看着他说：“法官大人，在跟我的同事讨论之后，我们决定向本庭申请您回避。”由于我也比较紧张，把recuse说成了recourse，他一开始不太确定，重复了一遍正确念法，我才意识到。

“是的，辩方恭敬地向法庭申请您回避。”

显然他抑制住了起伏的心情，无奈地说：“如果这是你们想要的话。”然后请其他法官站起来，是的他还是主审法官，三位法官一起退了出去。显然对方选手和教练也一脸难以置信的表情。

但是我知道自己做了什么，并且做好了承担这种行为后果的准备。

之后，换了一位温柔的女法官。

之后，我们砍瓜切菜风卷残云，并且在rebuttal的时候用上了applicable law条款中的新法优于旧法，下级法庭必须服从上级法庭判决，打掉了对方引用的案例。

然后我们赢了。挺进决赛。

然后我们艰难地用“不犯下任何错误”、“比对方少犯错误”的立场完成了比赛，最后2:1攻下最后一城。

呐，我人生中的第一个也是唯一一个冠军就是这么诞生的啦。但是宣布结果的瞬间远远没有赢下半决赛的时候激动。

因为我知道那种灵光一现和孤注一掷并结果顺遂的事件不知道什么时候能再遇上。

但是有那么一次就足够我得意很久了。嘿嘿。😁

附上申请时候写得搓搓的一段英文原文：

The moment I feel proud of myself most took place in the semi-final round of the 2012 Red Cross International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Moot Court Competition in China, when I invoked the Rules of the IHL Moot to request a judge to recuse himself on the basis that he was an acquaintance of the coach of our opponent team, while our coach was absent. Before the proceeding, the judge revealed that he knew the coach of our opponent team and they had had long-term email communications, and he asked whether we would have problems with his qualification or impartiality. At that time, I had only 30 seconds to think. Several factors flew by in my mind: our coach was absent for the entire competition, my co-counsel was junior with little experience of mooting, and the moot judge was a barrister working in Hong Kong for many years, which meant that he may be very aggressive towards the mooters. I knew I could handle his questions, but it was possible that my co-counsel could become very upset and stressful, which had no positive effect on our performance. Most importantly, it was the judge himself who revealed the connections with the opponent coach and asked us whether we were fine with the current status. “Why don’t we try to use the Rules?” I was thinking, “It won’t hurt any way and no one in this moot competition has ever invoked the recusal provision in its history.” During the 30 seconds, I considered all the pros and cons about invoking the recusal provision and decided to present it. I was certain that our team would have the upper hand either way. The judge was surprised obviously, but he eventually recused himself and we got another female judge who was very gentle in questioning the submissions. And we won the semi-final round, entered into the final and got the national champion.

昨晚睡觉前洗漱，发现来自香港的室友给在我的门上贴了一小袋巧克力，然后还有一张贴心的小纸条。香港的女生目前碰到的都很女性化（feminine）,不管是说话还是行为举止。但是跟台湾女生的软糯不太一样，香港女生总有一种很硬很锐的气在那些女性化的举止下游窜，不时涌现。

今天早晨起来迷迷糊糊地去International Commercial Litigation，今天讲的是Brussel 1 Regulations. 代课的讲师说话很清晰然而特别的快……而且语速语调太平稳了，一点都不适合早晨九点中脑子还没开动马力的我。明天得好好整理咯！

放学回家就接到了Lloyds的确认电话，向我询问确认周四的预约是否可以准时去，解释了需要什么文件之类的。还蛮贴心的。

晚上接受美伊的邀请去Selwyn（塞尔温学院）吃Formal，据说不是正常水准。她们学院餐前的酒吧可以买酒，今天因为主餐是羊肉，所以Bartender推荐的是一瓶红酒，口感很顺滑，也没有很大的劲头，只要6.7镑。真是太感人了。Selwyn的Hall也很古典，错落地挂着画像，宏伟壮观称不上，庄重感却是实实在在的。只是今天人太少了，中间一条桌子都没有坐满，也不太好意思拿出相机来拍照。

头盘的汤是南瓜汤，跟上次Hughes的Matriculation Dinner的头盘一样，感觉还有胡萝卜,略有点辣和咸，就着餐前面包吃了1/3就差不多了。主菜是羊腿，形状巨大，足足有成年人的两个拳头，入味程度略逊，🐑肉还能尝得出一点点膻味（大概是我比较挑剔），并没有吃完。倒是作为配餐的土豆泥非常香甜绵软，应该是加了牛奶的缘故。然后就是甜点，上来我们都笑了，美伊笑着说平时不是这样的。哈哈，却是这看起来比较像是安德鲁森买的嘛！外层的蛋糕非常实在，要起来还有硬硬的感觉，甜度在可以接受的范围。重点说一下蛋糕中间的红莓黑莓各种莓子清新的酸味将整个蛋糕朴素的甜味瞬间提高了一个标准。吃完，拒绝了咖啡，可惜没有茶。睡了午觉晚上再喝咖啡，这种虐待自己的事情不能做啊。

今天接到了Waibel的回复，坦然接受这个事实。跟我之前想的一样，他们也不太看好Persistent Objector这一学说，也就更不确定它是否能在国际投资法中扮演任何角色，所以也对我潜在的研究成果没有信心。另一个原因是程序上的，因为我在计划书里面提到希望这篇论文能够complement（补充完善）我之前的硕士论文，他们认为这不符合规定，因为根据Cam法学院的规定，在这里完成的论文必须是全新的、独立的、不依附于之前研究的作品。基于以上两个原因，我的计划书将不被接受。

完全在我的意料之中，而且有理有据。想到这个就释然啦，还是好好学习，虚心上课，充实自己。文章自己写也是可以的，有好题目跟老师讨论也完全是可以的嘛。昨晚跟XZG交流了一下心态问题，他批评我说还没有“名校心态”，然后又纠正了一下说并不是字面意思，而是说应该有一种“我可以、我行”的态度，不管碰到什么困难和拒绝，要淡定对待，因为拒绝本身不是对我作为个人的否定，而应该成为把我带向更合适恰当方向的路标。应该学学18和其他人。

有道理。

在Y和多方好友的合力下，加上主观能动性的发挥，我心理建设基本上完全恢复。不要担心😄。

(1) 香港室友的巧克力和纸条。

(2) Selwyn Formal餐后“朴素”的甜点。

(3) 从Selwyn骑车回来，经过Queen’s（皇后学院）旁边的Silver Street (银街)。夜深露重，车垫上有一层薄薄的寒意。剑桥夜间清冷，路灯看起来却很温暖。用这种反差来纪念我第一次骑车夜行。

最近更新很勤快、再接再厉的田鼠
2015年10月21日12：00 于剑桥

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

前言 Prologue

这是我来到剑桥之后的第一篇日志，献给我的男朋友Y同学，他不嫌麻烦地帮我买下域名，搭建好整个空间，然后在我的教导下找好markdown的教程并把步骤写清楚。虽然可以随便找个博客网站注册就好了，但在他的坚持下，还是选择了这种对我而言全新的、看起来很复杂并且似乎不太有必要的方式来继续写作，就像是我跑到剑桥再读一个硕士一样。不厌其烦地跟别人解释原因。这似乎就是新生一周的主要内容。

早知道这么麻烦还会选择出来吗？会的。

麻烦嘛？是的。

为什么？

Fernweh.

正文 Content

在出发的前一天，我一如既往匆忙地去买一些零碎的东西比如说隐形眼镜之类的，走到中关村家乐福地下一层的时候，忽然很想喝珍珠奶茶。那种想喝的欲望从天而降随后烈火燎原般蔓延开来，转身买了一杯大口大口吸。欣慰的是，珍珠能够很明显地尝出糯米质地，奶味和茶味还算分明，甜度适中，这一杯平时只能是中等偏上水平的珍珠奶茶被我喝出了感情。“反正我一年之内也估计不会再喝。”抱着这样的念头，我非常大口地在二十分钟内喝完了。

在本年度可以共进的倒数第二个午餐前，爸爸打电话来问我在哪儿。我说在外面办事情，其实是拍证件照（可是现在我都不确定我是不是把照片带来了）。爸爸问：“为什么每次总是在最后的时候做这些事呢？”

嗯，或许只是因为想要用这些细屑的小事来填充离别之前的焦虑。然后在几个重要的时候总是上演有惊无险：

比如大四毕业的时候，匆忙赶回家，连银行卡都没有注销。更可怕的事情是把所有奖状的包裹落在宿舍衣柜下层的抽屉里。直到上了火车才发现。幸好ZYW还没有离开，打通她电话得知她还在的时候，我的心简直比凌波门外面那个栈桥的石墩还安稳。

比如研究生毕业时，因为搬东西在最后一天在校园把引以为豪的三年未丢失的校园卡弄丢了。在不大的校园里转悠了好几圈都没有找到，垂头丧气地回到宿舍楼，顺口问了宿舍楼下阿姨，阿姨指了指玻璃上————爱玛！那就是我的校园卡啊！“一个老师刚才送过来的。”舍管阿姨说。我在离开学校的最后一天，手里捧着那个坚持了三年在最后一天上演失而复得的戏剧戏码的校园卡，心里留下了一万行热泪。

比如这次在机场安检的时候，把iPad拉在了安检传送带。只怪我一开始没有拿出来，被重新查，安检人员拿着iPad和书包分别检查。我也不知道自己想什么，等了半天没等到书包，注意力完全不在iPad那里，一看到书包，抓着就走了。然后在接下来一个半小时登机时间时，居然都没有记得iPad这件事，一直到起飞后想要拍下中秋的月亮又不方便拿相机，寻而不得，才发觉是拉在了首都机场。随后趁着转机时间，在香港机场跟爸妈和Y同学分别联系，用机场Wi-Fi搞定了两份委托书给他们分别发过去，查询好首都机场失物招领流程给他们贴过去之后就上了飞机。那天是中秋节，我在飞机上看着平稳翻涌的白色云海上空遥远又清冷的月亮，想着反正都没有iPad了，就干脆安稳地吃了睡了吃，拿出Kindle来看了几页很快就睡着了。下了飞机收到Y同学的消息说，找到啦。之后劳烦妈妈去了机场帮我取了回来。

可以这样被家人朋友甚至陌生人帮助，大概就是生活快乐的最大来源之一。

然而更多的感受是那种绝处逢生的畅快感——知道事情总会过去、总会变好，然后等待变好。不得不说这是一种幸运。

“Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.” “每逢你想要批评任何人的时候，”他对我说，“你就记住，这个世界上所有的人，并不是个个都有过你拥有的那些优越条件。”—— 菲茨杰拉德 《了不起的盖茨比》

后记 Epilogue

Fernweh，Sehnsucht nach der Ferne. 对远方的渴望。
词典告诉我Fernweh英语对应的是wanderlust, a strong desire for or impulse to wander or travel and explore the world——想要去游荡旅行探索世界的强烈渴望和冲动。

我已经来了两周了，但是总觉得因为发生了好多事情而有“来了几个月”的感觉。在天黑的Mill Road上走路想要避开潜在的醉汉（然而大多数情况下并没有）的担心，花了天价140镑买了配套锁的自行车，经过别人家历史悠久金碧辉煌宁静精致的学院默默感叹自己为什么被pool到HH（而且还是住在学院外面），国际投资法中那些听不太懂的经济学知识，不同的bar crawl/fresher’s drinks/receptions里面围观谈笑风生往来自如的人们一遍一遍重复同一样的提问和回答，还有课后怎么也整理不完的笔记——是的我都不妄想可以听录音了，有太多太多的时刻让我觉得为什么自己在这里，加上对家人和某人的思念会在闲暇时候从墙角等各个角落蔓延出来，会有点埋怨自己瞎折腾的疼痛。

这才是Fernweh，来自远方的痛楚，不仅仅是渴望去远方的心底瘙痒难耐的疼痛，还是到达了远方之后愿望达成的怅惘若失的隐痛。

然而一切都会变好的。

田鼠
2015年10月18日12:14 于剑桥