投资者—国家争议解决体系下，由作为投资主体的法人提起的精神损害赔偿，已成为国际投资仲裁中的重要组成部分。尽管法理、学说和仲裁实践都支持投资者可以获得精神损害赔偿，然而自2008年Desert Line Project诉也门共和国以后，仲裁庭再也没有支持过投资者类似的索赔申请。在对投资者的索赔持续驳回的过程中，“例外情形”作为在该案中首次提到的概念扮演了重要的角色。然而，“例外情形”标准的出现似乎包含仲裁庭的错误解读，且该标准的内容不仅不同于大多数国家国内法中有关精神损害赔偿制度的现行法理，也与既有的国际法关于赔偿的基本原则有一定的冲突。本文试图通过分析案例、结合法理的方式对“例外情形”标准的合理性提出质疑。

Moral damages under the investor-state dispute settlement system, brought by legal persons who are the subject of the investment, have become an important part of international investment arbitration. Although jurisprudence, doctrine and arbitration practice support the availability of moral damages to investors, no similar claims by investors have been upheld by arbitral tribunals since Desert Line Project v. Republic of Yemen in 2008. The concept of "exceptional circumstances", which was first mentioned in the case, has played an important role in the continued rejection of the investors' claims. However, the emergence of the "exceptional circumstances" criterion appears to contain a misinterpretation by the arbitral tribunal, and the content of the criterion is not only different from the existing jurisprudence of the domestic law of most countries in relation to the moral damages regime, but also conflicts with the basic principles of established international law. This article attempts to question the reasonableness of the "exceptional circumstances" standard by analysing cases.