本文關(guān)鍵詞： 國際投資 文化遺產(chǎn)保護 征收措施 補償標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 仲裁模式　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：國際投資法關(guān)注東道國文化遺產(chǎn)保護方面，缺少法律規(guī)制。當(dāng)外來投資對文化遺產(chǎn)造成威脅甚至損害時，東道國政府往往通過國內(nèi)法或行政手段加以應(yīng)對。投資者常常認(rèn)為東道國的行為有悖于投資協(xié)議的宗旨，以構(gòu)成征收而訴諸仲裁庭予以解決。在過去的仲裁裁決中，仲裁庭對文化遺產(chǎn)保護表示關(guān)注，確認(rèn)了東道國對文化遺產(chǎn)保護而采取的征收手段，但也認(rèn)為此類征收不能排除補償責(zé)任，由此引發(fā)了國際投資法中關(guān)于文化遺產(chǎn)保護的法律問題。在認(rèn)定征收的過程中，仲裁庭所采用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并不統(tǒng)一，出現(xiàn)了兼采目的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和純粹效果標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的雙重認(rèn)定；除此之外還采用了其他方式進行綜合判定。而在評判補償責(zé)任時，仲裁庭傾向于主要采用公平補償責(zé)任，但又顯示出一定的靈活性�！巴顿Y者—東道國仲裁”作為解決爭端的模式，必然會涉及到文化遺產(chǎn)保護的法律糾紛解決。該仲裁吸收了典型國際商事仲裁的優(yōu)點，但也具有自身的特點。該爭端解決方式對關(guān)于如何維護東道國文化遺產(chǎn)保護以及投資者的權(quán)益所引發(fā)的法律問題引起學(xué)界的廣泛探討。仲裁案件的實踐表明文化遺產(chǎn)保護的問題需要多個角度來加以解決和克服。 中國既是國際投資的東道國，也是資本輸出大國，同時又作為文化遺產(chǎn)保護大國的特殊身份，解決國際投資與文化遺產(chǎn)保護之間的沖突對中國具有重要的理論價值與實踐意義。國內(nèi)現(xiàn)有的對文化遺產(chǎn)保護的相關(guān)法律研究少有涉及國際投資法領(lǐng)域，對最近30年頻發(fā)的東道國與外來投資者因文化遺產(chǎn)保護所產(chǎn)生的爭端問題幾乎沒有涉及。國內(nèi)現(xiàn)有研究大都從理論出發(fā)，缺乏從實證角度加以研究。 本文第一部分對文化遺產(chǎn)保護的國內(nèi)外文獻進行梳理。本文第二部分簡要指出文化遺產(chǎn)保護的法律癥結(jié)。主要研究了在外來投資影響本國文化遺產(chǎn)保護時，本國政府是否可以根據(jù)國際公約以保護文化遺產(chǎn)之名進行征收、征收如何認(rèn)定、國家補償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)如何確定及爭端解決模式等問題。本文的第三部分對該類糾紛的主要典型案例進行實證分析。第四部分根據(jù)上述研究，針對我國現(xiàn)行法律中關(guān)于文化遺產(chǎn)保護存在的問題，，有針對性地提出了法律完善對策和建議。
[Abstract]:International investment law pays attention to the protection of cultural heritage of host country, and lacks legal regulation. When foreign investment threatens or even damages cultural heritage, The host Government often responds through domestic law or administrative means... investors often consider that the conduct of the host country is contrary to the purpose of the investment agreement and resort to the arbitral tribunal for settlement in order to constitute expropriation... in past arbitral awards, Expressing its concern about the protection of cultural heritage, recognizing the means of expropriation adopted by the host country for the protection of cultural heritage, but also considering that such expropriation does not exclude liability for compensation, This leads to the legal problems of cultural heritage protection in the international investment law. In the process of determining the expropriation, the standard adopted by the arbitral tribunal is not uniform, and the double recognition of both the purpose standard and the pure effect standard appears; In addition, other methods are used for comprehensive judgment. In judging the liability for compensation, the arbitral tribunal tends to mainly adopt the fair liability for compensation. "Investor-host country arbitration", as a mode of dispute settlement, is bound to involve the settlement of legal disputes involving the protection of cultural heritage. This arbitration absorbs the advantages of typical international commercial arbitration, However, it also has its own characteristics. The dispute settlement method has caused extensive discussion on the legal issues arising from the protection of the cultural heritage of the host country and the rights and interests of investors. The practice of arbitration cases shows culture. The problem of heritage protection needs to be solved and overcome from several angles. China is not only the host country of international investment, but also the capital exporting country. At the same time, it is also a special status as a great country of cultural heritage protection. Resolving the conflict between international investment and cultural heritage protection is of great theoretical and practical significance to China. The disputes between the host country and foreign investors caused by the protection of cultural heritage in the last 30 years have hardly been involved. Most of the existing studies in China are based on theory and lack of empirical research. The first part of this paper reviews the domestic and foreign literature on cultural heritage protection. The second part of this paper briefly points out the legal crux of cultural heritage protection. Whether or not the Government may levy in the name of the protection of cultural heritage in accordance with international conventions, and how the expropriation is to be determined, The third part of this paper makes an empirical analysis of the main typical cases of this kind of disputes. Part 4th according to the above research, Aiming at the problems existing in the protection of cultural heritage in the current law of our country, this paper puts forward some countermeasures and suggestions for the perfection of the law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.4

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 呂志祥;;中國境內(nèi)世界遺產(chǎn)的保護現(xiàn)狀及法律對策[J];安徽商貿(mào)職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2006年03期

2 陳耀華,趙星爍;中國世界遺產(chǎn)保護與利用研究[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(自然科學(xué)版);2003年04期

3 娜仁圖雅;;內(nèi)蒙古科爾沁非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)法律保護的模式研究[J];東北亞論壇;2011年06期

4 齊愛民;;非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)系列研究(三) 非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)綜合保護[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年06期

5 曹新明;;非物質(zhì)文化遺產(chǎn)保護模式研究[J];法商研究;2009年02期

6 趙亞娟;張亮;;從“南海一號”事件看我國水下文化遺產(chǎn)保護制度的完善[J];法學(xué);2007年01期

7 李華明;李莉;;制度創(chuàng)新:世界遺產(chǎn)法律保護的新思維[J];廣西民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年06期

8 李華明;世界遺產(chǎn)代際公平探析——對我國世界遺產(chǎn)管理的法律思考[J];湖北民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2004年03期

9 王君玲;;水下文化遺產(chǎn)的管轄權(quán)和所有權(quán)[J];海洋開發(fā)與管理;2007年01期

10 趙亞娟;沉沒的軍艦和其他國家船舶的法律地位——以水下文化遺產(chǎn)保護為視角[J];時代法學(xué);2005年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鄧慧瓊;論外國投資者并購境內(nèi)企業(yè)行政審查程序的完善[D];中央民族大學(xué);2007年

本文編號：1532160