本文選題：國際投資法律體制　切入點(diǎn)：東道國　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：國家負(fù)有尊重、實(shí)現(xiàn)與保護(hù)國民人權(quán)的義務(wù)。已發(fā)生的許多案件表明，當(dāng)因外國投資者的不當(dāng)行為侵害東道國國民人權(quán)時，當(dāng)今自由化傾向顯著的國際投資法律體制不利于東道國人權(quán)義務(wù)的履行。高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的投資保護(hù)義務(wù)極大地限制了東道國為公共福利行使管理的權(quán)利，再加上國際投資仲裁實(shí)踐中普遍存在著過度偏向投資者的傾向，導(dǎo)致東道國陷入無論是否采取措施都將違反人權(quán)義務(wù)的兩難境地。本文在提出東道國在當(dāng)前國際投資法律體制下將面臨人權(quán)保護(hù)困境這一問題的同時，對其產(chǎn)生原因加以分析，并嘗試提出解決這一問題的應(yīng)對措施，包括現(xiàn)有實(shí)踐的介紹、理想模式的設(shè)想、以及解決問題的現(xiàn)實(shí)路徑。最后提出中國在當(dāng)前國際投資法律體制中角色的轉(zhuǎn)變以及該問題上的立場。 吸引外資是一國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展政策的重要組成部分。顯然，外資增長對推動一國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展、促進(jìn)福利水平提升具有重大作用，但同時外國投資者的不當(dāng)行為也往往導(dǎo)致東道國國民基本生活水平以及健康、環(huán)境、發(fā)展等人權(quán)遭受侵害。由于國家負(fù)有尊重、實(shí)現(xiàn)與保護(hù)本國國民人權(quán)的義務(wù)，，當(dāng)其國民人權(quán)遭受侵害時東道國應(yīng)當(dāng)有所作為，即應(yīng)當(dāng)采取必要的規(guī)制措施。然而在國際投資自由化背景下，現(xiàn)行國際投資條約中高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的投資保護(hù)義務(wù)，特別是普遍規(guī)定地投資者—國家仲裁條款極大地限制了東道國為實(shí)現(xiàn)公共福利及保證人權(quán)采取規(guī)制措施的權(quán)利，導(dǎo)致東道國在面對由外國投資造成的人權(quán)侵害時，采取與不采取規(guī)制措施往往在結(jié)果上并無二致，最終都將違反其對國民應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)的人權(quán)義務(wù)，因而說在當(dāng)今國際投資法律體制下東道國陷入人權(quán)保護(hù)的困境。導(dǎo)致此種局面的原因主要可歸納為兩個方面，國際投資條約的高保護(hù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與自由化傾向是困境產(chǎn)生的根本原因，而國際投資仲裁實(shí)踐中偏袒投資者的傾向則是困境產(chǎn)生的直接原因。20世紀(jì)90年代以來，發(fā)達(dá)國家采取各種手段主導(dǎo)國際投資條約向高保護(hù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、自由化方向發(fā)展，在內(nèi)容上強(qiáng)調(diào)對外國投資者的保護(hù)，賦予投資者以廣泛權(quán)利，而對東道國為公共利益采取規(guī)制措施的權(quán)利則賦之闕如。投資條約中模糊的實(shí)體條款、高度自由化的待遇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對于國際投資仲裁的無條件接受等，都為后來被訴于國際投資仲裁庭并承擔(dān)敗訴的后果埋下了伏筆。在國際投資仲裁中，仲裁員慣于采用一般商事仲裁中所強(qiáng)調(diào)的私有財(cái)產(chǎn)神圣不可侵犯的價值取向，其所做的解釋也往往偏向于私人投資者，而甚少考慮東道國公共利益的正當(dāng)性。對于東道國為保護(hù)人權(quán)而采取的規(guī)制措施多數(shù)判定其承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任，直接威脅東道國政府為保護(hù)公共利益，通過創(chuàng)新政策應(yīng)對不斷變化的社會、經(jīng)濟(jì)和環(huán)境條件的能力，令其無法正常履行保護(hù)與實(shí)現(xiàn)本國國民人權(quán)的義務(wù)。 通過以上分析，本文得出了現(xiàn)有國際投資法律體制不利于東道國人權(quán)保護(hù)并且這一困局亟待扭轉(zhuǎn)的結(jié)論，對此本文重點(diǎn)探討了應(yīng)對東道國人權(quán)保護(hù)困境的措施。從解決東道國人權(quán)保護(hù)困境的現(xiàn)實(shí)中已有的實(shí)踐、理想模式與現(xiàn)實(shí)路徑三個方面入手，以期對于解決東道國人權(quán)保護(hù)困境有所助益。文章主要使用了實(shí)證分析方法與跨學(xué)科的分析方法，結(jié)合國際投資條約、國際仲裁機(jī)制與人權(quán)理論，通過對諸多涉及東道國人權(quán)問題的國際投資案例加以分析，從理論到實(shí)踐兩個層面進(jìn)行論證。 當(dāng)前，中國在國際投資中的地位發(fā)生了顯著變化，表現(xiàn)為中國逐漸從主要作為吸引外資的東道國向?qū)ν馔顿Y增長的大國轉(zhuǎn)變，在對外簽訂國際投資協(xié)定時廣泛接受自由化傾向顯著的條款內(nèi)容。然而，跨國公司在華侵犯人權(quán)事件的頻發(fā)，以及普遍接受高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的投資保護(hù)義務(wù)將導(dǎo)致我國面臨人權(quán)困境的現(xiàn)實(shí)對我國提出了警示——必須在經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展、國際投資中角色轉(zhuǎn)換的過程中認(rèn)清我國主要作為發(fā)展中東道國所應(yīng)當(dāng)堅(jiān)持的立場，以及日益作為母國所應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)的責(zé)任，這既是為了保護(hù)國家利益，也是中國作為負(fù)責(zé)任大國的應(yīng)有之義。
[Abstract]:The country has to respect, realize and protect the national human rights obligations. Many cases have demonstrated that due to improper behavior when foreign investors against the host country national human rights, the legal system of international investment liberalization tendency was not conducive to the host country to fulfill human rights obligations. The high standard of investment protection obligations greatly restrict the exercise of management of host country right for the public welfare, coupled with the international investment arbitration practice common tendency to excessive bias towards investors, resulting in the host country regardless of whether the measures will be a violation of human rights obligations two difficult position. In this paper the host country in the current international investment legal system will face the plight of the protection of human rights issues at the same time, the causes of the the analysis, and try to put forward the measures to solve this problem, including the existing practice, the ideal model of the design to, In the end, the change of China's role in the current international investment legal system and the position on this issue are put forward.
To attract foreign investment is an important part of a country's economic development policy. Obviously, growth of foreign investment to promote the economic development of a country, has an important role to promote the welfare level, but at the same time the improper behavior of foreign investors also tend to lead to the host country of the basic living standard and health, environment, development and human rights violations. The state has to respect for. To realize and protect their national human rights obligations, when the human rights of its citizens against the host country should make a difference, namely they shall take the necessary regulatory measures. However, in the background of international investment liberalization, investment protection obligations of high standards of the current international investment treaties, especially the general provisions of state investor arbitration clause has greatly restricted the host country for the realization of public welfare and guarantee human rights to take regulatory measures right, causing the host caused by foreign investment in the face of human rights The violation, take and take regulatory measures often results in the same, will eventually be in violation of its national human rights obligations shall bear, therefore said to fall into the protection of human rights in international investment legal system of the host country. This situation causes difficulties mainly can be divided into two aspects, high standards of protection and liberalization tendency international investment treaties are the fundamental reasons for the dilemma, which tends to favor investors in the international investment arbitration practice is the plight of the causes of the.20 century since 90s, developed countries adopt various means to dominate the international investment treaty standards to high protection, free development, emphasis on protection of foreign investors in the content, giving investors with extensive rights, but not to the host country for the public interest to take regulatory measures right. Fu investment treaty fuzzy entity terms, A high degree of liberalization of the treatment standards for international investment arbitration unconditional acceptance, was later sued in international investment arbitration tribunal and bear the consequences of losing foreshadowed. In the international investment arbitration, the arbitrator used by that general commercial arbitration in the private property of the value orientation of sacred and inviolable. The explanations are often biased in favor of private investors, and seldom consider the legitimacy of the public interest of host country. For the majority of regulatory measures for the protection of human rights and the host to determine its liability, a direct threat to the host government for the protection of public interests, constantly changing through innovation policy to deal with the social, economic and environmental conditions and ability. It can not perform properly to achieve national protection of human rights and obligations.
Through the above analysis, this paper concluded the existing international investment legal system is not conducive to the protection of human rights in the host country and this dilemma to be reversed the conclusion, this paper focuses on the plight of human rights protection measures to deal with the host. It has been solved from the host country of the protection of human rights predicament in reality, three aspects of ideal and realistic path model, in order to the host country to solve the predicament of the protection ofhuman rights help. This article mainly uses the empirical analysis method, analysis method and interdisciplinary, combined with international investment treaties, international arbitration mechanism and human rights theory, through analyzing many human rights issues involving host international investment case, demonstrates two aspects from theory to practice.
At present, significant changes Chinese position in international investment, turn to China gradually from the main to attract foreign investment to the host country as foreign investment growth of the country, widely accepted free tendency terms in a significant sign of international investment agreements. However, the frequent violations of human rights of transnational corporations in China and the event. The generally accepted high standards of investment protection obligations will cause our country facing human rights dilemma this warning must be in the economic development of our country, the process of transformation in international investment in China as the main to the developing countries should adhere to the position, and increasingly as the country should assume the responsibility, this is in order to protect the interests of the state, but also Chinese as inherent responsible power.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(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(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王貴國;;略論晚近國際投資法的幾個特點(diǎn)[J];比較法研究;2010年01期

2 梁詠;;間接征收的研究起點(diǎn)和路徑——投資者權(quán)益與東道國治安權(quán)之衡平[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問題研究;2009年01期

3 張光;;國際投資仲裁中東道國公共利益與投資者財(cái)產(chǎn)利益的平衡[J];朝陽法律評論;2011年01期

4 王彥志;;國際投資爭端解決的法律化:成就與挑戰(zhàn)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2011年03期

5 蔡從燕;;風(fēng)險社會與國際爭端解決機(jī)制的解構(gòu)與重構(gòu)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2008年01期

6 張光;;論國際投資仲裁中投資者利益與公共利益的平衡[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年01期

7 李武健;;國際投資仲裁中的社會利益保護(hù)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年04期

8 梁丹妮;;論國際投資爭端仲裁機(jī)制對東道國公共健康保護(hù)權(quán)力的挑戰(zhàn)[J];湖北社會科學(xué);2006年03期

9 金慧華;國際投資與環(huán)境保護(hù)——從Metalclad公司訴墨西哥政府案想起的[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

10 劉筍;;論國際投資仲裁對國家主權(quán)的挑戰(zhàn)——兼評美國的應(yīng)對之策及其啟示[J];法商研究;2008年03期

本文編號：1659585