本文選題：兩岸經(jīng)濟(jì)合作框架協(xié)議 + ECFA��； 參考：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：2010年6月29日,《兩岸經(jīng)濟(jì)合作框架協(xié)議》(簡稱ECFA)正式簽署,其后兩岸雙向投資活動(dòng)頻繁,投資爭端也日益增多。然而,當(dāng)前兩岸尚未形成專門的投資爭端解決機(jī)制,建立投資爭端解決機(jī)制具有現(xiàn)實(shí)緊迫感及必要性。本文共分為三章,首先闡明了海峽兩岸投資爭端的定義、類型及性質(zhì)；其次論述了海峽兩岸當(dāng)前爭端解決模式,并重點(diǎn)分析了可供借鑒的國際投資爭端解決機(jī)制,以此作為構(gòu)建新機(jī)制的參考和借鑒；最后結(jié)合海峽兩岸當(dāng)前特色,分別針對三種不同類型的投資爭端提出構(gòu)建和完善的建議和構(gòu)想。 第一章將首先剖析研究對象,對海峽兩岸投資爭端做整體介紹。本文擬先介紹兩岸投資爭端發(fā)展變化的歷史,界定“兩岸投資爭端”內(nèi)涵和類型。通過分類研究的方法,將兩岸投資爭端分成私人間投資爭端、私人與投資地政府間投資爭端及政府間投資爭端三種爭端類型加以考察。全文將依循此爭端分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn),在三種爭端分類的基礎(chǔ)上分別對各種投資爭端繼續(xù)進(jìn)行深入的分析探討。本章接著將從法理角度對投資爭端的雙重性質(zhì)進(jìn)行分析。第二章將對三種類型的投資爭端進(jìn)行比較法的研究,本章將分別選取國際上典型的爭端解決機(jī)制加以具體分析研究,重點(diǎn)分析各種制度的運(yùn)行模式、優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)及探討可供兩岸投資爭端解決機(jī)制加以借鑒的制度設(shè)計(jì)。對于第一種爭端,本章論述了我國兩岸間投資爭端解決方面的立法及司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀,并提出該制度完善的兩個(gè)路徑與方向。對于第二種爭端,本文將詳細(xì)分析ICSID、NAFTA、EU三種不同模式的相關(guān)規(guī)定,并就三種模式的法律移植問題進(jìn)行分析。對于第三種爭端,本文將介紹WTO及CEPA模式的內(nèi)容,并重點(diǎn)分析對其借鑒的可能性。第三章將結(jié)合兩岸當(dāng)前投資爭端解決方面立法與司法實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀,對兩岸私人間投資爭端解決機(jī)制的完善、私人與投資地政府間爭端問題的仲裁機(jī)制的構(gòu)建、政府間投資爭端解決機(jī)制模式的選擇、爭端預(yù)防機(jī)制及解決機(jī)制的構(gòu)建提出自己的建議。 本文的目的,主要是希望能夠在對海峽兩岸投資爭端解決機(jī)制現(xiàn)狀基礎(chǔ)做全面深入的評估的基礎(chǔ)上,吸收國內(nèi)外實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn),提出構(gòu)建和善兩岸投資爭端解決機(jī)制的建議。
[Abstract]:On June 29, 2010, the Framework Agreement on Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation (ECFAA) was formally signed. After that, the two-way investment activities between the two sides of the strait were frequent and investment disputes were increasing day by day. However, at present, there is no special investment dispute settlement mechanism between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and it is urgent and necessary to set up an investment dispute settlement mechanism. This paper is divided into three chapters. Firstly, it clarifies the definition, types and nature of cross-strait investment disputes, and then discusses the current dispute settlement model of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and focuses on the analysis of the international investment dispute settlement mechanism that can be used for reference. Finally, combining with the current characteristics of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, the author puts forward some suggestions and ideas for the construction and perfection of three different types of investment disputes. The first chapter will analyze the research object and introduce the investment dispute between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This paper first introduces the history of the development and changes of cross-strait investment disputes, and defines the connotation and types of cross-strait investment disputes. In this paper, the investment disputes between Taiwan and Taiwan are divided into three types: private investment disputes, private investment disputes and intergovernmental investment disputes. Based on the classification of three kinds of disputes, this paper will continue to analyze and discuss the investment disputes in depth. This chapter will then analyze the dual nature of investment disputes from the perspective of legal theory. The second chapter will carry on the comparative research to three kinds of investment disputes, this chapter will select the international typical dispute settlement mechanism separately to carry on the concrete analysis research, emphatically analyzes each kind of system movement pattern, The advantages and disadvantages and the system design which can be used for reference by the investment dispute settlement mechanism of both sides of the strait are discussed. For the first kind of dispute, this chapter discusses the current situation of legislation and judicial practice in the settlement of investment disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and puts forward two ways and directions for the perfection of the system. For the second kind of dispute, this paper will analyze the relevant provisions of three different models of ICSIDN NAFTAEU in detail, and analyze the legal transplantation of the three models. For the third kind of dispute, this paper will introduce the content of WTO and CEPA mode, and analyze the possibility of using for reference. The third chapter will combine the current situation of legislation and judicial practice in the settlement of investment disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, perfect the settlement mechanism of the private investment disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and construct the arbitration mechanism of the disputes between the private and the local governments. The choice of intergovernmental investment dispute settlement mechanism, the construction of dispute prevention mechanism and settlement mechanism are put forward. The purpose of this paper is to make a comprehensive and in-depth evaluation of the present situation of the investment dispute settlement mechanism between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, absorb the domestic and foreign practical experience, and put forward some suggestions for the establishment of a friendly settlement mechanism for investment disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1;D922.29

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 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

2 陳力;;海峽兩岸投資爭議解決機(jī)制之構(gòu)建與完善[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2011年06期

3 張相君;;海峽兩岸民商事交往法律適用的實(shí)體法路徑研究[J];福建法學(xué);2010年04期

4 李燕芳;;海峽兩岸民商事區(qū)際司法協(xié)助若干法律問題探討[J];福建廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

5 肖平;曾麗凌;;論《海峽兩岸經(jīng)濟(jì)合作框架協(xié)議》之法律性質(zhì)與效果[J];海峽法學(xué);2011年01期

6 梁開銀;;論ICSID與WTO爭端解決機(jī)制的沖突及選擇——以國家和私人投資爭議解決為視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年08期

7 徐崇利;;晚近國際投資爭端解決實(shí)踐之評判:“全球治理”理論的引入[J];法學(xué)家;2010年03期

8 鮑薇;;國際投資爭端解決機(jī)制與WTO爭端解決機(jī)制[J];法制與社會;2010年01期

9 曾嘯;;國際投資爭端解決機(jī)制的缺陷及完善[J];法制與社會;2010年14期

10 陳融;;ECFA的后續(xù)篇章——大陸關(guān)于臺胞投資權(quán)益保護(hù)法制的成就與完善[J];法治研究;2011年01期

，

本文編號：1911530