本文選題：國(guó)際投資仲裁 + 透明度　； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著國(guó)際直接投資數(shù)量的飛速增長(zhǎng)和投資市場(chǎng)的日漸活躍,提交至各機(jī)構(gòu)仲裁庭的投資仲裁案件數(shù)量也急劇增加。作為目前解決投資者和東道國(guó)之間基于條約爭(zhēng)端最主要的方式之一,國(guó)際投資仲裁制度的改革動(dòng)向受到廣泛關(guān)注。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái),國(guó)際投資仲裁固守保密性原則,仲裁過(guò)程和結(jié)果無(wú)法曝光在社會(huì)公眾的監(jiān)督之下,使得仲裁裁決結(jié)果的合理性受到質(zhì)疑。為了化解這一"正當(dāng)性危機(jī)",平衡投資者與國(guó)家間的利益,實(shí)現(xiàn)投資仲裁程序法的統(tǒng)一化,國(guó)際投資領(lǐng)域開(kāi)始了一系列的規(guī)則改革,其中透明度相關(guān)規(guī)則的改革成為重點(diǎn)內(nèi)容。提升國(guó)際投資仲裁程序的透明度,在實(shí)體上能夠平衡東道國(guó)政府與私人投資者之間的利益,在程序上加強(qiáng)公眾對(duì)仲裁程序和裁決結(jié)果的監(jiān)督,有效促進(jìn)投資仲裁向更高效、專業(yè)、公正的方向發(fā)展。NAFTA最早將透明度規(guī)則納入其體系,2006年ICSID修改其仲裁規(guī)則時(shí)也加入了透明度條款,并經(jīng)過(guò)了多次修訂。目前透明度改革發(fā)展的最新成果,是UNCITRAL分別于2013年和2014年通過(guò)的《透明度規(guī)則》和《透明度公約》。這兩個(gè)文件的出臺(tái),標(biāo)志著UNCITRAL機(jī)制下透明度規(guī)則體系的基本形成,也表明UNCITRAL走在了國(guó)際投資仲裁領(lǐng)域透明度規(guī)則改革的前列。逐漸推進(jìn)的透明度改革無(wú)疑將會(huì)給中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)帶來(lái)影響和沖擊,作為吸引外資和對(duì)外投資的雙重大國(guó),中國(guó)應(yīng)該時(shí)刻關(guān)注國(guó)際投資領(lǐng)域的新生立法,關(guān)注其他國(guó)家和主要國(guó)際組織在國(guó)際投資領(lǐng)域的最新動(dòng)向,關(guān)注學(xué)術(shù)領(lǐng)域關(guān)于投資仲裁透明度的研究成果,轉(zhuǎn)變現(xiàn)有對(duì)透明度規(guī)則完全排斥的觀念,謹(jǐn)慎考慮國(guó)內(nèi)法治與國(guó)際法大環(huán)境的聯(lián)動(dòng)改革,爭(zhēng)取在未來(lái)的國(guó)際投資活動(dòng)中掌握更大的話語(yǔ)權(quán)和主動(dòng)權(quán)。本文將從透明度規(guī)則的起源和發(fā)展過(guò)程入手,論證其在國(guó)際投資仲裁的立法和各國(guó)政府實(shí)踐中出臺(tái)的必要性,梳理透明度規(guī)則在近幾十年的改革成果,并引出本文的研究重點(diǎn)——以《透明度規(guī)則》和《透明度公約》為主要內(nèi)容的UNCITRAL透明度規(guī)則體系,通過(guò)對(duì)這兩個(gè)文件具體條款的內(nèi)容剖析,進(jìn)一步對(duì)其進(jìn)行價(jià)值分析和比較研究,最后在總結(jié)世界其他各國(guó)對(duì)透明度問(wèn)題態(tài)度和實(shí)踐的基礎(chǔ)上,指明我國(guó)未來(lái)投資仲裁實(shí)踐的發(fā)展方向。
[Abstract]:With the rapid growth of the amount of international direct investment and the increasingly active investment market, the number of investment arbitration cases submitted to the arbitral tribunals of various institutions has also increased sharply. As one of the most important ways to solve the treaty-based disputes between investors and host countries, the reform trend of international investment arbitration system has been paid more and more attention. For a long time, international investment arbitration adheres to the principle of confidentiality, and the arbitration process and results cannot be exposed under the supervision of the public, which makes the reasonableness of the arbitration award questionable. In order to resolve this "legitimacy crisis", balance the interests between investors and countries, and realize the unification of the procedure law of investment arbitration, a series of rules reforms have been initiated in the field of international investment, among which the reform of transparency rules has become the key content. Enhancing the transparency of international investment arbitration procedures, balancing the interests of host governments and private investors physically, enhancing public oversight of arbitration proceedings and the results of awards, and effectively promoting more efficient investment arbitration, Professional and impartial development. NAFTA first incorporated transparency rules into its system. ICSID amended its arbitration rules in 2006 by adding transparency clauses, which have been revised many times. The latest achievements of the transparency reform are the rules on Transparency and the Convention on Transparency adopted by UNCITRAL in 2013 and 2014 respectively. The introduction of these two documents marks the basic formation of the transparency rules system under the UNCITRAL mechanism, and also indicates that UNCITRAL is in the forefront of the transparency rules reform in the field of international investment arbitration. The gradual progress in transparency reform will undoubtedly have an impact on China's economy. As a large country that attracts both foreign investment and foreign investment, China should always pay close attention to the emerging legislation in the field of international investment. Following recent developments in the field of international investment by other countries and major international organizations, as well as the results of research in the academic field on transparency in investment arbitration, and changing existing notions of total exclusion of transparency rules, We should carefully consider the linkage reform between the domestic rule of law and the general environment of international law and strive to have a greater voice and initiative in the future international investment activities. Starting with the origin and development of transparency rules, this paper demonstrates the necessity of its introduction in the legislation of international investment arbitration and the practice of various governments, and combs the reform achievements of transparency rules in recent decades. And leads to the research focus of this paper-the UNCITRAL transparency rules system, which takes the rules on Transparency and the Convention on Transparency as the main content, through the analysis of the contents of the specific articles of these two documents. Finally, on the basis of summarizing the attitude and practice of other countries on transparency, the author points out the development direction of China's investment arbitration practice in the future.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 石現(xiàn)明;;國(guó)際投資仲裁內(nèi)部上訴機(jī)制述評(píng)[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2011年02期

2 陳錦亞 ,曾石艷;論國(guó)際投資仲裁與《華盛頓公約》的關(guān)系[J];國(guó)際商務(wù)研究;1987年03期

3 衣淑玲;;國(guó)際投資仲裁上訴機(jī)制探析[J];甘肅社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年06期

4 林愛(ài)民;;論國(guó)際投資仲裁中的公共利益保護(hù)[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年02期

5 劉筍;;建立國(guó)際投資仲裁的上訴機(jī)制問(wèn)題析評(píng)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2009年05期

6 徐樹(shù);;國(guó)際投資仲裁的第三方出資及其規(guī)制[J];北京仲裁;2013年02期

7 謝寶朝;;投資仲裁上訴機(jī)制不是正當(dāng)性危機(jī)的唯一解藥[J];世界貿(mào)易組織動(dòng)態(tài)與研究;2009年04期

8 黃華;;國(guó)際投資仲裁研究及上訴機(jī)制探討[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年34期

9 鄧婷婷;;國(guó)際投資仲裁中“投資者的期待”原則[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年05期

10 李鳳琴;;論裁量余地原則在國(guó)際投資仲裁中的運(yùn)用[J];天津法學(xué);2012年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 李文青;;公正與公平待遇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在國(guó)際投資仲裁中的應(yīng)用——以CMS v．Argentina案為例[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法卷）[C];2006年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 復(fù)旦大學(xué)法學(xué)院院長(zhǎng) 孫南申;外商投資仲裁中實(shí)體爭(zhēng)議的法律適用問(wèn)題[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉京蓮;阿根廷國(guó)際投資仲裁危機(jī)的法理與實(shí)踐研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 唐凱;國(guó)際投資仲裁中適用《國(guó)家責(zé)任條款草案》的若干問(wèn)題研究[D];中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院;2015年

2 何鵬程;美國(guó)國(guó)際投資定義研究[D];中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院;2014年

3 劉蓓蓓;論國(guó)際投資仲裁的透明度規(guī)則[D];鄭州大學(xué);2015年

4 徐彰;國(guó)際投資仲裁中的投資者合法性期待問(wèn)題[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2014年

5 金鵬遠(yuǎn);國(guó)際投資仲裁中東道國(guó)土著民族人權(quán)保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

6 劉志強(qiáng);《國(guó)際投資仲裁透明度公約》研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2015年

7 陳政;國(guó)際投資仲裁中的“挑選條約”問(wèn)題研究[D];廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué);2015年

8 張林森;國(guó)際投資仲裁中透明度問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

9 楊茜;論國(guó)際投資仲裁中的“條約選購(gòu)”問(wèn)題[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

10 金思言;國(guó)際投資仲裁中公私利益平衡研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1984483