國際條約中的征收條款研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-01 09:21
【摘要】：征收條款是投資條約中最為核心的實體條款之一,從國際投資法的發(fā)展歷程來看,保護投資者的最初含義就是保護投資者不受東道國非法征收行為的影響。開始于20世紀90年代的投資自由化態(tài)勢是以大量雙邊投資協(xié)定和一些重要的區(qū)域投資協(xié)定的生效為標志和結果的,其中幾乎“模板化”的征收條款的存在已經(jīng)確立了東道國征收外國人財產(chǎn)必須支付補償?shù)脑瓌t,而一度被視為最敏感、最富爭議的補償標準問題也已經(jīng)有了明確和一致的答案。一直以來,外資征收的構成及其在國際法上的認定始終是一個比較明確的問題,然而近年來伴隨著征收概念的激進擴張,這個問題的答案再度變得模糊起來�，F(xiàn)代投資條約在征收條款中將征收界定為三種形式,即“直接征收”、“間接征收”以及“任何與征收等同或類似的行為”,盡管在理論與實踐中都有觀點認為這所謂“等同與類似征收行為”的措詞并沒有真正創(chuàng)造出第三種形式的征收,然而“間接征收”和“類似征收”的存在有效擴張了“征收”這一用語的含義,成為外國投資者借以向東道國提起補償之訴的首選依據(jù)。當前國際法中有關間接征收的申訴越來越被視為是對東道國政府對外資實施管制權力的一種威脅,而實踐中對這些爭議并不一致的處理方法對外國投資者和東道國而言都意味著相當?shù)牟淮_定性,如若不能真正解決投資者財產(chǎn)權利和東道國管制權力之間的平衡,將無疑會對征收條款在未來的適用和發(fā)展造成危機。 本文首先對征收以及外資征收的含義及其法律依據(jù)進行了分析,結合國際投資條約及其他國際法文件中征收條款的規(guī)定,對征收條款的內容、歷史發(fā)展、要件以及投資仲裁機構和司法機構有關征收的爭議解決實踐進行了梳理;之后文章重點對間接征收的含義、分類以及在理論和實踐中的認定規(guī)則進行了分析,在此基礎之上,文章對當前征收條款在國際條約中適用所存在的問題進行了總結和評述,并對其未來可能的發(fā)展趨勢進行了預測;文章最后對我國簽訂條約中的征收條款及其未來適用應當注意的問題提出了相應的建議。全文分為七章,共計約20萬字。 第一章對外資征收的基本概念進行了分析。作為政府獲取或改變私人財產(chǎn)權利的公權力,征收的概念同征用以及國有化的概念在內涵與外延方面存在著一定程度的差異,本文更傾向于適用具有“中性”色彩的征收一詞。征收的概念最早來源于格老秀斯提出的“國家征收權(eminent domain)”的概念,盡管有關征收的理論依據(jù)存在多種學說,但其中“財產(chǎn)權社會化”的理念最為恰當?shù)亟忉屃苏魇盏脑?從而在財產(chǎn)權制度相對完備的幾個國家開始建立國內法的征收制度。當征收財產(chǎn)涉及到外國人的投資時,征收制度開始同國際法有所交叉,征收條款在國際條約中確立的過程也是東道國保護外國投資者責任形成的過程。國際條約并未對外資征收下一個明確的定義,但普遍規(guī)定了征收的四個要件,而投資的定義雖不屬于征收條款中的內容,但卻是征收條款適用的基礎,因此本文對投資的定義、范圍及其日漸擴張的趨勢也作了相應的分析和解釋。 第二章對當前國際條約及其他法律文件中規(guī)定的征收條款進行了總結和梳理�；谡魇罩贫鹊闹匾砸约皩Πl(fā)展中國家外資征收權力的確認,征收條款出現(xiàn)在包括聯(lián)大決議和宣言在內的國際法文件當中,這些法律文件就補償?shù)臉藴蕟栴}在發(fā)達國家和發(fā)展中國家之間進行了成功的妥協(xié),堅持適當?shù)难a償原則,但最終發(fā)展中國家因為引資的現(xiàn)實考慮逐漸退出了統(tǒng)一的陣營。而發(fā)達國家亦從未放棄制定給予外國投資者更高標準的多邊投資條約的努力,卻最終因為無法平衡東道國和投資者的利益而以失敗告終。以NAFTA為代表的區(qū)域協(xié)定的成功運作以及BITs、RTAs的迅速推廣,令絕大多數(shù)的東道國接受了“赫爾公式”和“間接征收”的存在。而依據(jù)這些投資條約和法律文件所建立的投資仲裁和司法機構在實踐中也形成了有關征收認定的數(shù)量眾多的案例群,本文也對此進行了綜述和梳理,包括伊美求償仲裁庭、ICSID、NAFTA、ECT、ECHR等機構對外資征收的認定實踐。 第三章對國際條約中征收條款的要件進行了解讀。盡管征收四要件的存在已經(jīng)為大部分的投資條約所確認,但卻鮮有對每一個要件的具體釋義以及在實踐中理解和適用的相關論述。公共利益是外資征收的目的要件,也是一個不易界定的彈性術語,針對該項要件所提出的質疑在國際投資仲裁的實踐中鮮有成功,在認定時往往需要同歧視性等要件結合起來考量;遵循正當程序是征收的程序要件,這一原本屬于國內法中的行政原則,其含義在國際法上并沒有統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,內容也并不確定,因此征收所必須遵循的所謂正當程序還應當是實行征收的國家的國內法規(guī)定的法律程序;非歧視原則是征收的實施要件,其在整個四要件當中的重要性正日益突顯出來,不但已經(jīng)成為判斷公共利益要件的輔助標準,且因為內容相對確定已經(jīng)成為投資者和仲裁庭在提起和認定征收時首選的“突破口”;“赫爾原則”已經(jīng)成為國際條約中泛化的征收補償標準,但對于何為“充分”、“及時”、“有效”,特別是如何適用“公平市場價值”來計算征收補償?shù)臄?shù)額卻并沒有明確的規(guī)定和實踐,本文對此進行了較為深入的探討。 第四章著重探討的是間接征收在國際條約中的規(guī)定及其實踐。間接征收認定的核心在于東道國所采取的措施是否在效果上剝奪了投資者對其投資的使用和利益,但幾乎所有的投資條約都沒有對間接征收的定義和認定規(guī)則有細化的界定,直到以美國2004年BIT范本為代表的法律文件確立了對間接征收“依據(jù)事實、逐案分析”的處理規(guī)則。圍繞間接征收的認定,在理論和實踐中形成了“單一效果標準”,“單一目的標準”以及“兼采效果與目的的標準”之爭,后者在實踐中雖然獲得了主導性的支持,但其具體適用的國際法標準尚未成型�！靶Q食性征收”和“管制性征收”經(jīng)常被視為間接征收的同義詞,然而兩者定義的側重點是不同的,前者強調政府征收不易被辨認和緩慢榨取投資者利益的特征,后者則特指原屬東道國警察權范圍內的特定措施亦可能會產(chǎn)生相當于征收的效果;“蠶食性征收”的認定需要在事后采取追溯的辦法才能確定,而“管制性征收”的認定和補償最終還是公共利益所造成的經(jīng)濟負擔的分擔問題,仲裁庭在逐案分析的基礎上應當遵循效率和公平的原則,尋求私人投資者和東道國利益之間的平衡。 第五章就需要補償?shù)拈g接征收與無須補償?shù)恼侠砉苤菩袨橹g進行了區(qū)分,兩者之間的界限劃分不但決定了不同的補償結果,亦決定了東道國政府可以在多大程度上管理經(jīng)濟或社會事務以及投資者應當在多大程度上承擔自身的投資風險。對私人財產(chǎn)權保護的程度是對兩者進行區(qū)分的核心理念,而實施的“合理性”和“非歧視性”以及“對投資的干涉程度”則是區(qū)分兩者的具體認定標準。新締結的BITs和FTAs對間接征收采取了“排除式”的規(guī)定,指明除非在極特殊的情況下,東道國為了保護合法的公共福利目標所制定或實施的非歧視的管制性行為不構成間接征收,而這些被排除的措施普遍應包括維護公共秩序和道德、環(huán)境和健康以及東道國征稅的權力,東道國對這些措施的合理實施本應遠離間接征收申訴的煩擾,但是對投資者保護過于激進的NAFTA仲裁實踐卻一度成為東道國的夢魘,也對投資者執(zhí)行管制政策的意愿和能力造成了“寒蟬效應”。對于東道國環(huán)境管制和征收行為之間的區(qū)分需要結合環(huán)境權的特征以及環(huán)境法中特有的原則來進行考量,而不能一概以管制的結果論處;而東道國的征稅只有帶有歧視性、任意性或報復性,從而構成“沒收性征稅”的情況下才有可能會轉變?yōu)檎魇招袨?但現(xiàn)代投資條約顯然意在維護視為政府“生命線”的征稅權力,在實踐中獲得成功的申訴案例幾乎沒有。 第六章對當前征收條款在國際條約中的適用現(xiàn)狀進行了總結和評析,并對該條款的未來發(fā)展趨勢做出了一定的預測。歷經(jīng)了上個世紀80、90年代的沉寂,伴隨新世紀拉美能源國有化的實踐和08年金融危機背景下的“新型國有化”的實施,對直接征收條款的適用再度復蘇和啟動;而針對間接征收的爭議日益突顯,則說明無論是發(fā)達國家還是發(fā)展中國家都開始對一貫奉行的單純追求經(jīng)濟增長率的做法進行反思,如何實現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟的可持續(xù)性發(fā)展和社會的整體協(xié)調發(fā)展已成為它們引導和利用外資的新價值觀。因此近幾年有關間接征收的條約規(guī)定日漸明確,而仲裁庭在實踐中過于激進的做法也逐漸呈現(xiàn)出回歸的態(tài)勢。當前對征收條款的理解和適用過于依賴投資仲裁庭在實踐中的解釋,它們不但沒有形成明確而一致的觀點和結論,并且本身也不具有“先例”的作用,對解決征收條款規(guī)定模糊化的問題作用不大�？梢灶A見的是如何平衡私人財產(chǎn)權利和社會公共利益仍將是征收條款適用的核心問題,而維護社會福利最大化的理念將在未來逐漸影響各國和仲裁庭對間接征收認定的態(tài)度;鑒于征收條款規(guī)定的模糊性以及敏感性,仲裁庭將更傾向于適用“公平公正待遇”等條款來替代征收條款;征收條款的適用,特別是管制性征收的存在可能會加劇東道國所負有的保護外國投資的義務同保護環(huán)境、人類資源和自然遺產(chǎn)以及保護人權等方面的條約義務之間的沖突,將這些與投資相關的實體規(guī)則逐漸融入投資條約的規(guī)定當中或許將是一種有益的嘗試。 第七章著重對我國簽訂的投資條約中的征收條款進行了專題研究。首先,文章對我國目前已經(jīng)簽訂的多達130個雙邊投資協(xié)定和其他國際條約中出現(xiàn)的征收條款進行了梳理,并且分析了這些條款所存在的問題;其次,考慮到我國已經(jīng)兼具資本輸入國和資本輸出國的雙重身份,文章分別就我國可能遭遇的征收申訴風險和我國的海外投資者可能遇到的征收風險,結合實踐進行了分析,特別是對實踐中已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)的我國作為東道國被申訴以及我國投資者利用雙邊投資協(xié)定針對外國東道國提起申訴的相關案例進行了詳細的分析。最后,文章對完善我國簽訂條約中的征收條款的規(guī)定及其適用提出了建議。
[Abstract]:The expropriation clause is one of the most important entity clauses in the investment treaties. From the development of international investment law, the initial meaning of protecting the investor is to protect the investor from the influence of the illegal expropriation of the host country. The liberalization of investment in 1990s was based on a large number of bilateral investment agreements and some important areas. The entry into force of the domain investment agreement is the mark and the result, in which the existence of almost "template" expropriation clause has established the principle that the host country must pay compensation for the expropriation of foreigners' property, and once regarded as the most sensitive and the most controversial question of compensation standard. In recent years, with the radical expansion of the concept of expropriation, the answer to this question has become blurred. The expropriation clause of the modern investment treaty is defined as three forms, namely, "direct collection", "indirect expropriation", and "any expropriation." Although there are views in theory and practice that the wording of the so-called "equivalent and similar expropriation" does not truly create third forms of expropriation, the existence of "indirect expropriation" and "similar expropriation" effectively expands the meaning of the term "levy" and becomes a foreign investment. In the current international law, indirect expropriation is increasingly regarded as a threat to the control of foreign investment by the host government, and the practice of dealing with these disagreements in practice means quite inaccurate for both foreign investors and the host country. Qualitatively, if the balance between the property rights of investors and the control power of the host country can not be truly solved, it will undoubtedly cause the crisis of the application and development of the expropriation clause in the future.
This article first analyzes the meaning and legal basis of expropriation and foreign capital expropriation, and combines the provisions of the international investment treaties and other international law documents, and combs the contents, historical development, elements of the expropriation clause and the dispute settlement practice of the investment arbitral institutions and the judicial institutions. The emphasis is on the meaning of indirect expropriation, classification and the analysis of the rules of identification in theory and practice. On this basis, the article summarizes and commented on the problems existing in the application of current expropriation clauses in international treaties, and forecasts the possible future trend of its development; the article finally signed the treaty in China. The article puts forward corresponding suggestions for the collection clause and its future application. The full text is divided into seven chapters, totaling about 20 words.
The first chapter analyzes the basic concept of foreign capital expropriation. As a public authority to obtain or change the rights of private property, the concept of expropriation has a certain degree of difference between the connotation and extension of the concept of expropriation and nationalization. This article is more inclined to apply the word "neutral". The most important concept of expropriation is the concept of "neutral". Early came from the concept of "eminent domain", which was put forward by grace. Although there are many theories on the theoretical basis of expropriation, the idea of "socialization of property rights" is the most appropriate explanation of the reason for the expropriation, and the collection system of domestic law has been set up in several countries with relatively complete property right system. When the expropriation of property involves the investment of foreigners, the system of expropriation begins to cross with international law. The process of establishing the expropriation clause in the international treaty is also the process of the formation of the responsibility of the host country to protect foreign investors. The international treaty does not impose a clear definition on foreign investment, but it generally stipulates the four requisites of the expropriation. Although the definition of investment does not belong to the contents of the expropriation clause, it is the basis for the application of the expropriation clause. Therefore, the definition, scope and increasing trend of the investment are also analyzed and explained in this paper.
The second chapter summarizes and combs the expropriation provisions stipulated in the current international treaties and other legal documents. Based on the importance of the expropriation system and the confirmation of the power to expropriate the foreign capital of the developing countries, the expropriation clause appears in the international legal articles including the General Assembly resolutions and declarations, and these legal documents are the standard of compensation. The problem is a successful compromise between the developed and developing countries and the principle of appropriate compensation, but in the end the developing countries have gradually withdrawn from the unified camp because of the realistic consideration of the investment, and the developed countries have never abandoned the efforts to formulate a multilateral investment treaty to give higher standards to foreign investors. The law ended with failure to balance the interests of the host country and the investor. The successful operation of the regional agreements represented by the NAFTA and the rapid promotion of BITs and RTAs have made the vast majority of the host countries accept the existence of the "Hull formula" and "indirect expropriation", and the investment arbitration and judicial machine established on the basis of these investment treaties and legal documents. In practice, a large number of case groups have been formed. This paper also reviews and combs them, including the implementation of the imposition of foreign capital by the Iraq arbitration tribunal, ICSID, NAFTA, ECT, ECHR and other institutions.
The third chapter explains the requirements of the expropriation clause in international treaties. Although the existence of the four requisites has been confirmed by most of the investment treaties, there are few specific explanations for each of the requirements and the relevant exposition of the understanding and application in practice. The public interest is the objective element of the expropriation of foreign capital and is not easily defined. In terms of the elastic terms, the question raised in view of this element is rarely successful in the practice of international investment arbitration. It often needs to be combined with discriminatory elements in the determination. Following the due process is the procedural requisites of expropriation, which is originally an administrative original in the domestic law and its meaning is not unified in international law. The content is not determined, so the so-called due process which must be followed should also be the legal procedure stipulated by the domestic law of the state that is expropriated; the principle of non discrimination is the requisition of the expropriation, and its importance in the whole four elements is becoming increasingly prominent, and not only has become an auxiliary standard for judging the elements of public interest, And because the relative content of the content has become the first "breakthrough" of the investor and the arbitral tribunal, the "Hull principle" has become a general levy compensation standard in the international treaties. But what is "sufficient", "timely", "effective", especially how to apply "fair market value" to calculate and collect The amount of compensation is not clearly stipulated and practice, this article has carried on the thorough discussion to this.
The fourth chapter focuses on the stipulation and practice of indirect expropriation in international treaties. The core of indirect expropriation is whether the measures taken by the host country deprive the investors of the use and benefit of their investment, but almost all the investment treaties have no detailed bounds on the definition and the rules of the recognition. According to the legal documents represented by the BIT model of the United States in 2004, the rules for the indirect collection of "according to facts, case by case analysis" are established. In the theory and practice, the "single effect standard", "single goal standard" and "standard for both effect and purpose" are formed in theory and practice. Although it has gained dominant support, the specific applicable international law standards have not yet been formed. "Expropriation" and "controlled expropriation" are often regarded as synonyms of indirect expropriation. However, the emphasis of the two definitions is different. The former emphasizes that the government is not easily identified and slowly squeezed the interests of investors. A particular measure within the scope of the police power of the host country is also likely to be equivalent to the effect of the expropriation; the affirmation of "expropriation" needs to be traced back after the event, and the identification and compensation of "controlled expropriation" is ultimately the share of the economic burden caused by the public interest, the arbitral tribunal On the basis of case analysis, we should follow the principle of efficiency and fairness and seek the balance between private investors and host countries' interests.
The fifth chapter makes a distinction between the indirect collection of compensation and the reasonable regulation of the government without compensation. The dividing line between them determines not only the different results of compensation, but also the extent to which the host government can manage economic or social affairs and how much the investor should take on its own. The degree of protection of private property rights is the core concept of the distinction between the two, while the "rationality" and "non discrimination" and "the degree of interference in investment" are the specific criteria to distinguish between the two. The newly concluded BITs and FTAs have taken the "exclusionary" Regulations for the indirect expropriation, indicating that unless they are In exceptional circumstances, non discriminatory regulatory acts made or implemented by the host country in order to protect the legitimate public welfare objectives are not indirectly imposed, and these excluded measures should generally include the maintenance of public order and morality, the environment and health, and the power of the host country to levy taxes, and the host country's reasonable implementation of these measures. It should be far from the annoyance of indirect expropriation, but the NAFTA arbitration practice, which is too radical for the investor protection, has been a nightmare of the host country and the "cold cicada effect" on the willingness and ability of the investors to carry out the control policy. The special principles of the environmental law are considered, but not all the results of the control; and the host country's tax is only discriminatory, arbitrary, or retaliatory, and thus constitutes a "confiscated tax" which may be transformed into a collection act, but the modern investment treaty is clearly intended to maintain the "lifeline" of the government. There are few cases where tax power has been successful in practice.
The sixth chapter summarizes and evaluates the current situation of the application of the current expropriation clause in international treaties, and makes a certain prediction on the future development trend of the article. It has gone through the silence of the 80,90 years of the last century, the practice of the nationalization of energy in Latin America in the new century and the implementation of the "new nationalization" under the background of the 08 year financial crisis. The application of the direct expropriation clause is revived and started again, while the increasingly prominent issue of indirect expropriation shows that both developed and developing countries have begun to reflect on the practice of pursuing economic growth rate simply pursued, how to achieve sustainable economic development and the overall coordinated development of society. To guide and utilize the new values of foreign investment for them, the provisions of the treaties on indirect expropriation have become increasingly clear in recent years, and the overly radical practice of the arbitral tribunal has gradually presented a trend of return. The understanding and application of the current terms of the expropriation are too dependent on the interpretation of the investment arbitral tribunal in practice. They have not been formed. Clear and consistent views and conclusions, and they do not have the role of "precedent", have little effect on solving the fuzzification of the provisions of the expropriation clause. It is foreseeable how to balance private property rights and social public interests as the core issue of the application of the expropriation clause, and the idea of maintaining the maximization of social welfare will be in the absence of the idea. To gradually affect the attitude of countries and arbitral tribunals to indirect expropriation; in view of the ambiguity and sensitivity stipulated in the expropriation clause, the tribunal will be more inclined to apply the terms "fair and fair treatment" to replace the expropriation clause; the application of the clause, especially the existence of controlled expropriation, may aggravate the protection of the host country. The obligation of foreign investment and the protection of the environment, human beings
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.4
本文編號：2157116
[Abstract]:The expropriation clause is one of the most important entity clauses in the investment treaties. From the development of international investment law, the initial meaning of protecting the investor is to protect the investor from the influence of the illegal expropriation of the host country. The liberalization of investment in 1990s was based on a large number of bilateral investment agreements and some important areas. The entry into force of the domain investment agreement is the mark and the result, in which the existence of almost "template" expropriation clause has established the principle that the host country must pay compensation for the expropriation of foreigners' property, and once regarded as the most sensitive and the most controversial question of compensation standard. In recent years, with the radical expansion of the concept of expropriation, the answer to this question has become blurred. The expropriation clause of the modern investment treaty is defined as three forms, namely, "direct collection", "indirect expropriation", and "any expropriation." Although there are views in theory and practice that the wording of the so-called "equivalent and similar expropriation" does not truly create third forms of expropriation, the existence of "indirect expropriation" and "similar expropriation" effectively expands the meaning of the term "levy" and becomes a foreign investment. In the current international law, indirect expropriation is increasingly regarded as a threat to the control of foreign investment by the host government, and the practice of dealing with these disagreements in practice means quite inaccurate for both foreign investors and the host country. Qualitatively, if the balance between the property rights of investors and the control power of the host country can not be truly solved, it will undoubtedly cause the crisis of the application and development of the expropriation clause in the future.
This article first analyzes the meaning and legal basis of expropriation and foreign capital expropriation, and combines the provisions of the international investment treaties and other international law documents, and combs the contents, historical development, elements of the expropriation clause and the dispute settlement practice of the investment arbitral institutions and the judicial institutions. The emphasis is on the meaning of indirect expropriation, classification and the analysis of the rules of identification in theory and practice. On this basis, the article summarizes and commented on the problems existing in the application of current expropriation clauses in international treaties, and forecasts the possible future trend of its development; the article finally signed the treaty in China. The article puts forward corresponding suggestions for the collection clause and its future application. The full text is divided into seven chapters, totaling about 20 words.
The first chapter analyzes the basic concept of foreign capital expropriation. As a public authority to obtain or change the rights of private property, the concept of expropriation has a certain degree of difference between the connotation and extension of the concept of expropriation and nationalization. This article is more inclined to apply the word "neutral". The most important concept of expropriation is the concept of "neutral". Early came from the concept of "eminent domain", which was put forward by grace. Although there are many theories on the theoretical basis of expropriation, the idea of "socialization of property rights" is the most appropriate explanation of the reason for the expropriation, and the collection system of domestic law has been set up in several countries with relatively complete property right system. When the expropriation of property involves the investment of foreigners, the system of expropriation begins to cross with international law. The process of establishing the expropriation clause in the international treaty is also the process of the formation of the responsibility of the host country to protect foreign investors. The international treaty does not impose a clear definition on foreign investment, but it generally stipulates the four requisites of the expropriation. Although the definition of investment does not belong to the contents of the expropriation clause, it is the basis for the application of the expropriation clause. Therefore, the definition, scope and increasing trend of the investment are also analyzed and explained in this paper.
The second chapter summarizes and combs the expropriation provisions stipulated in the current international treaties and other legal documents. Based on the importance of the expropriation system and the confirmation of the power to expropriate the foreign capital of the developing countries, the expropriation clause appears in the international legal articles including the General Assembly resolutions and declarations, and these legal documents are the standard of compensation. The problem is a successful compromise between the developed and developing countries and the principle of appropriate compensation, but in the end the developing countries have gradually withdrawn from the unified camp because of the realistic consideration of the investment, and the developed countries have never abandoned the efforts to formulate a multilateral investment treaty to give higher standards to foreign investors. The law ended with failure to balance the interests of the host country and the investor. The successful operation of the regional agreements represented by the NAFTA and the rapid promotion of BITs and RTAs have made the vast majority of the host countries accept the existence of the "Hull formula" and "indirect expropriation", and the investment arbitration and judicial machine established on the basis of these investment treaties and legal documents. In practice, a large number of case groups have been formed. This paper also reviews and combs them, including the implementation of the imposition of foreign capital by the Iraq arbitration tribunal, ICSID, NAFTA, ECT, ECHR and other institutions.
The third chapter explains the requirements of the expropriation clause in international treaties. Although the existence of the four requisites has been confirmed by most of the investment treaties, there are few specific explanations for each of the requirements and the relevant exposition of the understanding and application in practice. The public interest is the objective element of the expropriation of foreign capital and is not easily defined. In terms of the elastic terms, the question raised in view of this element is rarely successful in the practice of international investment arbitration. It often needs to be combined with discriminatory elements in the determination. Following the due process is the procedural requisites of expropriation, which is originally an administrative original in the domestic law and its meaning is not unified in international law. The content is not determined, so the so-called due process which must be followed should also be the legal procedure stipulated by the domestic law of the state that is expropriated; the principle of non discrimination is the requisition of the expropriation, and its importance in the whole four elements is becoming increasingly prominent, and not only has become an auxiliary standard for judging the elements of public interest, And because the relative content of the content has become the first "breakthrough" of the investor and the arbitral tribunal, the "Hull principle" has become a general levy compensation standard in the international treaties. But what is "sufficient", "timely", "effective", especially how to apply "fair market value" to calculate and collect The amount of compensation is not clearly stipulated and practice, this article has carried on the thorough discussion to this.
The fourth chapter focuses on the stipulation and practice of indirect expropriation in international treaties. The core of indirect expropriation is whether the measures taken by the host country deprive the investors of the use and benefit of their investment, but almost all the investment treaties have no detailed bounds on the definition and the rules of the recognition. According to the legal documents represented by the BIT model of the United States in 2004, the rules for the indirect collection of "according to facts, case by case analysis" are established. In the theory and practice, the "single effect standard", "single goal standard" and "standard for both effect and purpose" are formed in theory and practice. Although it has gained dominant support, the specific applicable international law standards have not yet been formed. "Expropriation" and "controlled expropriation" are often regarded as synonyms of indirect expropriation. However, the emphasis of the two definitions is different. The former emphasizes that the government is not easily identified and slowly squeezed the interests of investors. A particular measure within the scope of the police power of the host country is also likely to be equivalent to the effect of the expropriation; the affirmation of "expropriation" needs to be traced back after the event, and the identification and compensation of "controlled expropriation" is ultimately the share of the economic burden caused by the public interest, the arbitral tribunal On the basis of case analysis, we should follow the principle of efficiency and fairness and seek the balance between private investors and host countries' interests.
The fifth chapter makes a distinction between the indirect collection of compensation and the reasonable regulation of the government without compensation. The dividing line between them determines not only the different results of compensation, but also the extent to which the host government can manage economic or social affairs and how much the investor should take on its own. The degree of protection of private property rights is the core concept of the distinction between the two, while the "rationality" and "non discrimination" and "the degree of interference in investment" are the specific criteria to distinguish between the two. The newly concluded BITs and FTAs have taken the "exclusionary" Regulations for the indirect expropriation, indicating that unless they are In exceptional circumstances, non discriminatory regulatory acts made or implemented by the host country in order to protect the legitimate public welfare objectives are not indirectly imposed, and these excluded measures should generally include the maintenance of public order and morality, the environment and health, and the power of the host country to levy taxes, and the host country's reasonable implementation of these measures. It should be far from the annoyance of indirect expropriation, but the NAFTA arbitration practice, which is too radical for the investor protection, has been a nightmare of the host country and the "cold cicada effect" on the willingness and ability of the investors to carry out the control policy. The special principles of the environmental law are considered, but not all the results of the control; and the host country's tax is only discriminatory, arbitrary, or retaliatory, and thus constitutes a "confiscated tax" which may be transformed into a collection act, but the modern investment treaty is clearly intended to maintain the "lifeline" of the government. There are few cases where tax power has been successful in practice.
The sixth chapter summarizes and evaluates the current situation of the application of the current expropriation clause in international treaties, and makes a certain prediction on the future development trend of the article. It has gone through the silence of the 80,90 years of the last century, the practice of the nationalization of energy in Latin America in the new century and the implementation of the "new nationalization" under the background of the 08 year financial crisis. The application of the direct expropriation clause is revived and started again, while the increasingly prominent issue of indirect expropriation shows that both developed and developing countries have begun to reflect on the practice of pursuing economic growth rate simply pursued, how to achieve sustainable economic development and the overall coordinated development of society. To guide and utilize the new values of foreign investment for them, the provisions of the treaties on indirect expropriation have become increasingly clear in recent years, and the overly radical practice of the arbitral tribunal has gradually presented a trend of return. The understanding and application of the current terms of the expropriation are too dependent on the interpretation of the investment arbitral tribunal in practice. They have not been formed. Clear and consistent views and conclusions, and they do not have the role of "precedent", have little effect on solving the fuzzification of the provisions of the expropriation clause. It is foreseeable how to balance private property rights and social public interests as the core issue of the application of the expropriation clause, and the idea of maintaining the maximization of social welfare will be in the absence of the idea. To gradually affect the attitude of countries and arbitral tribunals to indirect expropriation; in view of the ambiguity and sensitivity stipulated in the expropriation clause, the tribunal will be more inclined to apply the terms "fair and fair treatment" to replace the expropriation clause; the application of the clause, especially the existence of controlled expropriation, may aggravate the protection of the host country. The obligation of foreign investment and the protection of the environment, human beings
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.4
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 吳卡;;條約規(guī)則如何成為一般習慣法——以《海洋法公約》為考察重點[J];北京科技大學學報(社會科學版);2011年02期
2 崔萌;楊冬敏;;公民受教育權初探[J];經(jīng)營管理者;2011年13期
3 尹慧;;論間接征收的認定[J];企業(yè)導報;2011年10期
4 劉侃;;拉丁美洲石油投資法律障礙研究[J];法制與社會;2011年20期
5 胡曉紅;;CISG在中國適用的方法論思辨[J];商業(yè)研究;2011年07期
6 王文娟;;我國懲治戰(zhàn)爭罪立法面臨的挑戰(zhàn)和建議[J];國防;2011年09期
7 薄龍;;國際法中的“軟法”現(xiàn)象探究[J];群文天地;2011年12期
8 潘冰;;淺談國際海事條約在我國的適用[J];中國水運(下半月);2011年07期
9 吳文汀;;論我國立法中的沖突性國際慣例[J];濰坊教育學院學報;2011年03期
10 王玫黎;;從國際條約看我國著作權法的修改——以廣播權和信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權為中心[J];中國版權;2010年01期
相關會議論文 前10條
1 魏明杰;;中國與國際條約60年[A];新中國對外關系60年 理論與實踐：上海市社會科學界第七屆學術年會文集（2009年度）世界經(jīng)濟·國際政治·國際關系學科卷[C];2009年
2 蔣萍;姜麗麗;于曉丹;張洪濤;;我國船舶污染海洋環(huán)境防治立法現(xiàn)狀及對策[A];山東省科協(xié)重點學術研討活動成果——山東生態(tài)省建設與發(fā)展論文匯編[C];2004年
3 梁洪杰;;略論WTO規(guī)則在我國的司法適用[A];《WTO法與中國論壇》文集——中國法學會世界貿易組織法研究會年會論文集(四)[C];2005年
4 孫南申;;論WTO協(xié)議在中國的法律實施問題[A];《WTO法與中國論壇》文集——中國法學會世界貿易組織法研究會年會論文集(一)[C];2002年
5 張小勇;;《糧食和農業(yè)植物遺傳資源國際條約》與知識產(chǎn)權[A];專利法研究（2008）[C];2009年
6 張曉東;;論歐盟法及對現(xiàn)代國際法的影響[A];中國歐洲學會歐洲法律研究會2008年年會論文集[C];2008年
7 劉桂榮;;外觀設計法律保護的國際溯源和國際條約[A];專利法研究（2002）[C];2002年
8 楊松;;WTO與中國經(jīng)濟法制度的發(fā)展[A];遼寧省哲學社會科學獲獎成果匯編[2007-2008年度][C];2010年
9 陳朝暉;;跨國公司社會責任規(guī)范體系及有關問題[A];2008全國博士生學術論壇（國際法）論文集——國際經(jīng)濟法、國際環(huán)境法分冊[C];2008年
10 張磊;;關于國際法淵源內涵和外延的重新審視[A];2008全國博士生學術論壇（國際法）論文集——國際公法、國際私法分冊[C];2008年
相關重要報紙文章 前10條
1 孫恬 資深新聞評論員;無視國際條約 美印核合作后患無窮[N];世界報;2005年
2 郭曉宇;人大常委會舉行第二十四次專題講座[N];法制日報;2006年
3 趙杰 傅樺;人大年內審議加入WIPO條約報告[N];第一財經(jīng)日報;2006年
4 中國社科院研究生院 葉琦;國際條約的國內法適用分析[N];經(jīng)濟日報;2005年
5 高曉力;國際條約在涉外民商事審判中的適用[N];人民法院報;2007年
6 易茂;訂立涉外合同 應遵循國際條約[N];中國船舶報;2003年
7 全曉書;中國已簽署所有與防擴散相關的國際條約[N];人民日報;2003年
8 ;掌握國際條約 做好質檢工作[N];中國國門時報(中國出入境檢驗疫報);2002年
9 魏珍妮;兩項條約助力網(wǎng)絡著作權保護[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權報;2006年
10 特約記者 黃文霞;兩國際條約對版權產(chǎn)業(yè)的影響[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權報;2001年
相關博士學位論文 前10條
1 石儉平;國際條約中的征收條款研究[D];華東政法大學;2011年
2 王小林;國際投資間接征收制度解讀和反思[D];吉林大學;2011年
3 王曉麗;國際環(huán)境條約遵約機制研究[D];中國政法大學;2007年
4 王娜;國際法對轉基因產(chǎn)品國際貿易的管制[D];中國政法大學;2005年
5 唐青陽;規(guī)則的解釋與解釋的規(guī)則[D];西南政法大學;2005年
6 顧崧;國際民商事訴訟競合問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2007年
7 劉瑛;《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》解釋問題研究[D];復旦大學;2007年
8 汪煒;航運法律責任制度若干問題及博弈分析[D];武漢理工大學;2009年
9 朱莉;國際私法的經(jīng)濟分析[D];吉林大學;2007年
10 劉恩媛;國際環(huán)境損害賠償?shù)膰H私法問題研究[D];復旦大學;2009年
相關碩士學位論文 前10條
1 陳彬;國際投資中的間接征收標準探究[D];北京交通大學;2011年
2 蘇瑾;間接征收與我國海外投資利益保障探究[D];煙臺大學;2011年
3 王芳;國際投資中的間接征收問題研究[D];西南政法大學;2011年
4 王紅紅;國際投資中的間接征收法律問題研究[D];山西大學;2012年
5 楊學偉;國際投資中的國有化法律問題研究[D];中國政法大學;2010年
6 王穎;國際間接征收中環(huán)境例外規(guī)則法律問題研究[D];安徽大學;2010年
7 李國良;國際投資中的間接征收問題研究[D];外交學院;2010年
8 吳彥杰;國際石油投資間接征收問題研究[D];中國政法大學;2011年
9 羅磊;間接征收界定的晚近發(fā)展與中國對策研究[D];中國政法大學;2011年
10 黃瓊;國際投資中間接征收的界定研究[D];暨南大學;2011年
，本文編號：2157116
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2157116.html
