【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的縱深發(fā)展,國(guó)際投資迅猛增加,國(guó)家和投資者之間的爭(zhēng)端也隨之而產(chǎn)生。為了促進(jìn)和保護(hù)國(guó)際投資,經(jīng)過(guò)多方努力,1965年3月18日《解決國(guó)家與他國(guó)國(guó)民間投資爭(zhēng)端公約》在世界銀行的主持下達(dá)成,并根據(jù)該《公約》創(chuàng)設(shè)了“解決投資爭(zhēng)端國(guó)際中心”。經(jīng)過(guò)將近五十年的投資仲裁實(shí)踐,ICSID逐漸發(fā)展成為一個(gè)解決國(guó)家與投資者之間爭(zhēng)端的最重要的機(jī)構(gòu),每年受理的案件倍增。一個(gè)爭(zhēng)端要能在ICSID中心得以解決,首先應(yīng)當(dāng)滿足其管轄權(quán)的要求,何者能夠成為ICSID下“受保護(hù)的投資者”,《華盛頓公約》并沒(méi)有明確的規(guī)定。在ICSID的仲裁實(shí)踐中,各個(gè)仲裁庭以公約為基礎(chǔ),結(jié)合爭(zhēng)端雙方可適用的投資條約,對(duì)是否是適格的投資者進(jìn)行了界定,期間發(fā)展出了一些相對(duì)固定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),但是在一些問(wèn)題上,各個(gè)仲裁庭采取了一些不一致的態(tài)度。 本文主要采用案例比較和分析的方法,對(duì)ICSID仲裁案例中的仲裁庭在相同或者類(lèi)似問(wèn)題上的態(tài)度進(jìn)行比較,分析其中存在的問(wèn)題,對(duì)統(tǒng)一投資者的界定提出建議,這在當(dāng)前國(guó)際投資迅猛發(fā)展的背景下,希望能夠提供借鑒意義。 ICSID中對(duì)投資者界定的法律依據(jù)主要有公約第二十五條以及相關(guān)的投資協(xié)定中對(duì)投資者的規(guī)定,因此,本文將首先對(duì)華盛頓公約和其他國(guó)際投資條約中關(guān)于投資者的一些主要規(guī)定予以闡述；本文的第二部分從ICSID仲裁庭所作的界定投資者的案例出發(fā),分析其中所存在的問(wèn)題,主要有揭開(kāi)公司面紗的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問(wèn)題和仲裁庭在對(duì)《華盛頓公約》和其他投資條約進(jìn)行解釋的時(shí)候法律適用問(wèn)題。在該部分,將首先對(duì)涉及這些問(wèn)題的相關(guān)理論問(wèn)題進(jìn)行闡述,然后結(jié)合ICSID仲裁實(shí)踐中的界定投資者的做法,分析其中已經(jīng)發(fā)展出來(lái)相對(duì)固定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及仍舊存在爭(zhēng)議的地方；在本文的第三部分,將分析ICSID仲裁裁決的影響,這種影響主要表現(xiàn)為兩方面,一方面是對(duì)國(guó)際投資法的影響,一方面是各國(guó)對(duì)其所簽訂的投資條約以及內(nèi)國(guó)法所做出的變動(dòng)。在本文的最后一部分,將對(duì)投資者界定中存在的問(wèn)題分別提出筆者的建議,主要包括間接控制和揭開(kāi)公司面紗的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、仲裁庭進(jìn)行法律適用和解釋的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、以及如何保持仲裁裁決的一致性三個(gè)方面。
[Abstract]:With the development of economic globalization, international investment increases rapidly, and disputes between countries and investors also arise. In order to promote and protect international investment, the Convention on the settlement of Private Investment disputes between States and other States was concluded on 18 March 1965 under the auspices of the World Bank, In accordance with the Convention, the International Centre for the settlement of Investment disputes was created. After nearly 50 years of investment arbitration practice, ICSID has gradually developed into the most important institution for resolving disputes between the state and investors, and the number of cases handled every year has doubled. In order to solve a dispute in the ICSID center, the requirement of jurisdiction should be satisfied first, and the Washington Convention does not clearly stipulate who can become a "protected investor" under the ICSID. In the arbitration practice of ICSID, each arbitration tribunal based on the convention, combined with the applicable investment treaty between the two parties to the dispute, defines whether the investor is qualified or not, during which some relatively fixed criteria have been developed, but on some issues, The arbitral tribunals adopted some inconsistent attitudes. This paper mainly adopts the method of case comparison and analysis, compares the attitude of arbitration tribunal in ICSID arbitration case on the same or similar issues, analyzes the existing problems, and puts forward some suggestions on the definition of unified investor. This in the current rapid development of international investment background, hope to provide reference significance. The legal basis for the definition of investors in the ICSID is the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention and the relevant investment agreements. This paper will first of all describe some of the main provisions of the Washington Convention and other international investment treaties on investors; The second part of this paper starts from the case of defining the investor made by the ICSID arbitration tribunal, and analyzes the existing problems. There are mainly the issues of the standards for the lifting of the corporate veil and the application of the law in the interpretation of the Washington Convention and other investment treaties by the arbitral tribunal. In this part, first of all, the related theoretical issues related to these issues will be elaborated, and then combined with the practice of defining investors in the practice of ICSID arbitration, this paper analyzes the relatively fixed standards that have been developed and the places where there are still disputes; In the third part of this paper, we will analyze the influence of ICSID arbitration award, which is mainly reflected in two aspects: one is the influence on international investment law, the other is the change of investment treaty and domestic law signed by each country. In the last part of this paper, the author's suggestions on the problems in the definition of investors are put forward, including the standards of indirect control and lifting of the corporate veil, the standards of the application and interpretation of the law by the arbitral tribunal. And how to maintain the consistency of arbitration award three aspects.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D996

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 陳安;;中外雙邊投資協(xié)定中的四大“安全閥”不宜貿(mào)然拆除——美、加型BITs談判范本關(guān)鍵性“爭(zhēng)端解決”條款剖析[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2006年01期

2 劉筍;;國(guó)際投資仲裁引發(fā)的若干危機(jī)及應(yīng)對(duì)之策述評(píng)[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年06期

3 沈虹;;論ICSID在國(guó)際投資條約仲裁中對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)法的適用[J];嶺南學(xué)刊;2011年03期

4 王貴國(guó);;從Saipem案看國(guó)際投資法的問(wèn)題與走勢(shì)[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年02期

5 劉京蓮;;阿根廷經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)后的“國(guó)際投資法律危機(jī)”研究——兼及對(duì)中國(guó)的借鑒意義[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2006年06期

6 劉京蓮;;國(guó)際仲裁實(shí)踐的挑戰(zhàn)與美國(guó)國(guó)際投資協(xié)定的晚近發(fā)展[J];武漢科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

7 單文華;張生;;從“南北矛盾”到“公私?jīng)_突”:卡爾沃主義的復(fù)蘇與國(guó)際投資法的新視野[J];西安交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：2359692