中外能源管道中的投資爭端解決途徑探析
發(fā)布時間：2018-12-11 19:41
【摘要】：在我國與周邊的俄羅斯、哈薩克斯坦、烏茲別克斯坦、土庫曼斯坦、緬甸開展的能源管道合作中存有出現投資爭端的可能性�，F有的《能源憲章條約》、我國參與的區(qū)域性條約、締結的涉外能源合作領域的雙邊條約和政府間協(xié)議卻不能適用于解決此類投資爭端。但是我國與上述五國簽訂的雙邊投資保護協(xié)定中包含投資爭端解決的專門性規(guī)定,因此本文選擇從雙邊投資保護協(xié)定的角度探討該領域的投資爭端解決途徑。對于投資者母國與東道國之間的爭端,本文認為通過政治或者外交途徑解決是首選。因為我國與這五國之間保持著良好的外交傳統(tǒng),并且也確實存有多方面、多層次的外交談判平臺。如果通過政治或者外交途徑不能解決此類爭端,則可以嘗試通過國際仲裁的方式解決。對于我國投資者與東道國之間的投資爭端,本文建議選擇ICSID仲裁的途徑予以解決。雖然解決投資者與東道國之間的投資爭端的途徑很多,包括：通過友好協(xié)商解決、通過東道國國內行政或司法程序解決、通過設立個案仲裁庭解決等,但是通過ICSID解決更有利于最大限度的保護我國投資者的利益。通過ICSID仲裁的優(yōu)勢在于：ICSID框架內嚴謹的仲裁庭組成方式和成熟的仲裁程序規(guī)則可以為裁決的公正性提供強有力的保障；同時,ICSID的裁決解釋、修改、撤銷程序可以將爭端方國內法院在執(zhí)行ICSID裁決時的干預程度降至最低。若要將投資者與東道國之間的投資爭端提交ICSID仲裁,必須滿足ICSID管轄的三個必要條件：當事方必須滿足一定的資質；爭端必須具有投資性和法律性；當事人之間必須存在書面的將爭端提交ICSID仲裁的協(xié)議。在中外能源管道領域,我國投資者與東道國之間的投資爭端是能夠滿足上述條件,可以適用ICSID進行仲裁的。
[Abstract]:There is the possibility of investment disputes in China's cooperation with neighboring Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Myanmar on energy pipelines. The existing "Energy Charter Treaty", the regional treaties to which China is a party, bilateral treaties and intergovernmental agreements in the field of foreign energy cooperation cannot be applied to the settlement of such investment disputes. However, the bilateral investment protection agreements signed by China and the five countries mentioned above contain special provisions on the settlement of investment disputes. Therefore, this paper chooses to explore the approaches to the settlement of investment disputes in this field from the angle of bilateral investment protection agreements. For the disputes between home country and host country, this paper thinks that political or diplomatic solution is the first choice. Because China and these five countries maintain a good diplomatic tradition, and indeed there are many, multi-level diplomatic negotiation platform. If such disputes cannot be resolved politically or diplomatically, an attempt can be made to settle them through international arbitration. For the investment dispute between the investor and the host country, this paper suggests that ICSID arbitration should be chosen to settle the dispute. Although there are many ways to resolve investment disputes between investors and host countries, including through friendly negotiations, through domestic administrative or judicial proceedings of the host country, and through the establishment of arbitration tribunals in individual cases, etc. However, the ICSID solution is more conducive to the maximum protection of the interests of Chinese investors. The advantages of ICSID arbitration lie in: the rigorous constitution of arbitration tribunal and the mature rules of arbitration procedure within the framework of ICSID can provide a strong guarantee for the fairness of the award; At the same time, ICSID's ruling explains that amending and setting aside procedures can minimise the intervention of domestic courts of disputing parties in enforcing the ICSID ruling. In order to submit the investment dispute between the investor and the host country to ICSID arbitration, three necessary conditions of ICSID jurisdiction must be satisfied: the parties must satisfy certain qualifications, the dispute must be investment and legal; There must be a written agreement between the parties to submit the dispute to ICSID arbitration. In the field of domestic and foreign energy pipeline, the investment dispute between Chinese investors and host country can meet the above conditions and can be applied to ICSID arbitration.
【學位授予單位】：南京大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.4
本文編號：2373115
[Abstract]:There is the possibility of investment disputes in China's cooperation with neighboring Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Myanmar on energy pipelines. The existing "Energy Charter Treaty", the regional treaties to which China is a party, bilateral treaties and intergovernmental agreements in the field of foreign energy cooperation cannot be applied to the settlement of such investment disputes. However, the bilateral investment protection agreements signed by China and the five countries mentioned above contain special provisions on the settlement of investment disputes. Therefore, this paper chooses to explore the approaches to the settlement of investment disputes in this field from the angle of bilateral investment protection agreements. For the disputes between home country and host country, this paper thinks that political or diplomatic solution is the first choice. Because China and these five countries maintain a good diplomatic tradition, and indeed there are many, multi-level diplomatic negotiation platform. If such disputes cannot be resolved politically or diplomatically, an attempt can be made to settle them through international arbitration. For the investment dispute between the investor and the host country, this paper suggests that ICSID arbitration should be chosen to settle the dispute. Although there are many ways to resolve investment disputes between investors and host countries, including through friendly negotiations, through domestic administrative or judicial proceedings of the host country, and through the establishment of arbitration tribunals in individual cases, etc. However, the ICSID solution is more conducive to the maximum protection of the interests of Chinese investors. The advantages of ICSID arbitration lie in: the rigorous constitution of arbitration tribunal and the mature rules of arbitration procedure within the framework of ICSID can provide a strong guarantee for the fairness of the award; At the same time, ICSID's ruling explains that amending and setting aside procedures can minimise the intervention of domestic courts of disputing parties in enforcing the ICSID ruling. In order to submit the investment dispute between the investor and the host country to ICSID arbitration, three necessary conditions of ICSID jurisdiction must be satisfied: the parties must satisfy certain qualifications, the dispute must be investment and legal; There must be a written agreement between the parties to submit the dispute to ICSID arbitration. In the field of domestic and foreign energy pipeline, the investment dispute between Chinese investors and host country can meet the above conditions and can be applied to ICSID arbitration.
【學位授予單位】：南京大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.4
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 千省利;朱明能;;論《中國能源投資條約》間接征收范圍界定——以國際判例的視角[J];今傳媒;2010年12期
2 李艷;;論國際商事仲裁的優(yōu)劣性及其完善途徑[J];重慶交通學院學報(社會科學版);2005年04期
3 劉冰;;論完善中國——東盟自由貿易區(qū)爭端解決機制——以比較研究為視角[J];重慶工商大學學報(社會科學版);2007年06期
4 孫永祥,張晶;中國和俄羅斯、中亞國家油氣合作現狀、問題及對策[J];東歐中亞市場研究;2002年01期
5 彭岳;;國際投資中的間接征收及其認定[J];復旦學報(社會科學版);2009年02期
6 徐崇利;;“間接征收”之界分:東道國對外資管理的限度[J];福建法學;2008年02期
7 楊澤偉;我國能源安全保障的法律問題研究[J];法商研究;2005年04期
8 楊澤偉;;跨國能源管道運輸的爭議解決機制[J];法學;2007年12期
9 周怡蕾;;試析東盟經濟爭端的法律解決機制[J];廣東技術師范學院學報;2009年05期
10 徐振強 ,江旭;國際石油合作項目中的政治風險及其管理[J];國際經濟合作;2003年06期
相關重要報紙文章 前1條
1 賈鐵軍;[N];光明日報;2007年
相關碩士學位論文 前4條
1 劉聿;中國與中亞能源合作[D];南京師范大學;2006年
2 邵言波;論中國與中亞能源合作[D];青島大學;2009年
3 趙yN誠;上海合作組織框架下中國與中亞國家油氣能源合作機制研究[D];新疆大學;2009年
4 艾柯;中哈能源合作中的法律問題研究[D];中國政法大學;2010年
，本文編號：2373115
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2373115.html
