【摘要】：投資定義是國(guó)際投資法體系中的關(guān)鍵部分,它與ICSID仲裁管轄密切相關(guān)。主權(quán)債券作為一種新型的交易形式,認(rèn)定其是否具有投資屬性,是債券持有人可否利用ICSID仲裁的前提。但是,目前主權(quán)債券的國(guó)際法尚不發(fā)達(dá),尤其是國(guó)際投資領(lǐng)域,同樣涉及主權(quán)債券的案件,可能因ICSID仲裁庭的解釋角度不同而出現(xiàn)不同裁定的現(xiàn)象,這在現(xiàn)實(shí)實(shí)務(wù)中也已顯現(xiàn)。因?yàn)椤蛾P(guān)于解決國(guó)家與他國(guó)國(guó)民之間投資爭(zhēng)議公約》對(duì)投資定義的缺失,投資保護(hù)協(xié)定為解決此現(xiàn)象而單獨(dú)規(guī)定投資定義條款,但是卻存在諸多不同,有的協(xié)定文本直接規(guī)定主權(quán)債券屬于投資的范疇,有的明確排除主權(quán)債券,然而大多數(shù)文本對(duì)主權(quán)債券既沒(méi)有明確排除,也沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定。此種規(guī)定模式導(dǎo)致主權(quán)債券是否屬于ICSID公約語(yǔ)境下的投資以及是否是投資保護(hù)協(xié)定中締約國(guó)所欲保護(hù)的投資爭(zhēng)論不休。然而,單純依據(jù)ICSID公約或相關(guān)投資保護(hù)協(xié)定分析主權(quán)債券的投資屬性都存在一定的缺陷,要么會(huì)因ICSID公約的規(guī)定而忽視東道國(guó)的意愿,要么會(huì)因投資保護(hù)協(xié)定的特殊規(guī)定而忽略ICSID公約的一般原意。因而,審查主權(quán)債券的投資屬性應(yīng)堅(jiān)持兩者都考慮,即“雙重檢測(cè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”,同時(shí)借助條約解釋的相關(guān)規(guī)則,推知主權(quán)債券并沒(méi)有被排除在ICSID公約語(yǔ)境下的投資范疇之外。隨著投資保護(hù)協(xié)定的不斷更新,一些協(xié)定文本會(huì)規(guī)定某些限制性條件,諸如投資需要與東道國(guó)具有領(lǐng)土關(guān)聯(lián)性、投資需要符合東道國(guó)法律等,而這些都會(huì)對(duì)主權(quán)債券的投資屬性產(chǎn)生直接影響。然而,主權(quán)債券由于本身的發(fā)行特點(diǎn),存在一級(jí)市場(chǎng)和二級(jí)市場(chǎng),尤其是二級(jí)市場(chǎng)很少在物理狀態(tài)下存在于東道國(guó)境內(nèi),這使得領(lǐng)土關(guān)聯(lián)性的判斷變得困難重重。通過(guò)結(jié)合ICSID仲裁實(shí)踐以及相關(guān)的學(xué)術(shù)理論,發(fā)現(xiàn)利用法律聯(lián)系標(biāo)準(zhǔn)審查主權(quán)債券的領(lǐng)土關(guān)聯(lián)性比較合理。同時(shí),可以借鑒新興投資保護(hù)協(xié)定規(guī)定的投資特征作為指引,判斷主權(quán)債券是否具有明顯的投資特征。
[Abstract]:The definition of investment is a key part of the system of international investment law, which is closely related to the jurisdiction of ICSID arbitration. As a new type of trading form, sovereign bonds have the investment attribute or not, which is the precondition for bondholders to make use of ICSID arbitration. However, at present, the international law of sovereign bonds is still underdeveloped, especially in the field of international investment. Cases involving sovereign bonds may have different rulings due to the different interpretations of the ICSID arbitration tribunal, which has also been shown in practice. Because of the absence of an investment definition in the Convention on the settlement of Investment disputes between States and Nationals of other States, investment protection agreements provide separate investment definition provisions to address this phenomenon, but there are many differences, Some articles of agreement directly stipulate that sovereign bonds belong to the category of investment, while others explicitly exclude sovereign bonds. However, most of the texts do not explicitly exclude sovereign bonds, nor do they specify them. This model leads to the debate on whether sovereign bonds belong to the context of the ICSID Convention and whether they are the investments to be protected by the Contracting States in the Investment Protection Agreement. However, there are some defects in analyzing the investment attributes of sovereign bonds simply according to the ICSID Convention or the relevant investment protection agreements, or they will ignore the wishes of the host country because of the provisions of the ICSID Convention. Either the general intent of the ICSID Convention will be ignored by special provisions of the IPA. Therefore, the investment attributes of sovereign bonds should be considered both, that is, "double test standard", and with the help of the relevant rules of treaty interpretation, we can infer that sovereign bonds are not excluded from the investment category in the context of ICSID Convention. With the continuous updating of investment protection agreements, the texts of some agreements may impose certain restrictive conditions, such as the territorial relevance of the investment needs to the host country and the conformity of the investment needs with the laws of the host country, etc., These will have a direct impact on the investment attributes of sovereign bonds. However, due to its own issuing characteristics, sovereign bonds have a primary market and a secondary market, especially the secondary market rarely exists in the host country, which makes it difficult to judge the territorial relevance. Combined with the practice of ICSID arbitration and the relevant academic theory, it is found that the territorial relevance of sovereign bonds is reasonable by using the criterion of legal connection. At the same time, we can use the investment characteristics of emerging investment protection agreements as a guide to judge whether sovereign bonds have obvious investment characteristics.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D996.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王朝恩;;論投資條約領(lǐng)土定義條款的改革[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2015年04期

2 黃世席;;國(guó)際投資條約中投資的確定與東道國(guó)發(fā)展的考量[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2014年05期

3 郭華春;;主權(quán)債券權(quán)益保護(hù)之投資仲裁視閾[J];上海金融;2014年07期

4 趙駿;;國(guó)際投資仲裁中“投資”定義的張力和影響[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2014年03期

5 袁杜娟;;適格投資界定路徑的新發(fā)展及其啟示[J];法商研究;2014年02期

6 朱文龍;;國(guó)際投資領(lǐng)域投資定義的發(fā)展及對(duì)中國(guó)的啟示[J];東方法學(xué);2014年02期

7 單文華;王璐;;美國(guó)2012年BIT范本中的投資定義條款及中國(guó)的對(duì)策研究[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2013年03期

8 于文婕;;論“投資”定義缺失對(duì)ICSID仲裁管轄的影響——《解決國(guó)家與他國(guó)國(guó)民間投資爭(zhēng)端的公約》第25條的正當(dāng)解讀[J];學(xué)海;2013年05期

9 王璐;;論投資條約中的“符合東道國(guó)法律”要求——兼論我國(guó)在中美投資條約談判中的立場(chǎng)選擇[J];法商研究;2013年01期

10 郭華春;;主權(quán)債務(wù)債權(quán)人的“對(duì)價(jià)”能力機(jī)制分析——基于訴訟角度的觀察[J];法商研究;2012年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 宋杰;;對(duì)《維也納條約法公約》關(guān)于條約解釋規(guī)則的再認(rèn)識(shí)[A];《WTO法與中國(guó)論壇》文集——中國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)世界貿(mào)易組織法研究會(huì)年會(huì)論文集(五)[C];2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 趙詩(shī)琪;國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中“投資”的定義[D];廈門大學(xué);2014年

2 朱瀟瀟;國(guó)際投資中主權(quán)債務(wù)爭(zhēng)端解決問(wèn)題[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2014年

3 儲(chǔ)楚;ICSID管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2401885