【摘要】：《能源憲章條約》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱ECT）是第一個(gè)專門解決能源投資爭(zhēng)議的多邊條約，對(duì)維持國(guó)際能源市場(chǎng)的穩(wěn)定，保障能源安全，保護(hù)投資者的利益發(fā)揮著日益顯著的作用。ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制更是ECT的亮點(diǎn)之一。在國(guó)際能源投資爭(zhēng)端的解決方面，ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制功不可沒，出現(xiàn)了許多有影響力的案件。通過對(duì)ECT相關(guān)案例進(jìn)行考察，可以了解相關(guān)案例的當(dāng)事人、爭(zhēng)議事項(xiàng)、仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)及仲裁結(jié)果等相關(guān)情況，還可總結(jié)這十年ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制適用的規(guī)律和特點(diǎn)，發(fā)現(xiàn)投資者與東道國(guó)之間常見的爭(zhēng)端事由。 ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制的適用可分為兩個(gè)部分，一是投資者選擇適用ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制之前需要考慮的一些因素；二是仲裁申請(qǐng)?zhí)峤缓�，也就是具體適用過程中仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)要處理的一些問題。適用前考量的對(duì)象主要在ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制的程序方面，它主張盡可能和平解決爭(zhēng)端，并且不需窮盡當(dāng)?shù)鼐葷?jì)，投資者可以選擇爭(zhēng)端解決程序，而且締約國(guó)需無條件同意仲裁。但是這種“無條件同意”有一定的例外情況，因此投資者在選擇仲裁機(jī)制以及仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)時(shí)不僅要考慮一些主客觀因素，還需注意無條件同意的例外情況。進(jìn)入第二階段，仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)受理仲裁申請(qǐng)后就需考慮案件是否符合管轄權(quán)的五個(gè)條件，是否符合ECT第17條對(duì)管轄權(quán)的特殊規(guī)定；若享有管轄權(quán)，適用ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制解決具體爭(zhēng)議時(shí)可以適用的法律也是有限的；而對(duì)于選擇暫時(shí)適用ECT的國(guó)家，，ECT在該國(guó)提出停止暫時(shí)適用前是完全生效的。 ECT投資仲裁機(jī)制具體適用的經(jīng)驗(yàn)告訴我們ECT傾向于保護(hù)投資者，限制國(guó)家的管轄權(quán)，除非雙方特別規(guī)定當(dāng)?shù)鼐葷?jì)優(yōu)先、重大安全例外或其他排他管轄規(guī)定，否則仲裁庭對(duì)投資者提交的仲裁申請(qǐng)享有全面管轄權(quán)。中國(guó)投資領(lǐng)域目前是以吸收外資為主，對(duì)外投資雖不斷地發(fā)展但仍有不足，國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)政策不太穩(wěn)定，且國(guó)內(nèi)的投資爭(zhēng)端解決制度欠完善，而對(duì)國(guó)際層面的投資爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的制定和適用方面都參與不足，所以現(xiàn)階段應(yīng)以保護(hù)本國(guó)國(guó)家主權(quán)為主，守住四大“安全閥”，不宜馬上加入ECT。我國(guó)應(yīng)盡力完善中國(guó)能源投資爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，增強(qiáng)對(duì)國(guó)際投資爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制的影響力，培養(yǎng)國(guó)際仲裁方面的人才。
[Abstract]:The Energy Charter Treaty (hereinafter referred to as ECT) is the first multilateral treaty devoted to the resolution of disputes over energy investment. It is the first multilateral treaty to maintain the stability of the international energy market and safeguard energy security. The investment arbitration mechanism is one of the highlights of ECT. In the settlement of international energy investment disputes, ECT investment arbitration mechanism plays an important role, there are a lot of influential cases. Through investigating the relevant cases of ECT, we can understand the parties, disputes, arbitration institutions and arbitration results of the relevant cases, and sum up the applicable rules and characteristics of the ECT investment arbitration mechanism in the past ten years. Identify common causes of disputes between investors and host countries. The application of ECT investment arbitration mechanism can be divided into two parts: one is some factors investors need to consider before they choose to apply ECT investment arbitration mechanism; Second, after the submission of the arbitration application, that is, some issues to be dealt with by the arbitration institution in the process of specific application. The main subject of pre-application consideration is the procedure of the ECT Investment Arbitration Mechanism, which advocates the peaceful settlement of disputes as far as possible and does not require the exhaustion of local remedies, investors can choose dispute settlement procedures, and the parties need to agree to arbitration unconditionally. However, there are some exceptions to this kind of "unconditional consent", so investors should not only consider some subjective and objective factors when choosing arbitration mechanism and arbitration institution, but also pay attention to the exception of unconditional consent. In the second stage, when the arbitration institution accepts the arbitration application, it needs to consider whether the case meets the five conditions of jurisdiction and whether it meets the special provisions of article 17 of ECT on jurisdiction. In the case of jurisdiction, the applicable law of ECT investment arbitration mechanism is also limited, and for countries that choose to apply ECT provisionally, ECT is fully in force before it proposes to suspend provisional application in that country. The experience of the specific application of the ECT investment arbitration mechanism tells us that ECT prefers to protect investors and limit the jurisdiction of the State, unless the parties specifically specify local relief priorities, significant security exceptions or other exclusionary provisions. Otherwise, the arbitral tribunal shall have full jurisdiction over the arbitration application submitted by the investor. At present, China's investment field is dominated by the absorption of foreign capital, although foreign investment continues to develop but there are still shortcomings, domestic economic policies are not very stable, and the domestic investment dispute settlement system is not perfect. However, the establishment and application of the investment dispute settlement mechanism at the international level are insufficient, so at this stage we should focus on the protection of the sovereignty of our country and keep the four "safety valves", and it is not appropriate to join the ECT. immediately. China should try its best to perfect China's energy investment dispute settlement mechanism, strengthen its influence on international investment dispute settlement mechanism, and train talents in international arbitration.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10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 蔡從燕;;不慎放權(quán),如潮官司——阿根廷輕率對(duì)待投資爭(zhēng)端管轄權(quán)的慘痛教訓(xùn)[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2006年01期

3 林一飛;;雙邊投資協(xié)定的仲裁管轄權(quán)、最惠國(guó)待遇及保護(hù)傘條款問題[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2006年01期

4 陳安;;區(qū)分兩類國(guó)家,實(shí)行差別互惠:再論ICSID體制賦予中國(guó)的四大“安全閥”不宜貿(mào)然全面拆除[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2007年03期

5 陳輝萍;;ICSID仲裁庭擴(kuò)大管轄權(quán)之實(shí)踐剖析——兼評(píng)“謝業(yè)深案”[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2010年03期

6 李瑞民;;《能源憲章條約》與國(guó)際能源投資爭(zhēng)端解決[J];國(guó)際石油經(jīng)濟(jì);2008年08期

7 徐崇利;;國(guó)際投資條約中的“岔路口條款”:選擇“當(dāng)?shù)鼐葷?jì)”與“國(guó)際仲裁”權(quán)利之限度[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2007年03期

8 曾加;王萍麗;;國(guó)際能源投資爭(zhēng)議的解決機(jī)制研究——以《能源憲章條約》為例[J];寧夏大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年01期

9 張正怡;;晚近ICSID仲裁庭管轄權(quán)裁決的實(shí)證考察——兼談我國(guó)首次被申訴案件的管轄權(quán)抗辯[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2011年06期

10 余勁松;詹曉寧;;論投資者與東道國(guó)間爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制及其影響[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2005年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 賈孟奇;《能源憲章條約》暫時(shí)適用條款分析及對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

2 黃汀;ECT中仲裁解決投資者—國(guó)家爭(zhēng)議的法律問題研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2010年

3 王軼堅(jiān);《能源憲章條約》與WTO爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制管轄重疊問題研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：2455184