国际投资条约仲裁中投资者与东道国权益保护平衡问题研究被引量：168

On the Balancing of Investor’s Interests and Host Country’s Interests in International Investment Treaty Arbitration

导出

摘要在国际投资条约及其仲裁中,如何在投资者和东道国权益保护之间寻求合理的平衡,是目前国际投资领域关注的热点问题之一。要合理平衡二者间的关系,应该在现行的投资条约中设置必要的例外条款,为东道国维护国家安全和公共利益预留必要的空间;应改进和完善投资条约中公平公正待遇、最惠国待遇、保护伞等核心条款的规定,防止或限制仲裁庭对其作扩大解释;应改进与完善投资条约仲裁的程序规则,使其能够满足投资者与东道国间投资争端解决的需要。 How to balance the rights and interests between investors and host state in investment treaty arbitration is a topic of general interest in the field of international investment recently. This article emphasizes that for the purpose of balancing the rights and interests between investors and host state, the current BITs should design certain exception clauses in order to leave room for host states to maintain their state security and public interests; some important clauses in BIT such as the fair and equitable treatment, umbrella clause and MFN clause should be improved so as to prevent or limit the expansive interpretation by tribunals; and the procedure rules of arbitration should also be improved to meet the needs of investor - host state in dispute settlement.

作者余劲松

机构地区中国人民大学法学院

出处《中国法学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2011年第2期132-143,共12页 China Legal Science

基金中国人民大学法学院重点标志性研究基金资助

关键词国际投资条约国际仲裁例外条款利益平衡

分类号 D996.4 [政治法律—经济法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献27

1UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2010--Investing in a Low Carbon Economy, UN 2010.
2See Kojo Yelpaala, Fundamentalism in Public Health and Safety in Bilateral Investment Treaties, 3 Asian J. WTO & lnt'l Health L & Pol'y 235 (200$).
3UNCTAD, The Protection of National Security in llAs, p. 7, UN 2009.
4CMS Gas Transmission Co. v The Republic of Argentina, ICSID case no, ARB/01/8 (2005) ; Enron Corp, Ponderosa Assets v The Republic of Argentina. ICSID case no. ARB/01/3 (2007) ;Sempra Energy International v The Argentine Republic. ICSID case no. ARB/02/16. 28 September 2007.
5LG&E Energy Corp. et al. v The Republic of Argentina. ICSID ease no. ARB/02/1 (2006) ;Continental Casualty Company v The Argentine Republic. ICSID case no. ARB/O3/gA, award of 5 September 2008.
6See Anthea Roberts, Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Role of States, 104 Am. J. Int' l. L. 179 (2010).
7See William W. Burke -White & Andreas yon Stadan, Investment Protection in Extraordinary Time: The Interpretation and Application of Nort - Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties, 48 Va. J. Int' l L. (2008) 307, 376 - 81.
8Id., 320-324,.
9CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic, ICSID case no. ARB/01/08, 12) (annulment proceeding). Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 25 September 2007, para. 128 - 136.
10Sempra Energy International v The Argentine Republic. ICSID case no. ARB/02/16 ( Annulment Proceeding), Decision on the Argentine Re- public' s Request for Annulment of the Award, 29 June 2010.

二级参考文献33

1余劲松.外资的公平与公正待遇问题研究——由NAFTA的实践产生的几点思考[J].法商研究,2005,22(6):41-48. 被引量：39
2See Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. The Government of Canada, http://wol, international, gc. ca/minpub/Publication, asp? publication_id=37831 &Language= E.
3See S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, 40 I. L.M. 1408, 1437 (NAFTA Arb. Trib. Nov. 13, 2000).
4See Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, 40 I. L. M. 36 (2001).
5See NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions 2 (2001) clarifying that article 1105 embodies the customary international law standard for determining possible violations of "fair and equitable treatment" and "full protection and security", see httpt//WWW, naftaclaims, com/Papers/July%2031%202001%20NAFTA%20FTC%20Statement. pdf.
6See David A. Gantz, The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAFTA to the United States - Chile Free Trade Agreement, 19 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 679, 715 (2004).
7A. Roth,The Minium Standard of International Law Applied to Aliens(1949),p. 99.
8See R. Lillich, Duties of States Regarding Civil Rights of Aliens, Recueil des Cours (1978) ,p. 350.
9See J. H. W. Verzvjl, International Law in Historical Perspective(1972) ,p. 438.
10See Mondev v. United States, 42 I. L. M. 85 (2003).