国际条约中的征收条款研究
|
摘要
征收条款是投资条约中最为核心的实体条款之一,从国际投资法的发展历程来看,保护投资者的最初含义就是保护投资者不受东道国非法征收行为的影响。开始于20世纪90年代的投资自由化态势是以大量双边投资协定和一些重要的区域投资协定的生效为标志和结果的,其中几乎“模板化”的征收条款的存在已经确立了东道国征收外国人财产必须支付补偿的原则,而一度被视为最敏感、最富争议的补偿标准问题也已经有了明确和一致的答案。一直以来,外资征收的构成及其在国际法上的认定始终是一个比较明确的问题,然而近年来伴随着征收概念的激进扩张,这个问题的答案再度变得模糊起来。现代投资条约在征收条款中将征收界定为三种形式,即“直接征收”、“间接征收”以及“任何与征收等同或类似的行为”,尽管在理论与实践中都有观点认为这所谓“等同与类似征收行为”的措词并没有真正创造出第三种形式的征收,然而“间接征收”和“类似征收”的存在有效扩张了“征收”这一用语的含义,成为外国投资者借以向东道国提起补偿之诉的首选依据。当前国际法中有关间接征收的申诉越来越被视为是对东道国政府对外资实施管制权力的一种威胁,而实践中对这些争议并不一致的处理方法对外国投资者和东道国而言都意味着相当的不确定性,如若不能真正解决投资者财产权利和东道国管制权力之间的平衡,将无疑会对征收条款在未来的适用和发展造成危机。
本文首先对征收以及外资征收的含义及其法律依据进行了分析,结合国际投资条约及其他国际法文件中征收条款的规定,对征收条款的内容、历史发展、要件以及投资仲裁机构和司法机构有关征收的争议解决实践进行了梳理;之后文章重点对间接征收的含义、分类以及在理论和实践中的认定规则进行了分析,在此基础之上,文章对当前征收条款在国际条约中适用所存在的问题进行了总结和评述,并对其未来可能的发展趋势进行了预测;文章最后对我国签订条约中的征收条款及其未来适用应当注意的问题提出了相应的建议。全文分为七章,共计约20万字。
第一章对外资征收的基本概念进行了分析。作为政府获取或改变私人财产权利的公权力,征收的概念同征用以及国有化的概念在内涵与外延方面存在着一定程度的差异,本文更倾向于适用具有“中性”色彩的征收一词。征收的概念最早来源于格老秀斯提出的“国家征收权(eminent domain)”的概念,尽管有关征收的理论依据存在多种学说,但其中“财产权社会化”的理念最为恰当地解释了征收的原因,从而在财产权制度相对完备的几个国家开始建立国内法的征收制度。当征收财产涉及到外国人的投资时,征收制度开始同国际法有所交叉,征收条款在国际条约中确立的过程也是东道国保护外国投资者责任形成的过程。国际条约并未对外资征收下一个明确的定义,但普遍规定了征收的四个要件,而投资的定义虽不属于征收条款中的内容,但却是征收条款适用的基础,因此本文对投资的定义、范围及其日渐扩张的趋势也作了相应的分析和解释。
第二章对当前国际条约及其他法律文件中规定的征收条款进行了总结和梳理。基于征收制度的重要性以及对发展中国家外资征收权力的确认,征收条款出现在包括联大决议和宣言在内的国际法文件当中,这些法律文件就补偿的标准问题在发达国家和发展中国家之间进行了成功的妥协,坚持适当的补偿原则,但最终发展中国家因为引资的现实考虑逐渐退出了统一的阵营。而发达国家亦从未放弃制定给予外国投资者更高标准的多边投资条约的努力,却最终因为无法平衡东道国和投资者的利益而以失败告终。以NAFTA为代表的区域协定的成功运作以及BITs、RTAs的迅速推广,令绝大多数的东道国接受了“赫尔公式”和“间接征收”的存在。而依据这些投资条约和法律文件所建立的投资仲裁和司法机构在实践中也形成了有关征收认定的数量众多的案例群,本文也对此进行了综述和梳理,包括伊美求偿仲裁庭、ICSID、NAFTA、ECT、ECHR等机构对外资征收的认定实践。
第三章对国际条约中征收条款的要件进行了解读。尽管征收四要件的存在已经为大部分的投资条约所确认,但却鲜有对每一个要件的具体释义以及在实践中理解和适用的相关论述。公共利益是外资征收的目的要件,也是一个不易界定的弹性术语,针对该项要件所提出的质疑在国际投资仲裁的实践中鲜有成功,在认定时往往需要同歧视性等要件结合起来考量;遵循正当程序是征收的程序要件,这一原本属于国内法中的行政原则,其含义在国际法上并没有统一的规定,内容也并不确定,因此征收所必须遵循的所谓正当程序还应当是实行征收的国家的国内法规定的法律程序;非歧视原则是征收的实施要件,其在整个四要件当中的重要性正日益突显出来,不但已经成为判断公共利益要件的辅助标准,且因为内容相对确定已经成为投资者和仲裁庭在提起和认定征收时首选的“突破口”;“赫尔原则”已经成为国际条约中泛化的征收补偿标准,但对于何为“充分”、“及时”、“有效”,特别是如何适用“公平市场价值”来计算征收补偿的数额却并没有明确的规定和实践,本文对此进行了较为深入的探讨。
第四章着重探讨的是间接征收在国际条约中的规定及其实践。间接征收认定的核心在于东道国所采取的措施是否在效果上剥夺了投资者对其投资的使用和利益,但几乎所有的投资条约都没有对间接征收的定义和认定规则有细化的界定,直到以美国2004年BIT范本为代表的法律文件确立了对间接征收“依据事实、逐案分析”的处理规则。围绕间接征收的认定,在理论和实践中形成了“单一效果标准”,“单一目的标准”以及“兼采效果与目的的标准”之争,后者在实践中虽然获得了主导性的支持,但其具体适用的国际法标准尚未成型。“蚕食性征收”和“管制性征收”经常被视为间接征收的同义词,然而两者定义的侧重点是不同的,前者强调政府征收不易被辨认和缓慢榨取投资者利益的特征,后者则特指原属东道国警察权范围内的特定措施亦可能会产生相当于征收的效果;“蚕食性征收”的认定需要在事后采取追溯的办法才能确定,而“管制性征收”的认定和补偿最终还是公共利益所造成的经济负担的分担问题,仲裁庭在逐案分析的基础上应当遵循效率和公平的原则,寻求私人投资者和东道国利益之间的平衡。
第五章就需要补偿的间接征收与无须补偿的政府合理管制行为之间进行了区分,两者之间的界限划分不但决定了不同的补偿结果,亦决定了东道国政府可以在多大程度上管理经济或社会事务以及投资者应当在多大程度上承担自身的投资风险。对私人财产权保护的程度是对两者进行区分的核心理念,而实施的“合理性”和“非歧视性”以及“对投资的干涉程度”则是区分两者的具体认定标准。新缔结的BITs和FTAs对间接征收采取了“排除式”的规定,指明除非在极特殊的情况下,东道国为了保护合法的公共福利目标所制定或实施的非歧视的管制性行为不构成间接征收,而这些被排除的措施普遍应包括维护公共秩序和道德、环境和健康以及东道国征税的权力,东道国对这些措施的合理实施本应远离间接征收申诉的烦扰,但是对投资者保护过于激进的NAFTA仲裁实践却一度成为东道国的梦魇,也对投资者执行管制政策的意愿和能力造成了“寒蝉效应”。对于东道国环境管制和征收行为之间的区分需要结合环境权的特征以及环境法中特有的原则来进行考量,而不能一概以管制的结果论处;而东道国的征税只有带有歧视性、任意性或报复性,从而构成“没收性征税”的情况下才有可能会转变为征收行为,但现代投资条约显然意在维护视为政府“生命线”的征税权力,在实践中获得成功的申诉案例几乎没有。
第六章对当前征收条款在国际条约中的适用现状进行了总结和评析,并对该条款的未来发展趋势做出了一定的预测。历经了上个世纪80、90年代的沉寂,伴随新世纪拉美能源国有化的实践和08年金融危机背景下的“新型国有化”的实施,对直接征收条款的适用再度复苏和启动;而针对间接征收的争议日益突显,则说明无论是发达国家还是发展中国家都开始对一贯奉行的单纯追求经济增长率的做法进行反思,如何实现经济的可持续性发展和社会的整体协调发展已成为它们引导和利用外资的新价值观。因此近几年有关间接征收的条约规定日渐明确,而仲裁庭在实践中过于激进的做法也逐渐呈现出回归的态势。当前对征收条款的理解和适用过于依赖投资仲裁庭在实践中的解释,它们不但没有形成明确而一致的观点和结论,并且本身也不具有“先例”的作用,对解决征收条款规定模糊化的问题作用不大。可以预见的是如何平衡私人财产权利和社会公共利益仍将是征收条款适用的核心问题,而维护社会福利最大化的理念将在未来逐渐影响各国和仲裁庭对间接征收认定的态度;鉴于征收条款规定的模糊性以及敏感性,仲裁庭将更倾向于适用“公平公正待遇”等条款来替代征收条款;征收条款的适用,特别是管制性征收的存在可能会加剧东道国所负有的保护外国投资的义务同保护环境、人类资源和自然遗产以及保护人权等方面的条约义务之间的冲突,将这些与投资相关的实体规则逐渐融入投资条约的规定当中或许将是一种有益的尝试。
第七章着重对我国签订的投资条约中的征收条款进行了专题研究。首先,文章对我国目前已经签订的多达130个双边投资协定和其他国际条约中出现的征收条款进行了梳理,并且分析了这些条款所存在的问题;其次,考虑到我国已经兼具资本输入国和资本输出国的双重身份,文章分别就我国可能遭遇的征收申诉风险和我国的海外投资者可能遇到的征收风险,结合实践进行了分析,特别是对实践中已经出现的我国作为东道国被申诉以及我国投资者利用双边投资协定针对外国东道国提起申诉的相关案例进行了详细的分析。最后,文章对完善我国签订条约中的征收条款的规定及其适用提出了建议。
Expropriation Clause is one of the most fundamental substantive clauses in investment treaties. During the development process of international investment law, the initial meaning of protecting foreign investors equals to protecting them from illegal expropriation by the host countries. The trend of investment liberalization is marked with and resulted from the conclusion of most BITs and some important regional investment treaties since nineties of the 20th Century, the existing of all the stereotype expropriation clauses have confirmed the principle that host countries must compensate the foreign investors due to expropriation. The problem concerning compensation standard, which is once sensitive and disputable, has also led to a specific and unanimous answer. The composition and finding of expropriation are much clear for a long period of time. However the answer becomes unclear again with the rapid expansion of expropriation concept. The modern investment treaties define the expropriation clause in three forms, direct expropriation, indirect expropriation and any measure equivalent to or similar to expropriation. Although it is held that the so called“equivalent to or similar to”do not create the third form of expropriation, the expression of indirect or similar expropriation will continue to be widely used and will expand the concept of expropriation in an effective way. The expropriation clause has become the first choice for the investors to claim the host country for compensation. The claims of indirect expropriation have been regarded as a threat to the regulation power of host country in the current international law. And the inconsistent findings of disputes mean uncertainties both to the foreign investors and the host countries. If the balance between the protection over investor property and the regulation power of the host country cannot resolved thoroughly, it will undoubtedly endanger the application and development of expropriation clause in the future.
Firstly, the dissertation will analyze the concept and legal basis of expropriation and expropriation on foreign investment. Combined with the provisions of international investment treaties and other international files on expropriation clauses, the dissertation summarizes the content, history, requirements as well as the disputes settlement practice of investment arbitration or judicial organs based on international treaties. Secondly, the dissertation emphasizes on the analysis of the concept, classification and finding rules of indirect expropriation both in the theory and practice. On this basis, the dissertation will summarize and comment on the problems of expropriation clauses existing in the international treaties and will make some prospects on its possible development trends in the future. In the last, the dissertation will put forward corresponding advices to China for signing the investment treaties with expropriation clauses as well as its application of this clause in the future. The dissertation divides into seven chapters, consisting of 200.000 words.
In the First Chapter, the dissertation analyzes the basic concept of expropriation on foreign investment. As the sovereign power for the government to acquire or change private property rights, the concept of expropriation differs slightly with that of requisition and nationalization both in the intension or extension. The dissertation prefers to use the word of expropriation with some neutral features. The earliest concept of expropriation originated from the concept of eminent domain put forward by Grotius, there exist a lot of theories on the legal basis of expropriation, however, the notion of socialization of property rights illustrates the reason of expropriation properly. As a result, the domestic expropriation legal system had begun to be established in some countries with relatively complete property legal system. When the expropriation involved the investment of foreign investors, the expropriation system began to intersect with international law. The process for the expropriation clause to take into form in the international treaties is just that of the duties for the host countries to protect the foreign investors. The international treaties failed to provide a specific definition for expropriation but generally provide four requirements. Although the concept of investment does not belong to the extent of expropriation clause, it is the application foundation of this clause. The dissertation, therefore, makes some analysis and explanation on the concept, scope as well as its expansion trend of investment.
The Second Chapter summarizes each provision on expropriation clause appeared in the current international treaties and other legal documents. Considering the importance of expropriation system and the confirmation of expropriation power of the developing countries, expropriation clauses are provided in the international documents including the Resolution and Declaration of UN. These documents made great compromise between the developed and developing countries in terms of the compensation standard. That is the Appropriate Compensation Standard. However, the developing countries quitted from the unified interests group gradually due to their endeavors to attract more FDI. And also the developed countries had never given up their endeavors to conclude a multilateral investment treaty with much higher protection standard for their investors, which had finally ended with failure due to the imbalance between the host countries and the investors. With the success of NAFTA and the rapid increase of BITs as well as RTAs, most host counties have accepted the existence of Hull Formula and indirect expropriation. The investment arbitration and judicial organs have developed precedents on the expropriation findings. The dissertation will summarize and illustrate their practice of Iran-US Claims Tribunal, ICSID, NAFTA, ECT and ECHR.
The Third Chapter will analyze the four requirements included in the expropriation clauses. Although the existence of these requirements has confirmed by most of the investment treaties, the specific explanation of each requirement as well as its understanding and application in the practice are insufficient. Public interest is the purpose requirement of expropriation, which is a flexible and difficult term to define. It is not an easy job to challenge it successfully in the practice. It must be determined combined with the non-discrimination requirement. Due Process is the procedure requirement of expropriation, which is the administrative principle in the domestic law, and there is no unified provision or definite content in the international law. Therefore, the due process for the expropriation to follow shall be the legal procedure provided by the domestic law. Non-discrimination principle is the application requirement of expropriation, which shows much more importance among the four requirements. It has become the complementary standard when deciding the public interest. As a result, it has become the first choice preferred by the investors and the tribunals with its definite content. Hull Formula has become the compensation standard generally used in the international treaties, whereas there is no definite provision and practice to define the so-called“Full, Timely and Effective”, especially the application of Fair Market Value to calculate the compensation. The dissertation will illustrate more on this issue.
The Fourth Chapter will emphasize on the provision and practice of indirect expropriation in the international treaties. The core of the finding on expropriation lies in that whether the measures taken by the host countries have deprived the use or benefit of the investors over their investment. But almost all the investment treaties failed to define expropriation or its finding rules until the legal documents represented by 2004 Model BIT of the US set up the rule of“facts inquiry and case by case analysis”. In terms of the finding on expropriation, it gives rise to the disputes among the Sole Effects Doctrine, Police Power Doctrine and the Combined Doctrine. Although the latter has gained the most support, its specific application rules have not come into being. The Creeping Expropriation and Regulatory Expropriation are often deemed as the synonyms with the Indirect Expropriation. But the emphasis of each concept is different. The former emphasizes its feature as hard-to-define and depriving the investor gradually and slowly, while the latter refers to that the police power of the host country will also produce the effects equivalent to the expropriation. The finding of creeping expropriation should be ascertained with the method of retrospect; while the finding and compensation of regulatory expropriation are the share of economic burden resulted by the public interests. The tribunal should follow the principle of efficiency and fairness on the basis of case-by-case analysis to resort to the balance between the investors and host countries.
The Fifth Chapter will differentiate between the compensable indirect expropriation and incompensable regulatory measures of the government. The boundary of them will lead to different compensation results and will also decide the extent for the government to regulate its economic or social affairs or that for the investors to assume their investment risks. The investor property protection level is the fundamental notion for differentiating these two concepts, and reasonableness, non-discrimination as well as the interference of investment is the specific determination standards. The newly concluded BITs and FTAs have adopted the exclusion provision on indirect expropriation and refers to that apart from the rare circumstances, the regulatory measures adopted or enforced by the host countries in order to protect legitimate public interests, in a non-discrimination manner, will not be deemed as indirect expropriation. It is generally held that the excluded measures shall include the measures for protecting public order, moral, environment, health and taxation. These legitimate measures ought to be away from the indirect expropriation claims, but the radical practice of protecting NAFTA has become the nightmare of the host countries, which has also led to the chilling effects to the willing and ability for the host countries to enforce the regulations. To differentiate between the environment protection and expropriation, it cannot be decided in light of the regulation results only but need to examine and weigh combing with the characteristic of environment right as well as the unique principles in the environment law. Only the discriminatory, arbitrary or retaliatory taxation would be deemed as the confiscatory taxation. With the modern investment treaties’aiming to defend the taxation power, which is regarded as the lifeline of the government, there’s almost no successful claim challenging that power of the government.
The Sixth Chapter will summarize and analyze the current application status of expropriation clause in international treaties, and will provide some prospects on its development in the future. Going through the silence featured in the Eighties and Nineties in last Century, the nationalization to the energy industry in Latin America has been carried out since the 20th Century. The new-style nationalizations have been carried out in the background of financial crisis since 2008. All these facts prove that the indirect expropriation clause has been activated and recovered. Whereas the increasing arguments concerning indirect expropriation illustrate that no matter the developed countries or the developing ones are undergoing the introspect toward their behavior of pursuing solely on the economic growth in the past. The way of realizing the sustainable development, integral and harmonious social development has become the new values for the governments to utilize or guide the foreign investment. Therefore, the provision on indirect expropriation tends to be much clear all these years, the radical practice of the tribunals, however, has also been back to the normal as a result. The current understanding and application of the expropriation clause have relied too much on the explanations of the tribunal in the practice. There are no definite and unified opinions or conclusions on some issues. At the same time, these cases do not function as the precedents, which will provide little help in resolving the vagueness of this clause. It can be predicted that how to balance the private property rights and social public interests will still be the core in the application of expropriation clause. And notion of maintaining the maximization of social benefits will affect the altitudes of governments or tribunal gradually. In the light of its vagueness and sensitivity, the tribunals tend to use Fair and Equitable Clause to replace the expropriation clause. The application of regulatory expropriation will aggravate the conflicts between the duties for the host countries to protect foreign investment and other treaty duties, including protecting the environment, human resources, natural heritage and human rights. To integrate theses investment-related issues into the investment treaties might be a nice attempt.
The Seventh Chapter will emphasize on the sdudy of expropriation clauses in the international treaties that China has signed. Firsly, the dissertation summarizes all the expropriation clauses provided in more than 130 BITs and point out their weakness and potential problems. Secondly, China has become both the investment input and output country. In light of this status, the dissertation analyzes all the risks both the government and our investors will face in terms of indirect expropriation. Specific analysis on the real case in the practice will be provided. In the last, the dissertation will provide some advices on perfecting the provision and application of expropriation clauses in the treaties that China has signed.
本文首先对征收以及外资征收的含义及其法律依据进行了分析,结合国际投资条约及其他国际法文件中征收条款的规定,对征收条款的内容、历史发展、要件以及投资仲裁机构和司法机构有关征收的争议解决实践进行了梳理;之后文章重点对间接征收的含义、分类以及在理论和实践中的认定规则进行了分析,在此基础之上,文章对当前征收条款在国际条约中适用所存在的问题进行了总结和评述,并对其未来可能的发展趋势进行了预测;文章最后对我国签订条约中的征收条款及其未来适用应当注意的问题提出了相应的建议。全文分为七章,共计约20万字。
第一章对外资征收的基本概念进行了分析。作为政府获取或改变私人财产权利的公权力,征收的概念同征用以及国有化的概念在内涵与外延方面存在着一定程度的差异,本文更倾向于适用具有“中性”色彩的征收一词。征收的概念最早来源于格老秀斯提出的“国家征收权(eminent domain)”的概念,尽管有关征收的理论依据存在多种学说,但其中“财产权社会化”的理念最为恰当地解释了征收的原因,从而在财产权制度相对完备的几个国家开始建立国内法的征收制度。当征收财产涉及到外国人的投资时,征收制度开始同国际法有所交叉,征收条款在国际条约中确立的过程也是东道国保护外国投资者责任形成的过程。国际条约并未对外资征收下一个明确的定义,但普遍规定了征收的四个要件,而投资的定义虽不属于征收条款中的内容,但却是征收条款适用的基础,因此本文对投资的定义、范围及其日渐扩张的趋势也作了相应的分析和解释。
第二章对当前国际条约及其他法律文件中规定的征收条款进行了总结和梳理。基于征收制度的重要性以及对发展中国家外资征收权力的确认,征收条款出现在包括联大决议和宣言在内的国际法文件当中,这些法律文件就补偿的标准问题在发达国家和发展中国家之间进行了成功的妥协,坚持适当的补偿原则,但最终发展中国家因为引资的现实考虑逐渐退出了统一的阵营。而发达国家亦从未放弃制定给予外国投资者更高标准的多边投资条约的努力,却最终因为无法平衡东道国和投资者的利益而以失败告终。以NAFTA为代表的区域协定的成功运作以及BITs、RTAs的迅速推广,令绝大多数的东道国接受了“赫尔公式”和“间接征收”的存在。而依据这些投资条约和法律文件所建立的投资仲裁和司法机构在实践中也形成了有关征收认定的数量众多的案例群,本文也对此进行了综述和梳理,包括伊美求偿仲裁庭、ICSID、NAFTA、ECT、ECHR等机构对外资征收的认定实践。
第三章对国际条约中征收条款的要件进行了解读。尽管征收四要件的存在已经为大部分的投资条约所确认,但却鲜有对每一个要件的具体释义以及在实践中理解和适用的相关论述。公共利益是外资征收的目的要件,也是一个不易界定的弹性术语,针对该项要件所提出的质疑在国际投资仲裁的实践中鲜有成功,在认定时往往需要同歧视性等要件结合起来考量;遵循正当程序是征收的程序要件,这一原本属于国内法中的行政原则,其含义在国际法上并没有统一的规定,内容也并不确定,因此征收所必须遵循的所谓正当程序还应当是实行征收的国家的国内法规定的法律程序;非歧视原则是征收的实施要件,其在整个四要件当中的重要性正日益突显出来,不但已经成为判断公共利益要件的辅助标准,且因为内容相对确定已经成为投资者和仲裁庭在提起和认定征收时首选的“突破口”;“赫尔原则”已经成为国际条约中泛化的征收补偿标准,但对于何为“充分”、“及时”、“有效”,特别是如何适用“公平市场价值”来计算征收补偿的数额却并没有明确的规定和实践,本文对此进行了较为深入的探讨。
第四章着重探讨的是间接征收在国际条约中的规定及其实践。间接征收认定的核心在于东道国所采取的措施是否在效果上剥夺了投资者对其投资的使用和利益,但几乎所有的投资条约都没有对间接征收的定义和认定规则有细化的界定,直到以美国2004年BIT范本为代表的法律文件确立了对间接征收“依据事实、逐案分析”的处理规则。围绕间接征收的认定,在理论和实践中形成了“单一效果标准”,“单一目的标准”以及“兼采效果与目的的标准”之争,后者在实践中虽然获得了主导性的支持,但其具体适用的国际法标准尚未成型。“蚕食性征收”和“管制性征收”经常被视为间接征收的同义词,然而两者定义的侧重点是不同的,前者强调政府征收不易被辨认和缓慢榨取投资者利益的特征,后者则特指原属东道国警察权范围内的特定措施亦可能会产生相当于征收的效果;“蚕食性征收”的认定需要在事后采取追溯的办法才能确定,而“管制性征收”的认定和补偿最终还是公共利益所造成的经济负担的分担问题,仲裁庭在逐案分析的基础上应当遵循效率和公平的原则,寻求私人投资者和东道国利益之间的平衡。
第五章就需要补偿的间接征收与无须补偿的政府合理管制行为之间进行了区分,两者之间的界限划分不但决定了不同的补偿结果,亦决定了东道国政府可以在多大程度上管理经济或社会事务以及投资者应当在多大程度上承担自身的投资风险。对私人财产权保护的程度是对两者进行区分的核心理念,而实施的“合理性”和“非歧视性”以及“对投资的干涉程度”则是区分两者的具体认定标准。新缔结的BITs和FTAs对间接征收采取了“排除式”的规定,指明除非在极特殊的情况下,东道国为了保护合法的公共福利目标所制定或实施的非歧视的管制性行为不构成间接征收,而这些被排除的措施普遍应包括维护公共秩序和道德、环境和健康以及东道国征税的权力,东道国对这些措施的合理实施本应远离间接征收申诉的烦扰,但是对投资者保护过于激进的NAFTA仲裁实践却一度成为东道国的梦魇,也对投资者执行管制政策的意愿和能力造成了“寒蝉效应”。对于东道国环境管制和征收行为之间的区分需要结合环境权的特征以及环境法中特有的原则来进行考量,而不能一概以管制的结果论处;而东道国的征税只有带有歧视性、任意性或报复性,从而构成“没收性征税”的情况下才有可能会转变为征收行为,但现代投资条约显然意在维护视为政府“生命线”的征税权力,在实践中获得成功的申诉案例几乎没有。
第六章对当前征收条款在国际条约中的适用现状进行了总结和评析,并对该条款的未来发展趋势做出了一定的预测。历经了上个世纪80、90年代的沉寂,伴随新世纪拉美能源国有化的实践和08年金融危机背景下的“新型国有化”的实施,对直接征收条款的适用再度复苏和启动;而针对间接征收的争议日益突显,则说明无论是发达国家还是发展中国家都开始对一贯奉行的单纯追求经济增长率的做法进行反思,如何实现经济的可持续性发展和社会的整体协调发展已成为它们引导和利用外资的新价值观。因此近几年有关间接征收的条约规定日渐明确,而仲裁庭在实践中过于激进的做法也逐渐呈现出回归的态势。当前对征收条款的理解和适用过于依赖投资仲裁庭在实践中的解释,它们不但没有形成明确而一致的观点和结论,并且本身也不具有“先例”的作用,对解决征收条款规定模糊化的问题作用不大。可以预见的是如何平衡私人财产权利和社会公共利益仍将是征收条款适用的核心问题,而维护社会福利最大化的理念将在未来逐渐影响各国和仲裁庭对间接征收认定的态度;鉴于征收条款规定的模糊性以及敏感性,仲裁庭将更倾向于适用“公平公正待遇”等条款来替代征收条款;征收条款的适用,特别是管制性征收的存在可能会加剧东道国所负有的保护外国投资的义务同保护环境、人类资源和自然遗产以及保护人权等方面的条约义务之间的冲突,将这些与投资相关的实体规则逐渐融入投资条约的规定当中或许将是一种有益的尝试。
第七章着重对我国签订的投资条约中的征收条款进行了专题研究。首先,文章对我国目前已经签订的多达130个双边投资协定和其他国际条约中出现的征收条款进行了梳理,并且分析了这些条款所存在的问题;其次,考虑到我国已经兼具资本输入国和资本输出国的双重身份,文章分别就我国可能遭遇的征收申诉风险和我国的海外投资者可能遇到的征收风险,结合实践进行了分析,特别是对实践中已经出现的我国作为东道国被申诉以及我国投资者利用双边投资协定针对外国东道国提起申诉的相关案例进行了详细的分析。最后,文章对完善我国签订条约中的征收条款的规定及其适用提出了建议。
Expropriation Clause is one of the most fundamental substantive clauses in investment treaties. During the development process of international investment law, the initial meaning of protecting foreign investors equals to protecting them from illegal expropriation by the host countries. The trend of investment liberalization is marked with and resulted from the conclusion of most BITs and some important regional investment treaties since nineties of the 20th Century, the existing of all the stereotype expropriation clauses have confirmed the principle that host countries must compensate the foreign investors due to expropriation. The problem concerning compensation standard, which is once sensitive and disputable, has also led to a specific and unanimous answer. The composition and finding of expropriation are much clear for a long period of time. However the answer becomes unclear again with the rapid expansion of expropriation concept. The modern investment treaties define the expropriation clause in three forms, direct expropriation, indirect expropriation and any measure equivalent to or similar to expropriation. Although it is held that the so called“equivalent to or similar to”do not create the third form of expropriation, the expression of indirect or similar expropriation will continue to be widely used and will expand the concept of expropriation in an effective way. The expropriation clause has become the first choice for the investors to claim the host country for compensation. The claims of indirect expropriation have been regarded as a threat to the regulation power of host country in the current international law. And the inconsistent findings of disputes mean uncertainties both to the foreign investors and the host countries. If the balance between the protection over investor property and the regulation power of the host country cannot resolved thoroughly, it will undoubtedly endanger the application and development of expropriation clause in the future.
Firstly, the dissertation will analyze the concept and legal basis of expropriation and expropriation on foreign investment. Combined with the provisions of international investment treaties and other international files on expropriation clauses, the dissertation summarizes the content, history, requirements as well as the disputes settlement practice of investment arbitration or judicial organs based on international treaties. Secondly, the dissertation emphasizes on the analysis of the concept, classification and finding rules of indirect expropriation both in the theory and practice. On this basis, the dissertation will summarize and comment on the problems of expropriation clauses existing in the international treaties and will make some prospects on its possible development trends in the future. In the last, the dissertation will put forward corresponding advices to China for signing the investment treaties with expropriation clauses as well as its application of this clause in the future. The dissertation divides into seven chapters, consisting of 200.000 words.
In the First Chapter, the dissertation analyzes the basic concept of expropriation on foreign investment. As the sovereign power for the government to acquire or change private property rights, the concept of expropriation differs slightly with that of requisition and nationalization both in the intension or extension. The dissertation prefers to use the word of expropriation with some neutral features. The earliest concept of expropriation originated from the concept of eminent domain put forward by Grotius, there exist a lot of theories on the legal basis of expropriation, however, the notion of socialization of property rights illustrates the reason of expropriation properly. As a result, the domestic expropriation legal system had begun to be established in some countries with relatively complete property legal system. When the expropriation involved the investment of foreign investors, the expropriation system began to intersect with international law. The process for the expropriation clause to take into form in the international treaties is just that of the duties for the host countries to protect the foreign investors. The international treaties failed to provide a specific definition for expropriation but generally provide four requirements. Although the concept of investment does not belong to the extent of expropriation clause, it is the application foundation of this clause. The dissertation, therefore, makes some analysis and explanation on the concept, scope as well as its expansion trend of investment.
The Second Chapter summarizes each provision on expropriation clause appeared in the current international treaties and other legal documents. Considering the importance of expropriation system and the confirmation of expropriation power of the developing countries, expropriation clauses are provided in the international documents including the Resolution and Declaration of UN. These documents made great compromise between the developed and developing countries in terms of the compensation standard. That is the Appropriate Compensation Standard. However, the developing countries quitted from the unified interests group gradually due to their endeavors to attract more FDI. And also the developed countries had never given up their endeavors to conclude a multilateral investment treaty with much higher protection standard for their investors, which had finally ended with failure due to the imbalance between the host countries and the investors. With the success of NAFTA and the rapid increase of BITs as well as RTAs, most host counties have accepted the existence of Hull Formula and indirect expropriation. The investment arbitration and judicial organs have developed precedents on the expropriation findings. The dissertation will summarize and illustrate their practice of Iran-US Claims Tribunal, ICSID, NAFTA, ECT and ECHR.
The Third Chapter will analyze the four requirements included in the expropriation clauses. Although the existence of these requirements has confirmed by most of the investment treaties, the specific explanation of each requirement as well as its understanding and application in the practice are insufficient. Public interest is the purpose requirement of expropriation, which is a flexible and difficult term to define. It is not an easy job to challenge it successfully in the practice. It must be determined combined with the non-discrimination requirement. Due Process is the procedure requirement of expropriation, which is the administrative principle in the domestic law, and there is no unified provision or definite content in the international law. Therefore, the due process for the expropriation to follow shall be the legal procedure provided by the domestic law. Non-discrimination principle is the application requirement of expropriation, which shows much more importance among the four requirements. It has become the complementary standard when deciding the public interest. As a result, it has become the first choice preferred by the investors and the tribunals with its definite content. Hull Formula has become the compensation standard generally used in the international treaties, whereas there is no definite provision and practice to define the so-called“Full, Timely and Effective”, especially the application of Fair Market Value to calculate the compensation. The dissertation will illustrate more on this issue.
The Fourth Chapter will emphasize on the provision and practice of indirect expropriation in the international treaties. The core of the finding on expropriation lies in that whether the measures taken by the host countries have deprived the use or benefit of the investors over their investment. But almost all the investment treaties failed to define expropriation or its finding rules until the legal documents represented by 2004 Model BIT of the US set up the rule of“facts inquiry and case by case analysis”. In terms of the finding on expropriation, it gives rise to the disputes among the Sole Effects Doctrine, Police Power Doctrine and the Combined Doctrine. Although the latter has gained the most support, its specific application rules have not come into being. The Creeping Expropriation and Regulatory Expropriation are often deemed as the synonyms with the Indirect Expropriation. But the emphasis of each concept is different. The former emphasizes its feature as hard-to-define and depriving the investor gradually and slowly, while the latter refers to that the police power of the host country will also produce the effects equivalent to the expropriation. The finding of creeping expropriation should be ascertained with the method of retrospect; while the finding and compensation of regulatory expropriation are the share of economic burden resulted by the public interests. The tribunal should follow the principle of efficiency and fairness on the basis of case-by-case analysis to resort to the balance between the investors and host countries.
The Fifth Chapter will differentiate between the compensable indirect expropriation and incompensable regulatory measures of the government. The boundary of them will lead to different compensation results and will also decide the extent for the government to regulate its economic or social affairs or that for the investors to assume their investment risks. The investor property protection level is the fundamental notion for differentiating these two concepts, and reasonableness, non-discrimination as well as the interference of investment is the specific determination standards. The newly concluded BITs and FTAs have adopted the exclusion provision on indirect expropriation and refers to that apart from the rare circumstances, the regulatory measures adopted or enforced by the host countries in order to protect legitimate public interests, in a non-discrimination manner, will not be deemed as indirect expropriation. It is generally held that the excluded measures shall include the measures for protecting public order, moral, environment, health and taxation. These legitimate measures ought to be away from the indirect expropriation claims, but the radical practice of protecting NAFTA has become the nightmare of the host countries, which has also led to the chilling effects to the willing and ability for the host countries to enforce the regulations. To differentiate between the environment protection and expropriation, it cannot be decided in light of the regulation results only but need to examine and weigh combing with the characteristic of environment right as well as the unique principles in the environment law. Only the discriminatory, arbitrary or retaliatory taxation would be deemed as the confiscatory taxation. With the modern investment treaties’aiming to defend the taxation power, which is regarded as the lifeline of the government, there’s almost no successful claim challenging that power of the government.
The Sixth Chapter will summarize and analyze the current application status of expropriation clause in international treaties, and will provide some prospects on its development in the future. Going through the silence featured in the Eighties and Nineties in last Century, the nationalization to the energy industry in Latin America has been carried out since the 20th Century. The new-style nationalizations have been carried out in the background of financial crisis since 2008. All these facts prove that the indirect expropriation clause has been activated and recovered. Whereas the increasing arguments concerning indirect expropriation illustrate that no matter the developed countries or the developing ones are undergoing the introspect toward their behavior of pursuing solely on the economic growth in the past. The way of realizing the sustainable development, integral and harmonious social development has become the new values for the governments to utilize or guide the foreign investment. Therefore, the provision on indirect expropriation tends to be much clear all these years, the radical practice of the tribunals, however, has also been back to the normal as a result. The current understanding and application of the expropriation clause have relied too much on the explanations of the tribunal in the practice. There are no definite and unified opinions or conclusions on some issues. At the same time, these cases do not function as the precedents, which will provide little help in resolving the vagueness of this clause. It can be predicted that how to balance the private property rights and social public interests will still be the core in the application of expropriation clause. And notion of maintaining the maximization of social benefits will affect the altitudes of governments or tribunal gradually. In the light of its vagueness and sensitivity, the tribunals tend to use Fair and Equitable Clause to replace the expropriation clause. The application of regulatory expropriation will aggravate the conflicts between the duties for the host countries to protect foreign investment and other treaty duties, including protecting the environment, human resources, natural heritage and human rights. To integrate theses investment-related issues into the investment treaties might be a nice attempt.
The Seventh Chapter will emphasize on the sdudy of expropriation clauses in the international treaties that China has signed. Firsly, the dissertation summarizes all the expropriation clauses provided in more than 130 BITs and point out their weakness and potential problems. Secondly, China has become both the investment input and output country. In light of this status, the dissertation analyzes all the risks both the government and our investors will face in terms of indirect expropriation. Specific analysis on the real case in the practice will be provided. In the last, the dissertation will provide some advices on perfecting the provision and application of expropriation clauses in the treaties that China has signed.
引文
1余劲松:《跨国公司的法律问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1989年版,第28页。
2 F. V. Garcia Amador, Principios de Derechos Internacional que Rigen la Responsabilidad, (Madrid,1963), p.221转引自Renato Ribeiro, Nationalization of Foreign Property in International Law, p.12.
1格老秀斯著:《战争与和平法》,何勤华译,上海人民出版社2005年5月第一版,第29页。
2警察权是政府为实现社会管理和公益目的而实施即便干涉私人财产也不予补偿的规范性措施的权力。有关警察权的含义在本文第13页有较为详细的解释。
3洛克著,叶启芳、瞿菊农译:《政府论》(下篇),商务印书馆1983年版,第86页。
4刘志刚:《财产征收的宪法界限》,载《当代法学》2006年第5期。
1参见廖建求、姜孝贤:《行政征收权与私有财产权的冲突与协调-以财产保护方式为视角》,载《湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第11卷第6期。
2闫桂芳:《财产征收的正当性分析》,载《中国合作经济》,2005年第6期。
1闫桂芳:《财产征收的正当性分析》,载《中国合作经济》,2005年第6期。
2闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第7页。
1屈茂辉、张红:《论征收法律制度的几个问题》,载《法学评论》,2003年第2期。
2姜玉琴:《德国行政征收制度探析》,载《决策和信息》2008年第5期(下半月刊)。
1闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第8页。
1郭海清:《适当确定征收中公共利益的范围-美国联邦最高法院宪法判例对我国的启示》,华东师范大学硕士论文,第3页。
2史晓丽、祁欢:《国际投资法》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第197页。
1 Michael S. Minor,The Demise of Expropriation as an instrument of LDC Policy, Journal of International Business Study (1994). p.112.
2 G.G.,Christie,What Constitute a Taking Under International Law?, British Year Book of International Law (1962). p.367.
3曾华群:《国际投资法学》,北京大学出版社1999年版,第447页。
4梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径-从投资者权益与东道国治安权衡平之视角探析》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
1 S.D.Myers Inc.V. Canada (Partial Award)(2002) 121 ILR 72, para.191.
2杨树明等著:《国际投资法原理》,重庆大学出版社1992年版,第142-143页。
1参见劳特派特修订《奥本海国际法》上卷,第一分册,商务印书馆1981年中译本,第230-233页,转引自陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第78页。
2徐崇利:《外资征收中的补偿额估算》,载《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期(2006),第72页。
3第一次世界大战后,德国上西里西亚(Upper Silexia)的一部分(包括霍茹夫)被划归波兰。1920年,波兰颁布《清算法》,宣布所划入领土上的一切德国财产属波兰所有,并规定1918年11月11日之后的一切财产转移均属无效。根据该法律,波兰将最初由德国建立、后又于1919年转让给“上西里西亚氮肥股份公司”(私人公司)的霍茹夫硝酸厂收归国有。1925年,德国根据两国签订的《上西里西亚专约》将争端提交国际常设法院。Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland),1928 PCIJ No. 17 (Judgement of Sept.13)。
1王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第217页。
1据统计,在1950年-1976年间发生了1954起接管、征收或国有化的案件,其中20世纪50年代共发生421件,60年代为406件,1970-1976年间为1136件。从地区来看,亚洲为219件,中东为464件,非洲为826件,拉美为454件。参见陈立成:《发展中国家的国有化》,载《经济研究参考资料》1982年第154期,第25-32页。转引自余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版,第287页。
1 West V. Multibanco Comermex, S. A., 807 F. 2d 820 (9th Cir. 1987).
2 Nicoschrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties, Cambridge University Press,1997, p.354.
1 CME Czech Republic B. V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, Final Award in UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings, 14 March 2003, Separate Opinion of Ian Brownlie p.33.
2当前国际投资领域为数不多的真正具有多边投资条约性质的《华盛顿公约》恰恰没有对“投资”作出任何定义,只是规定“本中心管辖权适用于任何直接产生于投资的法律争议”,之所以不做定义应该是有意为之,主要是考虑过于宽泛的定义无法实现公约的目的,而过窄的定义方式则武断地限制了缔约国及其投资者将真正属于投资的争议提交仲裁的可能性,因此该公约宁愿将对投资的定义的权利留给提交管辖意愿的各缔约国。
3 Noah Rubins, The Notion of‘Investment’in International Investment Arbitration, N. Horn (ed) Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes,pp.297-300.
1 Robert Azinian and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/2 (November
1,1999).
2何树全:《国际投资协定中的主要争议和未来的选择分析》,载《社会科学》,2004年第5期,第26-27页。
1《东盟促进与保护投资协定》http://ww.aseansec.org/6464.htm, 2010年11月20日访问。
2詹晓宁、葛顺奇:《国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义》,载《国际经济合作》,2003年第1期,第43页。
1《OECD资本流动自由化守则》http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/62/39664826.pdf,2010年11月20日访问。
2詹晓宁、葛顺奇:《国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义》,载《国际经济合作》,2003年第1期,第42页。
3陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第31页。
1参见2004年《美国-智利自由贸易协议》。
2陈璐:《国际投资协定中“征收”含义的研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,第11页。
3 Amoco International Finance Corp v. Iran. 15 Iran-US CTR 189 (1987), para.108.
1 SPP v. Egypt, Award, 20 May 1992, 3 ICSID Report 189, para.164.
2 Peter Muchilinski, Federico Ortino, Christoph Schreuer, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, Oxford University Press, 2008. p.417.
3 Jalapa Railroad and Power Co, American-Mexican Claims Commission, 1948,8 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 908 (1976).p.375.
4 Phillips Petroleum Co., v. Iran, 21 Iran-US CTR 79 (1989).
1 Azurix v. Argentina Republic, ICSID ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006.
2 SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6 (2004).
3 Impregilo SpA v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3.(2005).
4 Consortium RFCC v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6 (2003).
1季烨:《国际投资条约中投资定义的扩张及其限度》,2008全国博士生学术论坛(国际法)论文集--国际经济法、国际环境法分册,2008年。
2Taking of Property. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.p.1.
3余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版,第289页。
4 A Sheppard,The Distinction between the Lawful and Unlawful Expropriation ,in C Ribeiro (ed) Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet, New York, 2006) p.170.
1姚梅镇:《国际投资的法律保护》,载《中国国际法年刊》,1982年,第140页。
1参见余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版,第290-292页。
2王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第214页。
3 Sornarajah, M, International Law on Foreign Investment, (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press, 2004, p.345.
1 See a summary of the debate in the Commission on Sustainable Development in (1998) 28 (3-4) Environmental Policy and Law, p.129.
1 Metaclad Corp v. United Mexican States (Award) 5 ICSID Rep 209 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2000).
2 Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States (Award) (2004) 43 ILM 967 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2004).
3 Feldman v. Mexico. Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1.
1 Pope&Talbot Inc v. Government of Canada (Interim Award) 7 ICSID Rep 69, 87 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
2 SD Myers Inc v. Government of Canada (Partial Award) 8 ICSID Rep 4, 58 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
3 Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Republic of Latvia (Award) SCC Case No 118/2001.
1 Been Vicki and Beauvais Joel C,The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International‘Regulatory Takings’Doctrine, New York University Law Review, April 2003. p.3.
1 Campbell Mclachlan, Laurence Shore, Matthew Weiniger,International Investment Arbitration Substantive Principles, Oxford University Press, 2007. p.283.
1根据NAFTA第1120(1)款的规定,投资者可以根据ICSID公约、ICSID附属机构的规则将争议提交仲裁,或者根据UNCITRAL仲裁规则提起临时仲裁。
1《阿尔及尔宣言》的全称为”Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Cocerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran”,又被称为《争议解决宣言》,“Claims Settlement Declaration”。
2梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
1其中包括INA Corp. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 184-151-1 (Aug. 13, 1985),
8 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 373;American Int’l Group, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 93-2-3 (Dec. 19, 1983), 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep.96.这两个争议产生于伊朗在1979年所颁布的两项法令,内容是对伊朗经营的所有保险公司和银行进行国有化。
2 Starrett Housing Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran,ITL 32-24-1 (Dec. 19, 1983) 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep.122.
1 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, AWD 141-7-2 (June 29, 1984), 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 219.
2 Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 217-99-2 (Mar. 19, 1986), 10 Iran-U.S. CL.Trib.Rep. 121.
3相关信息可参见http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/pending.htm.(访问日期:2011年8月11日)
4 20世纪90年代以来,在新自由主义经济的影响下,阿根廷采取包括实施大规模私有化、大幅度开放外国投资等措施,快速融入经济全球化的进程,实现了经济短期内的快速增长,但到了90年代中后期,特
1 Nykomb Synergetics Tech. Holding AB v. Latvia, Award, (Stockholm Chamber of Com. Inst. Dec. 16, 2003).
2 Petrobart Ltd. v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 126/2003, Arbitral Award, (Stockholm Chamber of Com. Inst. Mar. 29,2005).
1史尚宽:《民法总论》,台北正大印书馆1980年版,第31页。
2莫里斯奥里马著,龚觅等译:《行政法与公法精要》,辽海出版社1999年版,第14页。
3闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第137页。
4杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第85页。
1 ADC Affiliage Limted and ADC & ADMC Management v. the Republic of Hungary. ICSID Case No ARB/03/16.para.426.
2 Libyan American Oil Company (Liamco) v. Government of the Libyan Arab Republic(1981)20 ILM 1.
3 James v. United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123.
1 Siemens AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8.
2 Matthew P. Harrington,Public Use’and the Original Understanding of the So-Called“Takings”Clause, Hastings Law Journal (2001-2002), p.53.
3 Abi-Saab, Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and Economic Activities, in International Law: Achievements and Prospects 609 (M. Bedjaoui ed., 1991).p.51.
4 See Henkin, Pugh et al., International Law: Cases and Materials (1987),p.228.
1 ADC Affiliage Limted and ADC & ADMC Management v. the Republic of Hungary. ICSID Case No ARB/03/16. para.444.
2 Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, NAFTA, Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, Aug. 3, 2005.
1詹宁斯、瓦茨修订《奥本海国际法》,中国大百科全书出版社,第920页。
2胡戎恩:《征收的法律思考》,《法学论坛》2006年第11期,第28页。
3闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第202页。
1 R Dolzer and C Schreuer,Principles of International Investment Law Oxford University Press,(2008) p.91.
2 China-Poland (1998).
3 China-Netherlands (2001).
4 R Dolzer and C Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (2008), Oxford Unversity Press. p.106.
5 K. Vandevelde, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice (1992).p.121.
6杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第86页。
1R.Dolzer and M Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties ,the Hague, Nijhoff, 1995. p.107.
2 ADC Affiliage Limted and ADC & ADMC Management v.the Republic of Hungary. ICSID Case No ARB/03/16.para.428.
1杨学伟:《国际投资中的国有化法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,第23页。
2刘智慧:《以物权法的视角论征收中公共利益的界定》,中国政法大学硕士论文,第23页。
1飞天:《从“凯洛诉新伦敦市案”解读美国政府如何解决征地争议》,《中国房地产报》,2005年7月18日。
1钟头朱:《论我国土地征收正当程序的构建》,《乡镇经济》,2009年10月。
2钟头朱:《论公益征收正当程序的构建》,《贵州民族学院学报》(哲学社会科学版),2010年第6期。
1 Dunia P. Zongwe, Contribution of Campbell v. Zimbabwe to the Foreign Investment Law on Expropriations, CLPE Research Paper 51/2009 Vol. 05 No. 09 (2009) SSRN. p.16.
2 Gillian White, Nationalization of Foreign Property, 44 American Journal of International Law. 253 (1941). p.187.
1王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第215页。
2 Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F. 2d 699, US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 22 May 1992.
1姜明安主编:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社1999年版,第476页。
2沈开举:《征收、征用与补偿》,法律出版社2006年第一版,第23页。
1 Vicki Been, Does an International“Regulatory Takings”Doctrine Make Sense? New York University Environmental Law Journal, 2002, Volume 11, pp.49-50.
2 Oscar Schachter, Compensation for Expropriation,American.Journal of International Law.(1984).
1 F Francioni, Compensation for Nationalization of Foreign Property: The Borderland between Law and Equity, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975) pp.255-256.
2曾华群:《外资征收及其补偿标准:历史的分野与现实的挑战》,《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期,第53页。
1参见曾华群:《外资征收及其补偿标准:历史的分野与现实的挑战》,《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期,第54-55页。
2《关于自然资源之永久主权宣言》规定:“行使其主权的国家应依据本国现行法规及国际法,对原主以适当补偿,若补偿问题引起争议,则应当尽量诉诸国内管辖,如经主权国家及其他当事各方同意,得以公断或国际裁判方法解决争端。”《各国经济权利义务宪章》则规定:“应由采取该措施的国家给予适当的补偿,要考虑到该国有关的法律、法规以及该国认为相关的一切情形,因赔偿问题所引起的争议,应当由实行国有化国家的法院依照其国内法加以解决,除非有关各国自由和互相同意根据各国主权平等并按照自由选择方法的原则寻求其他和平解决方法。”
3单文华:《国有化补偿理论与时间的发展及中国的对策》,《法律科学》,1995年第4期,第67页。
1参见余劲松:《论国际投资法中国有化补偿的根据》,《中国社会科学》,1986年第2期,第61页。
2陈丽华:《论对外资国有化的补偿标准》,《中国社会科学院研究生学报》,2003年第4期。
3参见余劲松:《论国际投资法中国有化补偿的根据》,《中国社会科学》,1986年第2期,第59-61页
4 1990年到1993年签订的145个BITs中,“赫尔公式”出现了91次,占61%,94个BITs要求补偿应毫不迟延,“充分”是最通行的术语。Nicoschrijiver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties, Cambridge University Press,1997. p.354.
1张玲娟:《征收补偿标准的国际关系理论分析》,《法制与社会》,2007年第11期。
1 Ursula Kriebaum, Regulaorty Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, the Journal of World Investment & Trade, October 2007, Vol. 8 No. 5.
2所谓“要么全有,要么全无”是指如果没有将东道国政府的管理措施认定为间接征收,就无需向外国投资者承担任何补偿责任;反之,如果将东道国政府的管理措施认定为间接征收,则无论情形如何,均需按照“赫尔标准”向外国投资者支付全部或充分的损害赔偿。上述观点参见徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期,第38-39页。
3 Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow (Claim for Indemnity) (Germany v. Poland) (1928) PCIJ Ser. A., No. 17 at 47.
1例如前捷克斯洛伐克-荷兰于1991年签订的BIT第5条。
2例如中国-法国于1984年签订的BIT以及中国-泰国1985年签订的BIT。
3例如中国-新西兰于1988年签订的BIT。
4 CME Case, Professor Brownlie’s Separate Opinion.
5 Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran, Final Award, 16 Iran-US CTR 112, para.201.
1陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第98-99页。
2所谓持续经营价值是指在继续经营的条件下公司若整体出售所能获得的货币额。此价值若超过公司资产的价值,则超出的部分即为无形资产。
1其中包括:(1)企业的未来收益;(2)企业的未来支出;(3)企业占压资金而不进行投资的机会成本;(4)未来收入的通货膨胀率;(5)未来收益实现的可能性。
2 Andrew Newcombe, Lluis Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment, Kluwer Law International (2009), p.390.
1 WM Reisman and RD Sloane,“Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation”British Yearbook of Internatioanal Law (2003). see supra 7.15 on creeping expropriation.
2杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第92页。
3 Andrew Newcombe, Lluis Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment, Kluwer Law International (2009), p.395.
1 Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Award) ICSID Case ARB/99/6 2002.
2张宏乐:《国际投资中引起间接征收的原因分析》,载于《国际问题研究》,2008年7月。
1刘笋:《国际投资与环境保护的法律冲突与协调--以晚近区域性投资条约及相关案例为研究对象》,《现代法学》,2006年第6期。
1 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, 6 Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984).
2 Starrett Housing Corp v. Government of thel Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US CTR (19 December 1983).
3 Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States, ARB(AF)/97/1 (30 August 2000).
1商镇:《征收与政府管理行为的划分——论间接征收的界定》,《法律适用》,2006年第10期。
2徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期。
1 R Dolzer, Indirect Expropriation: New Development? New York Environmental Law Journal,2002. p.78.
2 Phelps Dodge Corp. et al v. Iran, Iran-US CTR 121, 130 (1986).
3梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
1 Ursula Kriebaum, Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, the Journal of World Investment &Trade, October 2007,Vol. 8,p.726.
2徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期,第33页。
1韩秀丽:《论比例原则在有关征收的国际投资仲裁中的开创性适用》,2010年第10期。
2欧盟国家的国内法体系要求公共机关在对个人或私人企业行使行政权力时应当尊重当事人的合理期待,个人及私人企业可以基于政府部门的声明和陈述产生合理正当的期待;美国法院也将基于投资的期待作为其考察公共部门在征收财产时是否违反宪法第五修正案的考虑因素之一。参见邓婷婷:《国际投资仲裁中
1 Ursula Kriebaum, Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, The Journal of World Investment &Trade, Vol. 8, No. 5.
2 Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Nor. v. U.S) IR. Int’l Arb. Awards, 307 (1922).
3 Starrett Housing Corp v. Government of thel Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US CTR (19 December 1983).
4 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, 6 Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984).
1 Sea-Land Serv, Inc v. Iran, Iran-US CTR 167 (1984).
1 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, 6 Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984).
2 Amco Asia Corporation v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Award, 20 November 1984, ICSID Reports 455 (1993).
3 James v. United Kingdom, European Human RIghts Reports 123-64 (1986), Judgement of 21 February 1986.
1 Final Award in the Matter of an UNCITRAL Arbitration: Ronald S. Lauder v The Czech Republic,
3 September 2001, reprinted in: 14 World Trade and Arbitration Materials 35 (2002), 203.
2 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarghy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran 6 Iran-USCTR 219, 225.
3 Eudoro A Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 (26 July 2001).
1 W. Michael Reisman and Robert D Sloane,‘Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation, British Yearbook of International Law (2003).
2 OECD Working Papers on International Investment Law: Indirect Expropriation and Right to Regulate in International Investment Law 2004/4, pp. 71-72.
1叶兴平著:《国际争端解决机制的最新发展--北美自由贸易区的法律与实践》,法律出版社2006年5月第一版,第139页。
2 UNCTAD Series on IIAs (2000), Taking of Property, ITE/IIT/15, p.11
3 Generation Ukraine Inc v. Government of Canada (Award) ICSID Case ARB/00/9 2003.
1参见陈璐:《国际投资协定中“征收”含义的研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,第29页。
1 Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL ad hoc Tribunal, Award on Jurisdiction and Arbitration Material (2002).
2陈璐:《国际投资协定中的“征收”含义研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,第30页。
3 Benvenuti and Bonfant v. Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2 (8 August 1980).
1 Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation v. Republic of Liberia, ICSID Case No. ARB/83/2 (3 March 1986).
2 Siemens AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8. para.375.
1 Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/2 (2 June 2000).
2 Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (24 June 1993).
3 W. Michael Reisman, Robert D. Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Gneration, British Yearbook of International Law, 2003.
1参见李尊然:《管制性征收与国际投资法的新发展》,载于《武大国际法评论》,2007年第1期,第148-149页。
1 1922年,美国最高法院在本案中第一次确认“政府对私人财产的管制,在某些情况下若对财产人造成了过重的义务负担则构成直接的征收。”Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
2 Crispulo Marmolejo, Regulatory Takings: A Real Globalization of Property Rights? http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=crispulo_marmolejo_gonzalez. (Nov 12,2010).
3刘海平:《美国管制征收法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,第3页。
1 UNCTAD Series on IIAs (2000), Taking of Property, ITE/IIT/15, p.12.
李尊然:《管制性征收与国际投资法的新发展》,载于《武大国际法评论》,2007年第1期,第148页。
3 Generation Ukraine, Inc v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9 (16 September 2003).
1 Saluka Investment BV v. the Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Partial Award (17 March 2006). Para.263.
2参见徐崇利:《外资征收中的补偿额估算》,载于《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期(2006),第71-72页。
1 J Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2002) pp.86-90.
1 SA v. Republic of Costa Rica (Award) 5 ICSID Rep 153, 172 (ICSID, 2000).
2 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada) (1998) ICJ Rep 432.
3 Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic (Final Award, 3 Sep. 2001).
1 Case No. ARB. (AF)/99/1 (Dec. 16,2002).
2 ICSID Case No ARB/01/8 (May 12, 2005).
3 ICSID Case No. ARB.(AF)/00/2 (May 29, 2003).
1 Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic,ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12 (July 14, 2006).
1 Thunderbird v. Mexico, Award, 26 January 2006.para.127.
1 Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9 (September 16,2003).
1 Wena Hotels Limited v. Egypt (Award, 8 Dec. 2000).
2 Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Egypt (Award, 12 Apr. 2002).
3 LG&E Energy et al. v.The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1.(Oct.2., 2006).para.105.
1 Eudoro A. Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay,ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 (July 26, 2001).
1 22 U.S.C. 2198(b) (2006).
2 OPIC Model Contract 1.13,转引自Vance R. Koven, Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC, 22 Harvard International Law Journal,(1981). pp.321-322.
1 Helen Mountfield, Regulatory Expropriations in Europe: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights, 11 New York University of Environmental Law Journal (2002).
1概念性分割这一术语最早由美国学者Margaret Jane Radin提出,用于概括和描述部分征收的问题,即一种财产利益恰好是政府从财产所有人处取走的,从而宣称该特定部分之整体被永久地剥夺;由此,概念性地假定那些受政府管制影响的权利被从整个的权利束中分割出来,并且在整体上被视为一个独立的整物。
2 Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979).
1 G.C.Christie, What Constitutes a Taking Under International Law, 38 British Yearbook of International Law (1962).
1曹晴:《浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限》,《环球法律评论》2008年第6期。
1曹晴:《浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限》,《环球法律评论》2008年第6期。
2 (Award)Ad Hoc Arbitration (UNCITRAL, 2002).
1 Amco v.Republic of Indonesia, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 September 1983.
2 Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1976), 136 C.L.R. 1 (H.C.).
1 Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (USA v. Italy), I.C.J. Rep. 1989. 15. Judgment 20 July 1989.
2 Sol Picciotto, International Business Taxation,London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, (1992),p.52.
1 M.Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press,(2004). p 125.
2 1894年,由于发生霍乱,巴西当局销毁了当地种植的很多西瓜,美国的西瓜种植者请求美国政府代表其进行索赔,但美国国务院认为在这种情况下这些措施是合理的,从而不要求补偿。
3这些案件包括前述介绍的Ethyl, Metaclad, Myers, Pope-Talbot和California/MTBE等案件,这些案件的提起对采取环境措施的加拿大、墨西哥和美国政府提出了严重的挑战。
1 Ignacio Madalena, Foreign Direct Ivestment and the Protection of the Environment: the Border between National Environmental Regulation and Expropriation, European Environmental Law Review, March 2003.
1 Rahim Moloo and Justin Jacinto, Eniromental and Health Regulation: Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2001. p.33.
2 Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1995).
1 Thomas Walda & Abba Kolo, Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and‘Regulatory Taking’in International Law, 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2001).
1 Hentrich v. France, Application No. 13616/88, Judgement of ECHR, 22 September 1994.
2 Gudmundsson v. Iceland, Application No. 511/59,Judgement of ECHR, 20 December 1960.
1 Prosper Weil, The State, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: The No Longer Stormy Relationship,ICSID Review (2000).
1 Jeffery Atik, Repenser NAFTA Chapter 11: A Catalogue of Legitimacy Critiques, ASPER Review International Business and Trade Law (2003).
1刘振:《世界性的新国有化浪潮》,《中国财富》,2007年第11期。
2江时学:《能源工业“国有化”难成拉美主流》,《中国企业家》,2006年第13期。
3刘振:《世界性的新国有化浪潮》,《中国财富》,2007年第11期。
1参见杨学伟:《国际投资中的国有化法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,第43-44页。
1 David Schneiderman, NAFTA’s Takings Rule: American Constitutionalism comes to Canada, 46 Univerity of Toronto Law Journal(1986).
2 James Langman & Rosella Brevetti, Bilateral Agreements: Chile Says Many Issues still unsettled after Latest Round of Talks with U.s.BNA-International Trade Representative (Jan. 31, 2002).
1 Hope H. Camp, Jr., Dispute Resolution and U.S-Mexico Business Transactions,U.S.-Mexcan.Law Journal (1997).
1 Daniel M. Price, The Management and Resolution of Cross Border Disputes as Canada/U.S. Enter the 21st Century: Chapter 11-Private Party vs. Government, Investor-State Disputes Settlement: Frankenstein or Safety Valve? 26 Canada-U.S.Law Journal (2000).
1刘笋:《晚近国际投资仲裁对国家主权的挑战及相关评析》,全球化时代的国际经济法:中国的视角国际研讨会论文集(上)(2008年)。
2徐崇利:《晚近国际投资争端解决实践之评判:“全球治理”的引入》,《法学家》,2010年第3期。
1摘自维基百科http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/全球治理(访问日期:2011年5月28日)。
2俞可平:《治理与善治》,社会科学文献出版社2000年版,第9页。
3徐崇利:《晚近国际投资争端解决实践之评判:“全球治理”的引入》,《法学家》,2010年第3期。
1 Todd Weiler (ed), NAFTA: Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice. Future Prospects (2004) p.126.
1王楠:《试析外资公平公正待遇标准》,《时代法学》,2008年第6期。
2 F. A. MANN, Brithsh Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, British Yearbook of International Law, 1981, Vol. 52, pp.241, 246.转引自陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第233页。
1 Christoph Schreuer, Full Protection and Security, Jounral of International Disputes Settlement (2010), p. 17.
1 James D. FRY, International Human Rights Law in Investment Arbitration: Evidence of International Law’s Unity, 18 Duke Jounal of Comparative & International Law 77 (2007-2008).
2 Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, (June 23, 2006), para.261
3张光:《论国际投资仲裁中非投资国际义务的适用进路》,《现代法学》,2009年第4期。
1中国-罗马尼亚BIT第4条第1款。
1其他没有规定正当程序要求的BITs还包括中国与文莱、丹麦、以色列、阿曼、泰国、英国等国签订的相关条款。
1杨卫东:《双边投资协定:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第87页。
2 M N Shaw, International Law Cambridge University Press (5th edn, 2003) , p.751.
3采用这一措词的BITs还包括中国与阿尔巴尼亚、德国、希腊、朝鲜、俄罗斯等国签订的BITs。
4例如中国与比利时、卢森堡、乌克兰、白俄罗斯等国签订的BITs。
5例如中国与津巴布韦、毛里求斯、文莱等国签订的BITs。
6例如中国与韩国、斯洛文尼亚、土耳其等国签订的BITs。
1例如中国-印度之间签订的BIT。
2例如中国-阿拉伯联合王国之间签订的BIT。
3例如中国-菲律宾之间签订的BIT。
4例如中国-老挝之间的签订的BIT。
1杨卫东:《双边投资协定:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第88页。
1例如中国同比利时、卢森堡之间签订的BITs。
2例如中国同智利、冰岛等国之间签订的BITs。
3例如中国同印度之间签订的BIT。
4例如中国同希腊、丹麦之间签订的BITs。
5例如中国同阿曼和俄罗斯之间签订的BITs。
6R. Dolzer and M Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties ,the Hague, Nijhoff, 1995.p.112.
1王海浪:《“落后”还是“超前”?——论中国对ICSID管辖权的同意》,《国际经济法学》第13卷第1期。
2《中华人民共和国物权法》第42条第一款规定:“为了公共利益的需要,依照法律规定的权限和程序可以征收集体所有的土地和单位、个人的房屋及其他不动产。”而其中第二、第三款对征收补偿做了规定。
1《中国利用外资首破千亿美元,居世界第二》http://www.ce.cn/macro/more/201101/18 (访问日期:2011年6月7日)。
2梁咏:《我国海外投资之间接征收风险及对策--基于“平安公司-富通集团案”的解读》,载于《法商研究》,2010年第1期。
1参见陈安主编:《国际投资争端仲裁——“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究》,复旦大学出版社2001年版,第106-107页。
1石俭平:《东道国外资征税权与间接征收关系辨析》,《时代经贸》,2011年8月。
1两家公司于2005年收购了加拿大恩卡纳(EnCana)集团的安第斯石油公司(AndesPetroleum),该公司在厄瓜多尔有5个石油区块的资产和开发权,日产石油8万桶,产量居南美第5位,从而成为厄瓜多尔最大的外资企业。
2石俭平、徐维余:《间接征收-中国海外投资企业面临的新问题》,2008年第7期。
3 Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6.
1梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
2千省利、朱明能:《论<中国能源投资条约>间接征收范围界定——以国际判例的视角》,《今传媒》,2010年第12期。
1中国-哥伦比亚投资协定的第14条第5款就规定了类似的前置程序。
1王月鹏:《间接征收中的合理期待》,《法制与社会》,2008. 12(中)。
1曾丽凌:《政府金融危机应对措施的法律评价——以双边投资条约义务为参照》,《海峡法学》,2010年12月。
1、姚梅镇著:《国际投资法》,武汉大学出版社1987年版。
2、王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
3、丁伟著:《国际投资的法律管制》,上海译文出版社1996年版。
4、格老秀斯著:《战争与和平法》,何勤华译,上海人民出版社2005年版。
5、洛克著,叶启芳、瞿菊农译:《政府论》(下篇),商务印书馆1983年版。
6、闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年版。
7、劳特派特修订派派奥本海国际法法法上卷,第一分册,商务印书馆1981年中译本。
8、史尚宽著:《民法总论》,台北正大印书馆1980年版。
9、莫里斯奥里马著,龚觅等译:《行政法与公法精要》,辽海出版社1999年版。
10、沈开举:《征收、征用与补偿》,法律出版社2006年版。
11、叶兴平著:《国际争端解决机制的最新发展--北美自由贸易区的法律与实践》,法律出版社2006年版。
12、刘笋著:《国际投资保护的国际法制―若干重要法律问题研究》,法律出版社2002年版。
1、陈安主编:《国际投资法学》,北京大学出版社1999年版。
2、余劲松主编:《跨国公司的法律问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1989年版。
3、陈安主编:《国际经济法专论》,北京高等教育出版社2002年版。
4、余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版。
5、曾华群主编:《国际投资法学》,北京大学出版社1999年版。
6、孙南申主编:《国际投资法》,中国人民大学出版社2008年版。
7、陈治东、朱榄叶主编:《国际经济法学》,法律出版社1999年版。
8、陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版。
9、史晓丽、祁欢:《国际投资法》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
10、曹建明、周洪钧、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1998年版。
11、陈安编著:《国际投资争端仲裁—“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究》,复旦大学出版社2001年版。
12、张庆麟:《国际投资法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2007年版
13、丁伟主编:《经济全球化与中国外资立法完善》,法律出版社2004年版。
1、刘志刚:《财产征收的宪法界限》,载《当代法学》2006年第5期。
2、廖建求、姜孝贤:《行政征收权与私有财产权的冲突与协调-以财产保护方式为视角》,载《湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第11卷第6期。
3、闫桂芳:《财产征收的正当性分析》,载《中国合作经济》,2005年第6期。
4、屈茂辉、张红:《论征收法律制度的几个问题》,载《法学评论》,2003年第2期。
5、姜玉琴:《德国行政征收制度探析》,载《决策和信息》2008年第5期(下半月刊)。
6、徐崇利:《外资征收中的补偿额估算》,载《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期(2006)。
7、何树全:《国际投资协定中的主要争议和未来的选择分析》,载《社会科学》,2004年第5期。
8、詹晓宁、葛顺奇:《国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义》,载《国际经济合作》,2003年第1期。
9、姚梅镇:《国际投资的法律保护》,载《中国国际法年刊》,1982年。
10、梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
11、胡戎恩:《征收的法律思考》,《法学论坛》2006年第11期,第28页
12、曾华群:《外资征收及其补偿标准:历史的分野与现实的挑战》,《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期。
13、单文华:《国有化补偿理论与时间的发展及中国的对策》,《法律科学》,1995年第4期。
14、余劲松:《论国际投资法中国有化补偿的根据》,《中国社会科学》,1986年第2期。
15、陈立成:《发展中国家的国有化》,载《经济研究参考资料》1982年第154期。
16、陈丽华:《论对外资国有化的补偿标准》,《中国社会科学院研究生学报》,2003年第4期。
17、张玲娟:《征收补偿标准的国际关系理论分析》,《法制与社会》,2007年第11期。
18、徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期。
19、张宏乐:《国际投资中引起间接征收的原因分析》,载于《国际问题研究》,2008年7月。
20、刘笋:《国际投资与环境保护的法律冲突与协调--以晚近区域性投资条约及相关案例为研究对象》,《现代法学》,2006年第6期。
21、商镇:《征收与政府管理行为的划分——论间接征收的界定》,《法律适用》,2006年第10期。
22、韩秀丽:《论比例原则在有关征收的国际投资仲裁中的开创性适用》,2010年第10期。
23、邓婷婷:《国际投资仲裁中的“投资者期待”原则》,《湘潭大学学报<哲学社会科学版>》,2010年第5期。
24、李尊然:《管制性征收与国际投资法的新发展》,载于《武大国际法评论》,2007年第1期。
25、钟头朱:《论公益征收正当程序的构建》,《贵州民族学院学报》(哲学社会科学版),2010年第6期。
26、曹晴:《浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限》,《环球法律评论》2008年第6期。
27、江时学:《能源工业“国有化”难成拉美主流》,《中国企业家》,2006年第13期。
28、金碚,刘戒骄:《西方国家应对金融危机的国有化措施分析》,《经济研究》, 2009第11期。
29、王海浪:《“落后”还是“超前”?——论中国对ICSID管辖权的同意》,《国际经济法学》第13卷第1期。
30、梁咏:《我国海外投资之间接征收风险及对策--基于“平安公司-富通集团案”的解读》,载于《法商研究》,2010年第1期。
31、千省利、朱明能:《论<中国能源投资条约>间接征收范围界定——以国际判例的视角》,《今传媒》,2010年第12期。
32、王月鹏:《间接征收中的合理期待》,《法制与社会》,2008. 12(中)。
33、曾丽凌:《政府金融危机应对措施的法律评价——以双边投资条约义务为参照》,《海峡法学》,2010年12月。
34、王洪平、房绍坤:《论管制性征收的构成标准-以美国法之研究为中心》,《国家检察官学院学报》,2011年2月。
35、赵燕华、李向云:《简论正当程序原则》,《法制与社会》,2009年1月(上)。
1、季烨:《国际投资条约中投资定义的扩张及其限度》,2008全国博士生学术论坛(国际法)论文集--国际经济法、国际环境法分册,2008年。
2、刘京莲:《中国双边投资条约若干重要条款研究》,《国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展》,(陈安教授八十华诞祝贺文集),法律出版社2009年版。
1、郭海清:《适当确定征收中公共利益的范围-美国联邦最高法院宪法判例对我国的启示》,华东师范大学硕士论文,2006年。
2、陈璐:《国际投资协定中“征收”含义的研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,2006年。
3、杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2002年。
4、杨学伟:《国际投资中的国有化法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2010年。
5、刘智慧:《以物权法的视角论征收中公共利益的界定》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2009年。
6、刘海平:《美国管制征收法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2007
1、《国际投资法中东道国权益的程序保障创新》http://china.findlaw.cn/info/jingjifa/gjmyf/gjtz/tzgs/117293.html.(访问日期:2011年2月8日)。
2、《中国利用外资首破千亿美元,居世界第二》http://www.ce.cn/macro/more/201101/18. (访问日期:2011年6月7日)。
3、《商务部:已与130个国家签订了双边投资保护协定》http://news.xinmin.cn/rollnews/2010/11/01/.(访问日期: 2011年3月19日)。
1、S.D.Myers Inc. v. Canada, Partial Award, 13 November 2000, 40 I. L. M. 1408.
2、West v. Multibanco Comermex, S. A., 807 F. 2d 820 (9th Cir. 1987).
3、CME Czech Republic B. V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, Final Award in UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings, 14 March 2003.
4、Amoco International Finance Corp v. Iran. Iran-US CTR (1987), 15, 233.
5、SPP v. Egypt, Award, 20 May 1992, ICSID Report, 3, 189.
6、Phillips Petroleum Co., v. Iran, 21 Iran-US CTR 79 (1989)
7、Azurix v. Argentina Republic, ICSID ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006
8、SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6 (2004).
9、Impregilo SpA v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3.(2005).
10、Consortium RFCC v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6 (2003)
11、Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States (Award) (2004) 43 ILM
967 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2004).
12、Feldman v. Mexico. Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1.
13、Sporrong and Lbnnroth v. Sweden, ECHR (1982) Series A, No. 52, 1.
14、Pope&Talbot Inc v. Government of Canada (Interim Award) 7 ICSID Rep
69, 87 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
15、SD Myers Inc v. Government of Canada (Partial Award) 8 ICSID Rep 4, 58 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
16、Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Republic of Latvia (Award) SCC Case No 118/2001.
17、Siemens AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8.
18、Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, NAFTA, Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005.
19、Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran, Final Award, Iran-US CTR, 4, 122.
20、Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Award) ICSID Case ARB/99/6 2002.
21、Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984), 6, 219.
22、Starrett Housing Corp v. Government of thel Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US CTR (19 December 1983).
23、Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (30 August 2000).
24、Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Nor. v. U.S) IR. Int’l Arb. Awards, 307 (1922).
25、Sea-Land Service, Inc v. Iran, Iran-US CTR (1984), 6, 149.
26、Amco Asia Corporation v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Award, 20 November 1984, ICSID Reports 455 (1993).
27、James v. United Kingdom, European Human RIghts Reports 123-64 (1986), Judgement of 21 February 1986.
28、Eudoro A Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 (26 July 2001).
29、Generation Ukraine Inc v. Government of Canada (Award) ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9 2003. (16, Sep. 2003).
30、Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL ad hoc Tribunal, Award on Jurisdiction and Arbitration Material (2002).
31、Benvenuti and Bonfant v. Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2 (8 August 1980).
32、Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation (LETCO)v. Republic of Liberia, ICSID Case No. ARB/83/2 (3 March 1986).
33、Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/2 (2 June 2000).
34、Saluka Investment BV v. the Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Partial Award (17 March 2006).
35、Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic (Final Award, 3 Sep. 2001).
36、Impregilo SpA v. Argentine Republic, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17 (21 June 2011).
37、Tza Yap Shum v. Republi of Peru ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6.
1、Renato Ribeiro, Nationalization of Foreign Property in International Law,Published by Brazilian Embassy,1977.
2、G.G.,Christie“What Constitute a Taking Under International Law?”, British Year Book of International Law ,1962.
3、Nicoschrijver“Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties”, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
4、Edited by Peter Muchilinski, Federico Ortino, Christoph Schreuer,“The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law”, Oxford University Press, 2008
5、Sornarajah, M.“International Law on Foreign Investment”(2nd Edition). Cambridge University Press,2004.
6、Surya P Subedi, International Investment Law Reconciling Policy and Principle. Oxford and Portland,. Oregon : Hart Publishing ,2008.
7、Campbell Mclachlan, Laurence Shore, Matthew Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration Substantive Principles, 2007.
8、Abi-Saab, Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and Economic Activities, in International Law: Achievements and Prospects (M. Bedjaoui ed., 1991).
9、Henkin, Pugh et al., International Law: Cases and Materials (Third Edition) West Publishing Press (1987).
10、R Dolzer and C Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law Oxford University Press, 2008.
11、K. Vandevelde, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice 121 (1992)
12、Nicoschrijiver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties, Cambridge University Press,2008.
13、Andrew Newcombe, Lluis Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment, Oxford University Press ,2009.
14、R. Dolzer and M Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties ,the Hague, Nijhoff, 1995.
15、Ian Brownile,“Public International Law”, Oxford University Press, 6th Edition, 2003.
16、Todd Weiler (ed), NAFTA: Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice. Future Prospects, 2004.
1、Michael S. Minor,“The Demise of Expropriation as an instrument of LDC Policy”, Journal of International Business Study 177 (1994).
2、Noah Rubins,“The Notion of‘Investment’in International Investment Arbitration”, N. Horn (ed) Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (2004).
3、A Sheppard,“The Distinction between the Lawful and Unlawful Expropriation”in C Ribeiro (ed) Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet, New York, 2006).
4、Taking of Property. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.
5、F. V. Garcia-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, Lawyer of the Americas, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Winter, 1980).
6、Been Vicki and Beauvais Joel C.,“The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International‘Regulatory Takings’Doctrine”. New York University Law Review, April 2003.
7、Matthew P. Harrington,“‘Public Use’and the Original Understanding of the So-Called‘Takings’Clause”, Hastings Law Journal Vol. 53.
8、Dunia P. Zongwe, Contribution of Campbell v. Zimbabwe to the Foreign Investment Law on Expropriations, CLPE Research Paper 51/2009 Vol. 05 No. 09 (2009).
9、Gillian White, Nationalization of Foreign Property, American Journal of International Law (1941).
10、Oscar Schachter, Compensation for Expropriation, American Journal of International Law (1984).
11、F Francioni, Compensation for Nationalization of Foreign Property: The Borderland between Law and Equity, The International and Comparative Quarterly(1975).
12、Ursula Kriebaum, Regulaorty Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, the Journal of World Investment & Trade, October 2007, Vol. 8 No. 5.
13、WM Reisman and RD Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation, Britsh Yearbook of International Law (2003).
14、R Dolzer, Indirect Expropriation: New Development? New York University Environmental Law Journal (2002).
15、OECD Working Papers on International Investment Law: Indirect Expropriation and Right to Regulate in International Investment Law 2004/4
16、J Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2002).
17、Vance R. Koven, Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC, Harvard International Law Journal (1981).
18、Helen Mountfield, Regulatory Expropriations in Europe: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights, New York University Environmental Law Journal (2002).
19、Barry Appleton, Regulatory Takings: The International Law Perspeictive, New York University Environmental Law Journal (2002)
20、G.C.Christie, What Constitutes a Taking Under International Law, British Year Book of International Law (1962).
21、Thomas Walda & Abba Kolo, Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and‘Regulatory Taking’in International Law, The International and Comparative Quarterly (2001)
22、David Schneiderman, NAFTA’s Takings Rule: American Constitutionalism comes to Canada, U. Toronto Law Journal (1986).
23、James Langman & Rosella Brevetti, Bilateral Agreements: Chile Says Many Issues still unsettled after Latest Round of Talks with U.S, BNA-Int’l Trade Rep. (Jan. 31, 2002).
24、Daniel M. Price, The Management and Resolution of Cross Border Disputes as Canada/U.S. Enter the 21st Century: Chapter 11-Private Party vs. Government, Investor-State Disputes Settlement: Frankenstein or Safety Valve? Can-U.S. Law Journal (2000).
25、Selected Recent Developments in IIA Arbitration and Human Rights, UUNTAD/WEB/DIAE/IA/2009/7.
26、Rachel D. Edsall, Indirect Expropriation Under NAFTA and DR-CAFTA: Potential Inconsistencies in the Treatment of Sate Public Welfare Regulations, Boston University Law Review, 2006.
27、Moshe Hirsch, Interations Between Investment and Non-Investment Obligations in Interntional Investment Law, in P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, and C. Schreuer (eds), the Oxford Handbook o International Investment Law, Oxford Univrsity Press (2008).
28、C Pfaff, Investment Protection by other Mechanism: the Role of Human Rights Institutions and the WTO’, in R Hofmann and CJ Tams (eds), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), Taking Stock after 40 Years (2007).
29、LE Peterson and KR Gray, International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Treaty Arbitration (International Institute for Sustainable Development, IISD 2005) available at http://www.iisd.org.
30、Surya P. Subedi, The Challenge of Reconciling the Competing Principles within the Law of Foreign Investment with Special Reference to the Recent Trend in the Interpretation of the Term“Expropriation”, The International Lawyer, Vol. 40, No. 1, Spring 2006.
31、Justin R. Marlles, Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatory Expropriation and Enviromental Regulation in International Investment Law, Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol.16, 2007.
32、J. Martin Wagner, International Investment, Expropriation and Environmental Protection, Golden Gate University Law Review, Vol. 29. 1999.
33、Ignacio Madalena, Foreign Direct Investment and the Protection of the Environment: the Border Between National Environmental Regulation and Expropriation, Euronpean Environmental Law Review, March 2003.
34、Christoph Schreuer, Full Protection and Security, Jounral of International Disputes Settlement (2010).
35、Rahim Moloo and Justin Jacinto, Environmental and Health Regulation: Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, 2011.
1、ASEAN Agreemt at http://www.aseansec.org/6464.htm. Oct. 3, 2010.
2、OECD Handbook on Economic Globalization Indicators at http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/10/62/39664826.pdf. Feb. 5, 2011.
3、NAFTA Claims Decisions at http://www.naftaclaims.com. May 2, 2011
4、ICSID Claims Decisions at http://www. investmentclaims.com. Sep. 13, 2011.
5、IIA and World Investment Report at http://www. unctad.org. Sep. 13, 2011.
6、Sattorova, Mavluda, From expropriation to non-expropriatory standards of treatment: towards a unified concept of an investment treaty breach, at http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/1768/. June 10, 2011.
2 F. V. Garcia Amador, Principios de Derechos Internacional que Rigen la Responsabilidad, (Madrid,1963), p.221转引自Renato Ribeiro, Nationalization of Foreign Property in International Law, p.12.
1格老秀斯著:《战争与和平法》,何勤华译,上海人民出版社2005年5月第一版,第29页。
2警察权是政府为实现社会管理和公益目的而实施即便干涉私人财产也不予补偿的规范性措施的权力。有关警察权的含义在本文第13页有较为详细的解释。
3洛克著,叶启芳、瞿菊农译:《政府论》(下篇),商务印书馆1983年版,第86页。
4刘志刚:《财产征收的宪法界限》,载《当代法学》2006年第5期。
1参见廖建求、姜孝贤:《行政征收权与私有财产权的冲突与协调-以财产保护方式为视角》,载《湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第11卷第6期。
2闫桂芳:《财产征收的正当性分析》,载《中国合作经济》,2005年第6期。
1闫桂芳:《财产征收的正当性分析》,载《中国合作经济》,2005年第6期。
2闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第7页。
1屈茂辉、张红:《论征收法律制度的几个问题》,载《法学评论》,2003年第2期。
2姜玉琴:《德国行政征收制度探析》,载《决策和信息》2008年第5期(下半月刊)。
1闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第8页。
1郭海清:《适当确定征收中公共利益的范围-美国联邦最高法院宪法判例对我国的启示》,华东师范大学硕士论文,第3页。
2史晓丽、祁欢:《国际投资法》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版,第197页。
1 Michael S. Minor,The Demise of Expropriation as an instrument of LDC Policy, Journal of International Business Study (1994). p.112.
2 G.G.,Christie,What Constitute a Taking Under International Law?, British Year Book of International Law (1962). p.367.
3曾华群:《国际投资法学》,北京大学出版社1999年版,第447页。
4梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径-从投资者权益与东道国治安权衡平之视角探析》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
1 S.D.Myers Inc.V. Canada (Partial Award)(2002) 121 ILR 72, para.191.
2杨树明等著:《国际投资法原理》,重庆大学出版社1992年版,第142-143页。
1参见劳特派特修订《奥本海国际法》上卷,第一分册,商务印书馆1981年中译本,第230-233页,转引自陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第78页。
2徐崇利:《外资征收中的补偿额估算》,载《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期(2006),第72页。
3第一次世界大战后,德国上西里西亚(Upper Silexia)的一部分(包括霍茹夫)被划归波兰。1920年,波兰颁布《清算法》,宣布所划入领土上的一切德国财产属波兰所有,并规定1918年11月11日之后的一切财产转移均属无效。根据该法律,波兰将最初由德国建立、后又于1919年转让给“上西里西亚氮肥股份公司”(私人公司)的霍茹夫硝酸厂收归国有。1925年,德国根据两国签订的《上西里西亚专约》将争端提交国际常设法院。Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland),1928 PCIJ No. 17 (Judgement of Sept.13)。
1王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第217页。
1据统计,在1950年-1976年间发生了1954起接管、征收或国有化的案件,其中20世纪50年代共发生421件,60年代为406件,1970-1976年间为1136件。从地区来看,亚洲为219件,中东为464件,非洲为826件,拉美为454件。参见陈立成:《发展中国家的国有化》,载《经济研究参考资料》1982年第154期,第25-32页。转引自余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版,第287页。
1 West V. Multibanco Comermex, S. A., 807 F. 2d 820 (9th Cir. 1987).
2 Nicoschrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties, Cambridge University Press,1997, p.354.
1 CME Czech Republic B. V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, Final Award in UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings, 14 March 2003, Separate Opinion of Ian Brownlie p.33.
2当前国际投资领域为数不多的真正具有多边投资条约性质的《华盛顿公约》恰恰没有对“投资”作出任何定义,只是规定“本中心管辖权适用于任何直接产生于投资的法律争议”,之所以不做定义应该是有意为之,主要是考虑过于宽泛的定义无法实现公约的目的,而过窄的定义方式则武断地限制了缔约国及其投资者将真正属于投资的争议提交仲裁的可能性,因此该公约宁愿将对投资的定义的权利留给提交管辖意愿的各缔约国。
3 Noah Rubins, The Notion of‘Investment’in International Investment Arbitration, N. Horn (ed) Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes,pp.297-300.
1 Robert Azinian and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/2 (November
1,1999).
2何树全:《国际投资协定中的主要争议和未来的选择分析》,载《社会科学》,2004年第5期,第26-27页。
1《东盟促进与保护投资协定》http://ww.aseansec.org/6464.htm, 2010年11月20日访问。
2詹晓宁、葛顺奇:《国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义》,载《国际经济合作》,2003年第1期,第43页。
1《OECD资本流动自由化守则》http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/62/39664826.pdf,2010年11月20日访问。
2詹晓宁、葛顺奇:《国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义》,载《国际经济合作》,2003年第1期,第42页。
3陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第31页。
1参见2004年《美国-智利自由贸易协议》。
2陈璐:《国际投资协定中“征收”含义的研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,第11页。
3 Amoco International Finance Corp v. Iran. 15 Iran-US CTR 189 (1987), para.108.
1 SPP v. Egypt, Award, 20 May 1992, 3 ICSID Report 189, para.164.
2 Peter Muchilinski, Federico Ortino, Christoph Schreuer, The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, Oxford University Press, 2008. p.417.
3 Jalapa Railroad and Power Co, American-Mexican Claims Commission, 1948,8 Whiteman, Digest of International Law 908 (1976).p.375.
4 Phillips Petroleum Co., v. Iran, 21 Iran-US CTR 79 (1989).
1 Azurix v. Argentina Republic, ICSID ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006.
2 SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6 (2004).
3 Impregilo SpA v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3.(2005).
4 Consortium RFCC v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6 (2003).
1季烨:《国际投资条约中投资定义的扩张及其限度》,2008全国博士生学术论坛(国际法)论文集--国际经济法、国际环境法分册,2008年。
2Taking of Property. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.p.1.
3余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版,第289页。
4 A Sheppard,The Distinction between the Lawful and Unlawful Expropriation ,in C Ribeiro (ed) Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet, New York, 2006) p.170.
1姚梅镇:《国际投资的法律保护》,载《中国国际法年刊》,1982年,第140页。
1参见余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版,第290-292页。
2王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第214页。
3 Sornarajah, M, International Law on Foreign Investment, (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press, 2004, p.345.
1 See a summary of the debate in the Commission on Sustainable Development in (1998) 28 (3-4) Environmental Policy and Law, p.129.
1 Metaclad Corp v. United Mexican States (Award) 5 ICSID Rep 209 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2000).
2 Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States (Award) (2004) 43 ILM 967 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2004).
3 Feldman v. Mexico. Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1.
1 Pope&Talbot Inc v. Government of Canada (Interim Award) 7 ICSID Rep 69, 87 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
2 SD Myers Inc v. Government of Canada (Partial Award) 8 ICSID Rep 4, 58 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
3 Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Republic of Latvia (Award) SCC Case No 118/2001.
1 Been Vicki and Beauvais Joel C,The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International‘Regulatory Takings’Doctrine, New York University Law Review, April 2003. p.3.
1 Campbell Mclachlan, Laurence Shore, Matthew Weiniger,International Investment Arbitration Substantive Principles, Oxford University Press, 2007. p.283.
1根据NAFTA第1120(1)款的规定,投资者可以根据ICSID公约、ICSID附属机构的规则将争议提交仲裁,或者根据UNCITRAL仲裁规则提起临时仲裁。
1《阿尔及尔宣言》的全称为”Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Cocerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran”,又被称为《争议解决宣言》,“Claims Settlement Declaration”。
2梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
1其中包括INA Corp. v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 184-151-1 (Aug. 13, 1985),
8 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 373;American Int’l Group, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 93-2-3 (Dec. 19, 1983), 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep.96.这两个争议产生于伊朗在1979年所颁布的两项法令,内容是对伊朗经营的所有保险公司和银行进行国有化。
2 Starrett Housing Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran,ITL 32-24-1 (Dec. 19, 1983) 4 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep.122.
1 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, AWD 141-7-2 (June 29, 1984), 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 219.
2 Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, AWD 217-99-2 (Mar. 19, 1986), 10 Iran-U.S. CL.Trib.Rep. 121.
3相关信息可参见http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/pending.htm.(访问日期:2011年8月11日)
4 20世纪90年代以来,在新自由主义经济的影响下,阿根廷采取包括实施大规模私有化、大幅度开放外国投资等措施,快速融入经济全球化的进程,实现了经济短期内的快速增长,但到了90年代中后期,特
1 Nykomb Synergetics Tech. Holding AB v. Latvia, Award, (Stockholm Chamber of Com. Inst. Dec. 16, 2003).
2 Petrobart Ltd. v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 126/2003, Arbitral Award, (Stockholm Chamber of Com. Inst. Mar. 29,2005).
1史尚宽:《民法总论》,台北正大印书馆1980年版,第31页。
2莫里斯奥里马著,龚觅等译:《行政法与公法精要》,辽海出版社1999年版,第14页。
3闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第137页。
4杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第85页。
1 ADC Affiliage Limted and ADC & ADMC Management v. the Republic of Hungary. ICSID Case No ARB/03/16.para.426.
2 Libyan American Oil Company (Liamco) v. Government of the Libyan Arab Republic(1981)20 ILM 1.
3 James v. United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123.
1 Siemens AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8.
2 Matthew P. Harrington,Public Use’and the Original Understanding of the So-Called“Takings”Clause, Hastings Law Journal (2001-2002), p.53.
3 Abi-Saab, Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and Economic Activities, in International Law: Achievements and Prospects 609 (M. Bedjaoui ed., 1991).p.51.
4 See Henkin, Pugh et al., International Law: Cases and Materials (1987),p.228.
1 ADC Affiliage Limted and ADC & ADMC Management v. the Republic of Hungary. ICSID Case No ARB/03/16. para.444.
2 Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, NAFTA, Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, Aug. 3, 2005.
1詹宁斯、瓦茨修订《奥本海国际法》,中国大百科全书出版社,第920页。
2胡戎恩:《征收的法律思考》,《法学论坛》2006年第11期,第28页。
3闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年6月第一版,第202页。
1 R Dolzer and C Schreuer,Principles of International Investment Law Oxford University Press,(2008) p.91.
2 China-Poland (1998).
3 China-Netherlands (2001).
4 R Dolzer and C Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (2008), Oxford Unversity Press. p.106.
5 K. Vandevelde, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice (1992).p.121.
6杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第86页。
1R.Dolzer and M Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties ,the Hague, Nijhoff, 1995. p.107.
2 ADC Affiliage Limted and ADC & ADMC Management v.the Republic of Hungary. ICSID Case No ARB/03/16.para.428.
1杨学伟:《国际投资中的国有化法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,第23页。
2刘智慧:《以物权法的视角论征收中公共利益的界定》,中国政法大学硕士论文,第23页。
1飞天:《从“凯洛诉新伦敦市案”解读美国政府如何解决征地争议》,《中国房地产报》,2005年7月18日。
1钟头朱:《论我国土地征收正当程序的构建》,《乡镇经济》,2009年10月。
2钟头朱:《论公益征收正当程序的构建》,《贵州民族学院学报》(哲学社会科学版),2010年第6期。
1 Dunia P. Zongwe, Contribution of Campbell v. Zimbabwe to the Foreign Investment Law on Expropriations, CLPE Research Paper 51/2009 Vol. 05 No. 09 (2009) SSRN. p.16.
2 Gillian White, Nationalization of Foreign Property, 44 American Journal of International Law. 253 (1941). p.187.
1王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第215页。
2 Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina, 965 F. 2d 699, US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 22 May 1992.
1姜明安主编:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社1999年版,第476页。
2沈开举:《征收、征用与补偿》,法律出版社2006年第一版,第23页。
1 Vicki Been, Does an International“Regulatory Takings”Doctrine Make Sense? New York University Environmental Law Journal, 2002, Volume 11, pp.49-50.
2 Oscar Schachter, Compensation for Expropriation,American.Journal of International Law.(1984).
1 F Francioni, Compensation for Nationalization of Foreign Property: The Borderland between Law and Equity, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1975) pp.255-256.
2曾华群:《外资征收及其补偿标准:历史的分野与现实的挑战》,《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期,第53页。
1参见曾华群:《外资征收及其补偿标准:历史的分野与现实的挑战》,《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期,第54-55页。
2《关于自然资源之永久主权宣言》规定:“行使其主权的国家应依据本国现行法规及国际法,对原主以适当补偿,若补偿问题引起争议,则应当尽量诉诸国内管辖,如经主权国家及其他当事各方同意,得以公断或国际裁判方法解决争端。”《各国经济权利义务宪章》则规定:“应由采取该措施的国家给予适当的补偿,要考虑到该国有关的法律、法规以及该国认为相关的一切情形,因赔偿问题所引起的争议,应当由实行国有化国家的法院依照其国内法加以解决,除非有关各国自由和互相同意根据各国主权平等并按照自由选择方法的原则寻求其他和平解决方法。”
3单文华:《国有化补偿理论与时间的发展及中国的对策》,《法律科学》,1995年第4期,第67页。
1参见余劲松:《论国际投资法中国有化补偿的根据》,《中国社会科学》,1986年第2期,第61页。
2陈丽华:《论对外资国有化的补偿标准》,《中国社会科学院研究生学报》,2003年第4期。
3参见余劲松:《论国际投资法中国有化补偿的根据》,《中国社会科学》,1986年第2期,第59-61页
4 1990年到1993年签订的145个BITs中,“赫尔公式”出现了91次,占61%,94个BITs要求补偿应毫不迟延,“充分”是最通行的术语。Nicoschrijiver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties, Cambridge University Press,1997. p.354.
1张玲娟:《征收补偿标准的国际关系理论分析》,《法制与社会》,2007年第11期。
1 Ursula Kriebaum, Regulaorty Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, the Journal of World Investment & Trade, October 2007, Vol. 8 No. 5.
2所谓“要么全有,要么全无”是指如果没有将东道国政府的管理措施认定为间接征收,就无需向外国投资者承担任何补偿责任;反之,如果将东道国政府的管理措施认定为间接征收,则无论情形如何,均需按照“赫尔标准”向外国投资者支付全部或充分的损害赔偿。上述观点参见徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期,第38-39页。
3 Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow (Claim for Indemnity) (Germany v. Poland) (1928) PCIJ Ser. A., No. 17 at 47.
1例如前捷克斯洛伐克-荷兰于1991年签订的BIT第5条。
2例如中国-法国于1984年签订的BIT以及中国-泰国1985年签订的BIT。
3例如中国-新西兰于1988年签订的BIT。
4 CME Case, Professor Brownlie’s Separate Opinion.
5 Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran, Final Award, 16 Iran-US CTR 112, para.201.
1陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第98-99页。
2所谓持续经营价值是指在继续经营的条件下公司若整体出售所能获得的货币额。此价值若超过公司资产的价值,则超出的部分即为无形资产。
1其中包括:(1)企业的未来收益;(2)企业的未来支出;(3)企业占压资金而不进行投资的机会成本;(4)未来收入的通货膨胀率;(5)未来收益实现的可能性。
2 Andrew Newcombe, Lluis Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment, Kluwer Law International (2009), p.390.
1 WM Reisman and RD Sloane,“Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation”British Yearbook of Internatioanal Law (2003). see supra 7.15 on creeping expropriation.
2杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第92页。
3 Andrew Newcombe, Lluis Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment, Kluwer Law International (2009), p.395.
1 Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Award) ICSID Case ARB/99/6 2002.
2张宏乐:《国际投资中引起间接征收的原因分析》,载于《国际问题研究》,2008年7月。
1刘笋:《国际投资与环境保护的法律冲突与协调--以晚近区域性投资条约及相关案例为研究对象》,《现代法学》,2006年第6期。
1 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, 6 Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984).
2 Starrett Housing Corp v. Government of thel Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US CTR (19 December 1983).
3 Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States, ARB(AF)/97/1 (30 August 2000).
1商镇:《征收与政府管理行为的划分——论间接征收的界定》,《法律适用》,2006年第10期。
2徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期。
1 R Dolzer, Indirect Expropriation: New Development? New York Environmental Law Journal,2002. p.78.
2 Phelps Dodge Corp. et al v. Iran, Iran-US CTR 121, 130 (1986).
3梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
1 Ursula Kriebaum, Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, the Journal of World Investment &Trade, October 2007,Vol. 8,p.726.
2徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期,第33页。
1韩秀丽:《论比例原则在有关征收的国际投资仲裁中的开创性适用》,2010年第10期。
2欧盟国家的国内法体系要求公共机关在对个人或私人企业行使行政权力时应当尊重当事人的合理期待,个人及私人企业可以基于政府部门的声明和陈述产生合理正当的期待;美国法院也将基于投资的期待作为其考察公共部门在征收财产时是否违反宪法第五修正案的考虑因素之一。参见邓婷婷:《国际投资仲裁中
1 Ursula Kriebaum, Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, The Journal of World Investment &Trade, Vol. 8, No. 5.
2 Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Nor. v. U.S) IR. Int’l Arb. Awards, 307 (1922).
3 Starrett Housing Corp v. Government of thel Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US CTR (19 December 1983).
4 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, 6 Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984).
1 Sea-Land Serv, Inc v. Iran, Iran-US CTR 167 (1984).
1 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, 6 Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984).
2 Amco Asia Corporation v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Award, 20 November 1984, ICSID Reports 455 (1993).
3 James v. United Kingdom, European Human RIghts Reports 123-64 (1986), Judgement of 21 February 1986.
1 Final Award in the Matter of an UNCITRAL Arbitration: Ronald S. Lauder v The Czech Republic,
3 September 2001, reprinted in: 14 World Trade and Arbitration Materials 35 (2002), 203.
2 Tippetts, Abbett, McCarghy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran 6 Iran-USCTR 219, 225.
3 Eudoro A Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 (26 July 2001).
1 W. Michael Reisman and Robert D Sloane,‘Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation, British Yearbook of International Law (2003).
2 OECD Working Papers on International Investment Law: Indirect Expropriation and Right to Regulate in International Investment Law 2004/4, pp. 71-72.
1叶兴平著:《国际争端解决机制的最新发展--北美自由贸易区的法律与实践》,法律出版社2006年5月第一版,第139页。
2 UNCTAD Series on IIAs (2000), Taking of Property, ITE/IIT/15, p.11
3 Generation Ukraine Inc v. Government of Canada (Award) ICSID Case ARB/00/9 2003.
1参见陈璐:《国际投资协定中“征收”含义的研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,第29页。
1 Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL ad hoc Tribunal, Award on Jurisdiction and Arbitration Material (2002).
2陈璐:《国际投资协定中的“征收”含义研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,第30页。
3 Benvenuti and Bonfant v. Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2 (8 August 1980).
1 Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation v. Republic of Liberia, ICSID Case No. ARB/83/2 (3 March 1986).
2 Siemens AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8. para.375.
1 Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/2 (2 June 2000).
2 Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (24 June 1993).
3 W. Michael Reisman, Robert D. Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Gneration, British Yearbook of International Law, 2003.
1参见李尊然:《管制性征收与国际投资法的新发展》,载于《武大国际法评论》,2007年第1期,第148-149页。
1 1922年,美国最高法院在本案中第一次确认“政府对私人财产的管制,在某些情况下若对财产人造成了过重的义务负担则构成直接的征收。”Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
2 Crispulo Marmolejo, Regulatory Takings: A Real Globalization of Property Rights? http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=crispulo_marmolejo_gonzalez. (Nov 12,2010).
3刘海平:《美国管制征收法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,第3页。
1 UNCTAD Series on IIAs (2000), Taking of Property, ITE/IIT/15, p.12.
李尊然:《管制性征收与国际投资法的新发展》,载于《武大国际法评论》,2007年第1期,第148页。
3 Generation Ukraine, Inc v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9 (16 September 2003).
1 Saluka Investment BV v. the Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Partial Award (17 March 2006). Para.263.
2参见徐崇利:《外资征收中的补偿额估算》,载于《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期(2006),第71-72页。
1 J Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2002) pp.86-90.
1 SA v. Republic of Costa Rica (Award) 5 ICSID Rep 153, 172 (ICSID, 2000).
2 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada) (1998) ICJ Rep 432.
3 Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic (Final Award, 3 Sep. 2001).
1 Case No. ARB. (AF)/99/1 (Dec. 16,2002).
2 ICSID Case No ARB/01/8 (May 12, 2005).
3 ICSID Case No. ARB.(AF)/00/2 (May 29, 2003).
1 Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic,ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12 (July 14, 2006).
1 Thunderbird v. Mexico, Award, 26 January 2006.para.127.
1 Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9 (September 16,2003).
1 Wena Hotels Limited v. Egypt (Award, 8 Dec. 2000).
2 Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Egypt (Award, 12 Apr. 2002).
3 LG&E Energy et al. v.The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1.(Oct.2., 2006).para.105.
1 Eudoro A. Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay,ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 (July 26, 2001).
1 22 U.S.C. 2198(b) (2006).
2 OPIC Model Contract 1.13,转引自Vance R. Koven, Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC, 22 Harvard International Law Journal,(1981). pp.321-322.
1 Helen Mountfield, Regulatory Expropriations in Europe: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights, 11 New York University of Environmental Law Journal (2002).
1概念性分割这一术语最早由美国学者Margaret Jane Radin提出,用于概括和描述部分征收的问题,即一种财产利益恰好是政府从财产所有人处取走的,从而宣称该特定部分之整体被永久地剥夺;由此,概念性地假定那些受政府管制影响的权利被从整个的权利束中分割出来,并且在整体上被视为一个独立的整物。
2 Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51 (1979).
1 G.C.Christie, What Constitutes a Taking Under International Law, 38 British Yearbook of International Law (1962).
1曹晴:《浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限》,《环球法律评论》2008年第6期。
1曹晴:《浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限》,《环球法律评论》2008年第6期。
2 (Award)Ad Hoc Arbitration (UNCITRAL, 2002).
1 Amco v.Republic of Indonesia, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 September 1983.
2 Murphyores Incorporated Pty Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1976), 136 C.L.R. 1 (H.C.).
1 Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (USA v. Italy), I.C.J. Rep. 1989. 15. Judgment 20 July 1989.
2 Sol Picciotto, International Business Taxation,London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, (1992),p.52.
1 M.Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge University Press,(2004). p 125.
2 1894年,由于发生霍乱,巴西当局销毁了当地种植的很多西瓜,美国的西瓜种植者请求美国政府代表其进行索赔,但美国国务院认为在这种情况下这些措施是合理的,从而不要求补偿。
3这些案件包括前述介绍的Ethyl, Metaclad, Myers, Pope-Talbot和California/MTBE等案件,这些案件的提起对采取环境措施的加拿大、墨西哥和美国政府提出了严重的挑战。
1 Ignacio Madalena, Foreign Direct Ivestment and the Protection of the Environment: the Border between National Environmental Regulation and Expropriation, European Environmental Law Review, March 2003.
1 Rahim Moloo and Justin Jacinto, Eniromental and Health Regulation: Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2001. p.33.
2 Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1995).
1 Thomas Walda & Abba Kolo, Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and‘Regulatory Taking’in International Law, 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2001).
1 Hentrich v. France, Application No. 13616/88, Judgement of ECHR, 22 September 1994.
2 Gudmundsson v. Iceland, Application No. 511/59,Judgement of ECHR, 20 December 1960.
1 Prosper Weil, The State, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: The No Longer Stormy Relationship,ICSID Review (2000).
1 Jeffery Atik, Repenser NAFTA Chapter 11: A Catalogue of Legitimacy Critiques, ASPER Review International Business and Trade Law (2003).
1刘振:《世界性的新国有化浪潮》,《中国财富》,2007年第11期。
2江时学:《能源工业“国有化”难成拉美主流》,《中国企业家》,2006年第13期。
3刘振:《世界性的新国有化浪潮》,《中国财富》,2007年第11期。
1参见杨学伟:《国际投资中的国有化法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,第43-44页。
1 David Schneiderman, NAFTA’s Takings Rule: American Constitutionalism comes to Canada, 46 Univerity of Toronto Law Journal(1986).
2 James Langman & Rosella Brevetti, Bilateral Agreements: Chile Says Many Issues still unsettled after Latest Round of Talks with U.s.BNA-International Trade Representative (Jan. 31, 2002).
1 Hope H. Camp, Jr., Dispute Resolution and U.S-Mexico Business Transactions,U.S.-Mexcan.Law Journal (1997).
1 Daniel M. Price, The Management and Resolution of Cross Border Disputes as Canada/U.S. Enter the 21st Century: Chapter 11-Private Party vs. Government, Investor-State Disputes Settlement: Frankenstein or Safety Valve? 26 Canada-U.S.Law Journal (2000).
1刘笋:《晚近国际投资仲裁对国家主权的挑战及相关评析》,全球化时代的国际经济法:中国的视角国际研讨会论文集(上)(2008年)。
2徐崇利:《晚近国际投资争端解决实践之评判:“全球治理”的引入》,《法学家》,2010年第3期。
1摘自维基百科http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/全球治理(访问日期:2011年5月28日)。
2俞可平:《治理与善治》,社会科学文献出版社2000年版,第9页。
3徐崇利:《晚近国际投资争端解决实践之评判:“全球治理”的引入》,《法学家》,2010年第3期。
1 Todd Weiler (ed), NAFTA: Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice. Future Prospects (2004) p.126.
1王楠:《试析外资公平公正待遇标准》,《时代法学》,2008年第6期。
2 F. A. MANN, Brithsh Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, British Yearbook of International Law, 1981, Vol. 52, pp.241, 246.转引自陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版,第233页。
1 Christoph Schreuer, Full Protection and Security, Jounral of International Disputes Settlement (2010), p. 17.
1 James D. FRY, International Human Rights Law in Investment Arbitration: Evidence of International Law’s Unity, 18 Duke Jounal of Comparative & International Law 77 (2007-2008).
2 Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, (June 23, 2006), para.261
3张光:《论国际投资仲裁中非投资国际义务的适用进路》,《现代法学》,2009年第4期。
1中国-罗马尼亚BIT第4条第1款。
1其他没有规定正当程序要求的BITs还包括中国与文莱、丹麦、以色列、阿曼、泰国、英国等国签订的相关条款。
1杨卫东:《双边投资协定:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第87页。
2 M N Shaw, International Law Cambridge University Press (5th edn, 2003) , p.751.
3采用这一措词的BITs还包括中国与阿尔巴尼亚、德国、希腊、朝鲜、俄罗斯等国签订的BITs。
4例如中国与比利时、卢森堡、乌克兰、白俄罗斯等国签订的BITs。
5例如中国与津巴布韦、毛里求斯、文莱等国签订的BITs。
6例如中国与韩国、斯洛文尼亚、土耳其等国签订的BITs。
1例如中国-印度之间签订的BIT。
2例如中国-阿拉伯联合王国之间签订的BIT。
3例如中国-菲律宾之间签订的BIT。
4例如中国-老挝之间的签订的BIT。
1杨卫东:《双边投资协定:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,第88页。
1例如中国同比利时、卢森堡之间签订的BITs。
2例如中国同智利、冰岛等国之间签订的BITs。
3例如中国同印度之间签订的BIT。
4例如中国同希腊、丹麦之间签订的BITs。
5例如中国同阿曼和俄罗斯之间签订的BITs。
6R. Dolzer and M Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties ,the Hague, Nijhoff, 1995.p.112.
1王海浪:《“落后”还是“超前”?——论中国对ICSID管辖权的同意》,《国际经济法学》第13卷第1期。
2《中华人民共和国物权法》第42条第一款规定:“为了公共利益的需要,依照法律规定的权限和程序可以征收集体所有的土地和单位、个人的房屋及其他不动产。”而其中第二、第三款对征收补偿做了规定。
1《中国利用外资首破千亿美元,居世界第二》http://www.ce.cn/macro/more/201101/18 (访问日期:2011年6月7日)。
2梁咏:《我国海外投资之间接征收风险及对策--基于“平安公司-富通集团案”的解读》,载于《法商研究》,2010年第1期。
1参见陈安主编:《国际投资争端仲裁——“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究》,复旦大学出版社2001年版,第106-107页。
1石俭平:《东道国外资征税权与间接征收关系辨析》,《时代经贸》,2011年8月。
1两家公司于2005年收购了加拿大恩卡纳(EnCana)集团的安第斯石油公司(AndesPetroleum),该公司在厄瓜多尔有5个石油区块的资产和开发权,日产石油8万桶,产量居南美第5位,从而成为厄瓜多尔最大的外资企业。
2石俭平、徐维余:《间接征收-中国海外投资企业面临的新问题》,2008年第7期。
3 Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6.
1梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
2千省利、朱明能:《论<中国能源投资条约>间接征收范围界定——以国际判例的视角》,《今传媒》,2010年第12期。
1中国-哥伦比亚投资协定的第14条第5款就规定了类似的前置程序。
1王月鹏:《间接征收中的合理期待》,《法制与社会》,2008. 12(中)。
1曾丽凌:《政府金融危机应对措施的法律评价——以双边投资条约义务为参照》,《海峡法学》,2010年12月。
1、姚梅镇著:《国际投资法》,武汉大学出版社1987年版。
2、王贵国著:《国际投资法》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
3、丁伟著:《国际投资的法律管制》,上海译文出版社1996年版。
4、格老秀斯著:《战争与和平法》,何勤华译,上海人民出版社2005年版。
5、洛克著,叶启芳、瞿菊农译:《政府论》(下篇),商务印书馆1983年版。
6、闫桂芳、杨晚香著:《财产征收研究》,中国法制出版社2006年版。
7、劳特派特修订派派奥本海国际法法法上卷,第一分册,商务印书馆1981年中译本。
8、史尚宽著:《民法总论》,台北正大印书馆1980年版。
9、莫里斯奥里马著,龚觅等译:《行政法与公法精要》,辽海出版社1999年版。
10、沈开举:《征收、征用与补偿》,法律出版社2006年版。
11、叶兴平著:《国际争端解决机制的最新发展--北美自由贸易区的法律与实践》,法律出版社2006年版。
12、刘笋著:《国际投资保护的国际法制―若干重要法律问题研究》,法律出版社2002年版。
1、陈安主编:《国际投资法学》,北京大学出版社1999年版。
2、余劲松主编:《跨国公司的法律问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社1989年版。
3、陈安主编:《国际经济法专论》,北京高等教育出版社2002年版。
4、余劲松主编:《国际投资法》,法律出版社2007年版。
5、曾华群主编:《国际投资法学》,北京大学出版社1999年版。
6、孙南申主编:《国际投资法》,中国人民大学出版社2008年版。
7、陈治东、朱榄叶主编:《国际经济法学》,法律出版社1999年版。
8、陈安主编:《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》,复旦大学出版社2007年版。
9、史晓丽、祁欢:《国际投资法》,中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
10、曹建明、周洪钧、王虎华主编:《国际公法学》,法律出版社1998年版。
11、陈安编著:《国际投资争端仲裁—“解决投资争端国际中心”机制研究》,复旦大学出版社2001年版。
12、张庆麟:《国际投资法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2007年版
13、丁伟主编:《经济全球化与中国外资立法完善》,法律出版社2004年版。
1、刘志刚:《财产征收的宪法界限》,载《当代法学》2006年第5期。
2、廖建求、姜孝贤:《行政征收权与私有财产权的冲突与协调-以财产保护方式为视角》,载《湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版)》,2008年第11卷第6期。
3、闫桂芳:《财产征收的正当性分析》,载《中国合作经济》,2005年第6期。
4、屈茂辉、张红:《论征收法律制度的几个问题》,载《法学评论》,2003年第2期。
5、姜玉琴:《德国行政征收制度探析》,载《决策和信息》2008年第5期(下半月刊)。
6、徐崇利:《外资征收中的补偿额估算》,载《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期(2006)。
7、何树全:《国际投资协定中的主要争议和未来的选择分析》,载《社会科学》,2004年第5期。
8、詹晓宁、葛顺奇:《国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义》,载《国际经济合作》,2003年第1期。
9、姚梅镇:《国际投资的法律保护》,载《中国国际法年刊》,1982年。
10、梁咏:《间接征收的研究起点和路径——投资者权益与东道国治安权之平衡》,《财经问题研究》,2009年第1期。
11、胡戎恩:《征收的法律思考》,《法学论坛》2006年第11期,第28页
12、曾华群:《外资征收及其补偿标准:历史的分野与现实的挑战》,《国际经济法学刊》,北京大学出版社,第13卷第1期。
13、单文华:《国有化补偿理论与时间的发展及中国的对策》,《法律科学》,1995年第4期。
14、余劲松:《论国际投资法中国有化补偿的根据》,《中国社会科学》,1986年第2期。
15、陈立成:《发展中国家的国有化》,载《经济研究参考资料》1982年第154期。
16、陈丽华:《论对外资国有化的补偿标准》,《中国社会科学院研究生学报》,2003年第4期。
17、张玲娟:《征收补偿标准的国际关系理论分析》,《法制与社会》,2007年第11期。
18、徐崇利:《利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿》,《环球法律评论》,2008年第6期。
19、张宏乐:《国际投资中引起间接征收的原因分析》,载于《国际问题研究》,2008年7月。
20、刘笋:《国际投资与环境保护的法律冲突与协调--以晚近区域性投资条约及相关案例为研究对象》,《现代法学》,2006年第6期。
21、商镇:《征收与政府管理行为的划分——论间接征收的界定》,《法律适用》,2006年第10期。
22、韩秀丽:《论比例原则在有关征收的国际投资仲裁中的开创性适用》,2010年第10期。
23、邓婷婷:《国际投资仲裁中的“投资者期待”原则》,《湘潭大学学报<哲学社会科学版>》,2010年第5期。
24、李尊然:《管制性征收与国际投资法的新发展》,载于《武大国际法评论》,2007年第1期。
25、钟头朱:《论公益征收正当程序的构建》,《贵州民族学院学报》(哲学社会科学版),2010年第6期。
26、曹晴:《浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限》,《环球法律评论》2008年第6期。
27、江时学:《能源工业“国有化”难成拉美主流》,《中国企业家》,2006年第13期。
28、金碚,刘戒骄:《西方国家应对金融危机的国有化措施分析》,《经济研究》, 2009第11期。
29、王海浪:《“落后”还是“超前”?——论中国对ICSID管辖权的同意》,《国际经济法学》第13卷第1期。
30、梁咏:《我国海外投资之间接征收风险及对策--基于“平安公司-富通集团案”的解读》,载于《法商研究》,2010年第1期。
31、千省利、朱明能:《论<中国能源投资条约>间接征收范围界定——以国际判例的视角》,《今传媒》,2010年第12期。
32、王月鹏:《间接征收中的合理期待》,《法制与社会》,2008. 12(中)。
33、曾丽凌:《政府金融危机应对措施的法律评价——以双边投资条约义务为参照》,《海峡法学》,2010年12月。
34、王洪平、房绍坤:《论管制性征收的构成标准-以美国法之研究为中心》,《国家检察官学院学报》,2011年2月。
35、赵燕华、李向云:《简论正当程序原则》,《法制与社会》,2009年1月(上)。
1、季烨:《国际投资条约中投资定义的扩张及其限度》,2008全国博士生学术论坛(国际法)论文集--国际经济法、国际环境法分册,2008年。
2、刘京莲:《中国双边投资条约若干重要条款研究》,《国际经济新秩序与国际经济法新发展》,(陈安教授八十华诞祝贺文集),法律出版社2009年版。
1、郭海清:《适当确定征收中公共利益的范围-美国联邦最高法院宪法判例对我国的启示》,华东师范大学硕士论文,2006年。
2、陈璐:《国际投资协定中“征收”含义的研究》,复旦大学硕士论文,2006年。
3、杨卫东:《双边投资条约:中国的视角》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文,2002年。
4、杨学伟:《国际投资中的国有化法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士学位论文,2010年。
5、刘智慧:《以物权法的视角论征收中公共利益的界定》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2009年。
6、刘海平:《美国管制征收法律问题研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2007
1、《国际投资法中东道国权益的程序保障创新》http://china.findlaw.cn/info/jingjifa/gjmyf/gjtz/tzgs/117293.html.(访问日期:2011年2月8日)。
2、《中国利用外资首破千亿美元,居世界第二》http://www.ce.cn/macro/more/201101/18. (访问日期:2011年6月7日)。
3、《商务部:已与130个国家签订了双边投资保护协定》http://news.xinmin.cn/rollnews/2010/11/01/.(访问日期: 2011年3月19日)。
1、S.D.Myers Inc. v. Canada, Partial Award, 13 November 2000, 40 I. L. M. 1408.
2、West v. Multibanco Comermex, S. A., 807 F. 2d 820 (9th Cir. 1987).
3、CME Czech Republic B. V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, Final Award in UNCITRAL Arbitration Proceedings, 14 March 2003.
4、Amoco International Finance Corp v. Iran. Iran-US CTR (1987), 15, 233.
5、SPP v. Egypt, Award, 20 May 1992, ICSID Report, 3, 189.
6、Phillips Petroleum Co., v. Iran, 21 Iran-US CTR 79 (1989)
7、Azurix v. Argentina Republic, ICSID ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006
8、SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6 (2004).
9、Impregilo SpA v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3.(2005).
10、Consortium RFCC v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6 (2003)
11、Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States (Award) (2004) 43 ILM
967 (NAFTA/ICSID (AF), 2004).
12、Feldman v. Mexico. Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1.
13、Sporrong and Lbnnroth v. Sweden, ECHR (1982) Series A, No. 52, 1.
14、Pope&Talbot Inc v. Government of Canada (Interim Award) 7 ICSID Rep
69, 87 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
15、SD Myers Inc v. Government of Canada (Partial Award) 8 ICSID Rep 4, 58 (NAFTA/UNCITRAL, 2000).
16、Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Republic of Latvia (Award) SCC Case No 118/2001.
17、Siemens AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8.
18、Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, NAFTA, Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005.
19、Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran, Final Award, Iran-US CTR, 4, 122.
20、Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Award) ICSID Case ARB/99/6 2002.
21、Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, Iran-US CTR (29 June 1984), 6, 219.
22、Starrett Housing Corp v. Government of thel Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-US CTR (19 December 1983).
23、Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (30 August 2000).
24、Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Nor. v. U.S) IR. Int’l Arb. Awards, 307 (1922).
25、Sea-Land Service, Inc v. Iran, Iran-US CTR (1984), 6, 149.
26、Amco Asia Corporation v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Award, 20 November 1984, ICSID Reports 455 (1993).
27、James v. United Kingdom, European Human RIghts Reports 123-64 (1986), Judgement of 21 February 1986.
28、Eudoro A Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 (26 July 2001).
29、Generation Ukraine Inc v. Government of Canada (Award) ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9 2003. (16, Sep. 2003).
30、Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL ad hoc Tribunal, Award on Jurisdiction and Arbitration Material (2002).
31、Benvenuti and Bonfant v. Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/77/2 (8 August 1980).
32、Liberian Eastern Timber Corporation (LETCO)v. Republic of Liberia, ICSID Case No. ARB/83/2 (3 March 1986).
33、Waste Management Inc v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/2 (2 June 2000).
34、Saluka Investment BV v. the Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Partial Award (17 March 2006).
35、Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic (Final Award, 3 Sep. 2001).
36、Impregilo SpA v. Argentine Republic, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17 (21 June 2011).
37、Tza Yap Shum v. Republi of Peru ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6.
1、Renato Ribeiro, Nationalization of Foreign Property in International Law,Published by Brazilian Embassy,1977.
2、G.G.,Christie“What Constitute a Taking Under International Law?”, British Year Book of International Law ,1962.
3、Nicoschrijver“Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties”, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
4、Edited by Peter Muchilinski, Federico Ortino, Christoph Schreuer,“The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law”, Oxford University Press, 2008
5、Sornarajah, M.“International Law on Foreign Investment”(2nd Edition). Cambridge University Press,2004.
6、Surya P Subedi, International Investment Law Reconciling Policy and Principle. Oxford and Portland,. Oregon : Hart Publishing ,2008.
7、Campbell Mclachlan, Laurence Shore, Matthew Weiniger, International Investment Arbitration Substantive Principles, 2007.
8、Abi-Saab, Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources and Economic Activities, in International Law: Achievements and Prospects (M. Bedjaoui ed., 1991).
9、Henkin, Pugh et al., International Law: Cases and Materials (Third Edition) West Publishing Press (1987).
10、R Dolzer and C Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law Oxford University Press, 2008.
11、K. Vandevelde, United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice 121 (1992)
12、Nicoschrijiver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties, Cambridge University Press,2008.
13、Andrew Newcombe, Lluis Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standard of Treatment, Oxford University Press ,2009.
14、R. Dolzer and M Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties ,the Hague, Nijhoff, 1995.
15、Ian Brownile,“Public International Law”, Oxford University Press, 6th Edition, 2003.
16、Todd Weiler (ed), NAFTA: Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice. Future Prospects, 2004.
1、Michael S. Minor,“The Demise of Expropriation as an instrument of LDC Policy”, Journal of International Business Study 177 (1994).
2、Noah Rubins,“The Notion of‘Investment’in International Investment Arbitration”, N. Horn (ed) Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (2004).
3、A Sheppard,“The Distinction between the Lawful and Unlawful Expropriation”in C Ribeiro (ed) Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet, New York, 2006).
4、Taking of Property. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreement, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.
5、F. V. Garcia-Amador, The Proposed New International Economic Order: A New Approach to the Law Governing Nationalization and Compensation, Lawyer of the Americas, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Winter, 1980).
6、Been Vicki and Beauvais Joel C.,“The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International‘Regulatory Takings’Doctrine”. New York University Law Review, April 2003.
7、Matthew P. Harrington,“‘Public Use’and the Original Understanding of the So-Called‘Takings’Clause”, Hastings Law Journal Vol. 53.
8、Dunia P. Zongwe, Contribution of Campbell v. Zimbabwe to the Foreign Investment Law on Expropriations, CLPE Research Paper 51/2009 Vol. 05 No. 09 (2009).
9、Gillian White, Nationalization of Foreign Property, American Journal of International Law (1941).
10、Oscar Schachter, Compensation for Expropriation, American Journal of International Law (1984).
11、F Francioni, Compensation for Nationalization of Foreign Property: The Borderland between Law and Equity, The International and Comparative Quarterly(1975).
12、Ursula Kriebaum, Regulaorty Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, the Journal of World Investment & Trade, October 2007, Vol. 8 No. 5.
13、WM Reisman and RD Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation, Britsh Yearbook of International Law (2003).
14、R Dolzer, Indirect Expropriation: New Development? New York University Environmental Law Journal (2002).
15、OECD Working Papers on International Investment Law: Indirect Expropriation and Right to Regulate in International Investment Law 2004/4
16、J Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (2002).
17、Vance R. Koven, Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC, Harvard International Law Journal (1981).
18、Helen Mountfield, Regulatory Expropriations in Europe: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights, New York University Environmental Law Journal (2002).
19、Barry Appleton, Regulatory Takings: The International Law Perspeictive, New York University Environmental Law Journal (2002)
20、G.C.Christie, What Constitutes a Taking Under International Law, British Year Book of International Law (1962).
21、Thomas Walda & Abba Kolo, Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and‘Regulatory Taking’in International Law, The International and Comparative Quarterly (2001)
22、David Schneiderman, NAFTA’s Takings Rule: American Constitutionalism comes to Canada, U. Toronto Law Journal (1986).
23、James Langman & Rosella Brevetti, Bilateral Agreements: Chile Says Many Issues still unsettled after Latest Round of Talks with U.S, BNA-Int’l Trade Rep. (Jan. 31, 2002).
24、Daniel M. Price, The Management and Resolution of Cross Border Disputes as Canada/U.S. Enter the 21st Century: Chapter 11-Private Party vs. Government, Investor-State Disputes Settlement: Frankenstein or Safety Valve? Can-U.S. Law Journal (2000).
25、Selected Recent Developments in IIA Arbitration and Human Rights, UUNTAD/WEB/DIAE/IA/2009/7.
26、Rachel D. Edsall, Indirect Expropriation Under NAFTA and DR-CAFTA: Potential Inconsistencies in the Treatment of Sate Public Welfare Regulations, Boston University Law Review, 2006.
27、Moshe Hirsch, Interations Between Investment and Non-Investment Obligations in Interntional Investment Law, in P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, and C. Schreuer (eds), the Oxford Handbook o International Investment Law, Oxford Univrsity Press (2008).
28、C Pfaff, Investment Protection by other Mechanism: the Role of Human Rights Institutions and the WTO’, in R Hofmann and CJ Tams (eds), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), Taking Stock after 40 Years (2007).
29、LE Peterson and KR Gray, International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Treaty Arbitration (International Institute for Sustainable Development, IISD 2005) available at http://www.iisd.org.
30、Surya P. Subedi, The Challenge of Reconciling the Competing Principles within the Law of Foreign Investment with Special Reference to the Recent Trend in the Interpretation of the Term“Expropriation”, The International Lawyer, Vol. 40, No. 1, Spring 2006.
31、Justin R. Marlles, Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatory Expropriation and Enviromental Regulation in International Investment Law, Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, Vol.16, 2007.
32、J. Martin Wagner, International Investment, Expropriation and Environmental Protection, Golden Gate University Law Review, Vol. 29. 1999.
33、Ignacio Madalena, Foreign Direct Investment and the Protection of the Environment: the Border Between National Environmental Regulation and Expropriation, Euronpean Environmental Law Review, March 2003.
34、Christoph Schreuer, Full Protection and Security, Jounral of International Disputes Settlement (2010).
35、Rahim Moloo and Justin Jacinto, Environmental and Health Regulation: Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 29, 2011.
1、ASEAN Agreemt at http://www.aseansec.org/6464.htm. Oct. 3, 2010.
2、OECD Handbook on Economic Globalization Indicators at http://www. oecd.org/dataoecd/10/62/39664826.pdf. Feb. 5, 2011.
3、NAFTA Claims Decisions at http://www.naftaclaims.com. May 2, 2011
4、ICSID Claims Decisions at http://www. investmentclaims.com. Sep. 13, 2011.
5、IIA and World Investment Report at http://www. unctad.org. Sep. 13, 2011.
6、Sattorova, Mavluda, From expropriation to non-expropriatory standards of treatment: towards a unified concept of an investment treaty breach, at http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/1768/. June 10, 2011.