RTA投资争端解决机制研究
摘要
RTA即Regional Trade Agreement(区域贸易安排),指两个或两个以上成员间,就贸易和与贸易相关方面的经济合作达成的优惠安排协议,其最重要的功能是成员之间关税优惠政策的实施。区域贸易安排在全球范围内的迅速兴起,一方面是由于全球经济一体化的迅猛发展,另一方面则是由于乌拉圭回合谈判后发展中国家对于WTO多边贸易体制的先天性的缺陷失去了信心,使得大量的发展中国家考虑寻求区域性的合作,利用区域性合作的关税和非关税的特殊优惠安排,促进相互间的服务与贸易等规模的扩大,实现共赢的局面。随之而来的,则是世界各国为了促进和保护国际投资的发展,推进投资自由化、便利化和规范化,纷纷制定和签署了各个层面上的投资条约与协定。目前主要的投资协议有比较成熟的经济地区间区域性的投资协议以及日益成为区域间贸易合作形式主流的FTA(自由贸易协定)投资协议。随着国际投资活动的不断深化与发展,对于“投资”的定义、“国民待遇”与“最惠国待遇”的规定、“征收”与“补偿”等促进国际投资自由化便利化的重要内容的规定已日趋完善,而备受投资者关注的投资争端解决制度则因为其往往涉及到东道国主权问题并可能需要对东道国实施裁决来补偿投资者等问题而需要平衡各方利益,这就使得发展中国家与发达国家之间在这一机制形成了一定的分歧。同时投资争端解决程序是否完善、科学、规范也是决定投资协定能否达到预期效果、使投资双方都能实现共赢的关键。因此,一个构建合理、照顾到东道国与投资者心理预期并且有行之有效的解决方式的投资争端解决制度是实施投资协议的有力保证。在目前国际上通行的投资争端解决制度主要有ICSID (the International Center for the Settlement of Investment disputes)国际投资争端解决中心仲裁制度,多边投资担保机构的MIGA (Multinational Investment Guarantee Agency)制度以及WTO确立的争端解决机制,其中1965年就成立的ICSID中心在投资争端解决机制当中发挥着举足轻重的作用,许多RTA和BIT的投资争端解决协议中都规定了可以运用ICSID机制来解决争端,因其最早的抽离于争端所涉国家之外的国际性的专门解决争端的机构而应用的最为广泛。
本文的创新之处就在于除了对当前主要经济体间适用的投资争端解决机制进行横向比较研究外,着重在于利用案例比较的方式对ICSID仲裁规则进行研究,以便对RTA的投资争端解决机制得到更深入的理解。最后也是最重要的一点,则是对我国目前参与的FTA及RTA中的投资争端解决机制进行适当的评析,以便科学的架构合乎我国国情的、符合我国发展对外贸易需要的、能够实现投资双方互利共赢的投资争端解决机制。
本文分为四部分。第一部分界定了投资争端解决机制的含义,分析了投资争端解决机制的类型,并对RTA投资争端解决机制进行评述,阐明了RTA投资争端解决机制相对于国际投资争端解决机制的先进性。第二部分是通过一些重要规则,比如“投资”的定义,“管辖权”的认定,适用法律规范等的不同来对ICSID与区域贸易投资争端解决机制进行分析。第三部分则是通过对典型的ICSID仲裁的案例进行分析,更深入的理解RTA与ICSID的衔接问题。第四部分则是对我国目前参与的FTA的投资争端解决机制的现状、可能存在的不足进行分析,并通过对世界成功的RTA投资争端解决机制的经验的借鉴所提出的完善的对策。
我国2010年累计对外直接投资达到了2200亿美元,对外工程承包和劳务合作营业额3352亿美元。在加入世贸组织的十年间我国积极参与了区域经济合作机制建设,对外开放的深度向着更深更广阔的层次迈进。与此同时,对外贸易中的投资争端摩擦日益增多,合理解决投资争端维护我国投资主体利益问题日趋严峻,所以加强我国在对外贸易当中的区域贸易投资争端机制的建设成为当前理论研究的一个热点。而这也是本文的现实意义所在。笔者希望通过对区域贸易投资争端解决机制与ICSID机制的比较,对科学的适合我国对外贸易投资争端解决的路径进行一定的探索。
RTA namely Regional Trade Agreement (Regional Trade arrangements), refers to arrangement of reaching preferential agreement for trade or related economic cooperation between two or among more than two members. Its most important function is the tariff preferential policies between members. Regional trade arrangements rising in the context of the global rapidly, on the one hand, is due to the rapid development of global economic integration, on the other hand, is due to the developing countries lost confidence after Uruguay round negotiations because of the congenital defects of the WTO multilateral trading system which makes a large number of developing countries to seek regional cooperation, use the RTA tariff and non-tariff special preferential arrangements to promote mutual service and trade or sort of scale of the expansion so as to realize a win-win situation. Subsequently, countries all over the world in order to promote and protect the development of international investment would propel investment liberalization and facilitation and standardization, and then, set and signed all levels of investment treaties and agreements. At present the main Investment agreements between countries have the BIT (Bilateral Investment Treaty) Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement), RTA (Regional Trade Agreements, the Investment of agreement) and other major types. Along with constantly deepening and development of international investment activities, the definition of "investment","national treatment" and "the most-favored-nation treatment" provisions, as well as "collection" and "compensation" or sort of important regulations to promote international investment liberalization facilitation has been improved. The investment dispute settlement system is highly focused on by investors formed different system in developing countries and developed countries because it's often require with specific cases to analysis, related to the host country's sovereignty and the need to balance the ruling the interests of all parties. At the same time, the perfection and scientific standardizing of settlement mechanism of investment dispute is to determine whether investment agreement is effective as prediction, and which is the key point to realize win-win of investment both sides. Generally speaking, an investment dispute settlement system with reasonable construct, good consideration to host countries and psychological expectation of investors and ability to take effective solutions is the implementation of the investment agreement effective guarantee. At present, general settlement systems of investment dispute on international basis mainly are ICSID (the International Center for the Settlement of Investment disputes) arbitration system, multilateral investment Guarantee Agency MIGA (Multinational INVESTMENT Guarantee Agency) system and dispute settlement mechanism established by WTO. Among them, ICSID which was established in1965plays a pivotal role in the mechanism. Many RTA and BIT investment dispute settlement agreement stipulated that the ICSID mechanism can be used to solve the dispute.
The innovation of this paper is to make research of the ICSID arbitration rules by contrast of the cases, so as to get a thorough understanding of RTA dispute settlement mechanism, with exception of comparative study for the investment dispute resolution mechanism applying to the current major economies. The last and most important point, it is to present proper evaluation for the FTA and RTA investment dispute settlement mechanism our country participates now. and it could improve the scientific structure to accord with China's national conditions and in line with the requirement of foreign trade development, could realize the mutually beneficial and win-win investment dispute settlement mechanism.
This paper will be divided into four chapters. The first chapter defines the meaning of investment dispute resolution mechanism, analyzes the type of investment of the dispute settlement mechanism, and expounds RTA investment dispute settlement mechanism and the advanced nature relative to international investment dispute settlement mechanism. The second chapter is comparison of ICSID and regional trade and investment dispute settlement mechanism through some important rules, such as the definition of "investment","jurisdiction", and the applicable law of different specification. The third deeply understands the link between RTA and ICSID by analysis through the famous case arbitrated by ICSID. Chapter4is to present the shortcomings of the FTA current situation we participated right now, analyze, and propose the countermeasures on the basis of successful experience of RTA investment of the dispute settlement mechanism.
In2012, total foreign direct investment of our country is up to$220billion accumulatively, turnover of international engineering contracting and labor service cooperation$335.2billion. During these10years after accession to the world trade organization China took an active part in the regional economic cooperation mechanisms, external development is moving forward frequently broader and deeper. At the same time, the foreign trade investment disputes friction is growing and reasonably solving investment disputes and protecting investment interests are increasingly serious, so strengthening construction investment dispute settlement mechanism in the area of trade has become a hot spot the theory research. And this is the theme of this paper. The author hope to find the suitable pathway for settlement of China's foreign trade investment dispute through comparison between regional trade investment dispute settlement mechanism and ICSID mechanism.
本文的创新之处就在于除了对当前主要经济体间适用的投资争端解决机制进行横向比较研究外,着重在于利用案例比较的方式对ICSID仲裁规则进行研究,以便对RTA的投资争端解决机制得到更深入的理解。最后也是最重要的一点,则是对我国目前参与的FTA及RTA中的投资争端解决机制进行适当的评析,以便科学的架构合乎我国国情的、符合我国发展对外贸易需要的、能够实现投资双方互利共赢的投资争端解决机制。
本文分为四部分。第一部分界定了投资争端解决机制的含义,分析了投资争端解决机制的类型,并对RTA投资争端解决机制进行评述,阐明了RTA投资争端解决机制相对于国际投资争端解决机制的先进性。第二部分是通过一些重要规则,比如“投资”的定义,“管辖权”的认定,适用法律规范等的不同来对ICSID与区域贸易投资争端解决机制进行分析。第三部分则是通过对典型的ICSID仲裁的案例进行分析,更深入的理解RTA与ICSID的衔接问题。第四部分则是对我国目前参与的FTA的投资争端解决机制的现状、可能存在的不足进行分析,并通过对世界成功的RTA投资争端解决机制的经验的借鉴所提出的完善的对策。
我国2010年累计对外直接投资达到了2200亿美元,对外工程承包和劳务合作营业额3352亿美元。在加入世贸组织的十年间我国积极参与了区域经济合作机制建设,对外开放的深度向着更深更广阔的层次迈进。与此同时,对外贸易中的投资争端摩擦日益增多,合理解决投资争端维护我国投资主体利益问题日趋严峻,所以加强我国在对外贸易当中的区域贸易投资争端机制的建设成为当前理论研究的一个热点。而这也是本文的现实意义所在。笔者希望通过对区域贸易投资争端解决机制与ICSID机制的比较,对科学的适合我国对外贸易投资争端解决的路径进行一定的探索。
RTA namely Regional Trade Agreement (Regional Trade arrangements), refers to arrangement of reaching preferential agreement for trade or related economic cooperation between two or among more than two members. Its most important function is the tariff preferential policies between members. Regional trade arrangements rising in the context of the global rapidly, on the one hand, is due to the rapid development of global economic integration, on the other hand, is due to the developing countries lost confidence after Uruguay round negotiations because of the congenital defects of the WTO multilateral trading system which makes a large number of developing countries to seek regional cooperation, use the RTA tariff and non-tariff special preferential arrangements to promote mutual service and trade or sort of scale of the expansion so as to realize a win-win situation. Subsequently, countries all over the world in order to promote and protect the development of international investment would propel investment liberalization and facilitation and standardization, and then, set and signed all levels of investment treaties and agreements. At present the main Investment agreements between countries have the BIT (Bilateral Investment Treaty) Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement), RTA (Regional Trade Agreements, the Investment of agreement) and other major types. Along with constantly deepening and development of international investment activities, the definition of "investment","national treatment" and "the most-favored-nation treatment" provisions, as well as "collection" and "compensation" or sort of important regulations to promote international investment liberalization facilitation has been improved. The investment dispute settlement system is highly focused on by investors formed different system in developing countries and developed countries because it's often require with specific cases to analysis, related to the host country's sovereignty and the need to balance the ruling the interests of all parties. At the same time, the perfection and scientific standardizing of settlement mechanism of investment dispute is to determine whether investment agreement is effective as prediction, and which is the key point to realize win-win of investment both sides. Generally speaking, an investment dispute settlement system with reasonable construct, good consideration to host countries and psychological expectation of investors and ability to take effective solutions is the implementation of the investment agreement effective guarantee. At present, general settlement systems of investment dispute on international basis mainly are ICSID (the International Center for the Settlement of Investment disputes) arbitration system, multilateral investment Guarantee Agency MIGA (Multinational INVESTMENT Guarantee Agency) system and dispute settlement mechanism established by WTO. Among them, ICSID which was established in1965plays a pivotal role in the mechanism. Many RTA and BIT investment dispute settlement agreement stipulated that the ICSID mechanism can be used to solve the dispute.
The innovation of this paper is to make research of the ICSID arbitration rules by contrast of the cases, so as to get a thorough understanding of RTA dispute settlement mechanism, with exception of comparative study for the investment dispute resolution mechanism applying to the current major economies. The last and most important point, it is to present proper evaluation for the FTA and RTA investment dispute settlement mechanism our country participates now. and it could improve the scientific structure to accord with China's national conditions and in line with the requirement of foreign trade development, could realize the mutually beneficial and win-win investment dispute settlement mechanism.
This paper will be divided into four chapters. The first chapter defines the meaning of investment dispute resolution mechanism, analyzes the type of investment of the dispute settlement mechanism, and expounds RTA investment dispute settlement mechanism and the advanced nature relative to international investment dispute settlement mechanism. The second chapter is comparison of ICSID and regional trade and investment dispute settlement mechanism through some important rules, such as the definition of "investment","jurisdiction", and the applicable law of different specification. The third deeply understands the link between RTA and ICSID by analysis through the famous case arbitrated by ICSID. Chapter4is to present the shortcomings of the FTA current situation we participated right now, analyze, and propose the countermeasures on the basis of successful experience of RTA investment of the dispute settlement mechanism.
In2012, total foreign direct investment of our country is up to$220billion accumulatively, turnover of international engineering contracting and labor service cooperation$335.2billion. During these10years after accession to the world trade organization China took an active part in the regional economic cooperation mechanisms, external development is moving forward frequently broader and deeper. At the same time, the foreign trade investment disputes friction is growing and reasonably solving investment disputes and protecting investment interests are increasingly serious, so strengthening construction investment dispute settlement mechanism in the area of trade has become a hot spot the theory research. And this is the theme of this paper. The author hope to find the suitable pathway for settlement of China's foreign trade investment dispute through comparison between regional trade investment dispute settlement mechanism and ICSID mechanism.
引文
[1]石慧.投资条约仲裁机制的批判与重构[M].北京：法律出版社,2008：1.
[2]汤树梅.国际投资法的理论与实践[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004：294.
[3]陈安.国际投资争端案例精选[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005：15.
[4]汤树梅.国际投资法的理论与实践[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004：295.
[5]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：7.
[6]石慧.论投资者与国家之间争端解决方式的演进—从国家本位到投资者本位[J].工业技术经济,2007,7.
[7]陈安.国际投资争端案例精选[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005.
[8]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：67.
[9]2012年4月10日查于http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/
[10]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：67.
[11]史玲.国际投资争端解决机制的比较分析[J].黑龙江对外经贸,2008：30.
[12]黎四奇.ICSID、MIGA、WTO争端解决机制评述[J].云梦学刊,2004：50.
[13]余敏友.世界贸易组织争端解决机制法律与实践[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,1998：208.
[14]《关于争端解决规定及程序谅解》
[15]赵维田.世贸组织的法律制度[M].长春：吉林人民出版,2000：31-32.
[16]陈立虎,赵艳敏.区域贸易争端解决机制刍议[A].见：武大国际法评论[C].武汉：231.
[17]张文浩.区域贸易安排争端解决机制比较研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2010：19.
[18]杜玉琼.CEPA法律问题研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2006：45.
[19]蔡鸳鸯.区域贸易安排下争端解决机制探究[J].法制与经济,2009(197)：83.
[20]李萍.NAFTA国际投资法律问题研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2003：109.
[21]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：46.
[22]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：12.
[23]NAFTA Article 1117
[24]NAFTA Article 1139
[25]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalclad
[26]杨丽艳.区域经济一体化法律制度研究——兼评中国的区域经济一体化法律对策[M].北京：法律出版社,2004：325.
[27]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：41.
[28]http://www.asean-china-center.org/2010-06/08/c_13339843.htm
[29]张听宇.CAFTA投资仲裁规则研究-基于缔约方与投资者的争端解决机制[J].政法学刊,2010(27)：76.
[30]CAFTA Article 1103
[31]CAFTA Article 1404、1406、1408
[32]CAFTA Article 190、1902
[33]http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text
[34]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：13.
[35]张庆麟.国际投资法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007：334.
[36]马讯.《北美自由贸易协定》第十一章争议解决机制研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.17.
[37]胡晓红.中外双边投资协定争端解决机制模式选择——以中国与上合组织成员国间BITs为视角[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2009(2)：15.
[38]吕军锋.论WTO争端解决机制与ICSID的关系[J].榆林学院学报,2008：21.
[39]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：35.
[40]孙艳.国际投资合同法律适用[D].上海：复旦大学,2004：36.
[41]马讯.《北美自由贸易协定》第十一章争议解决机制研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.32.
[42]李广辉,李红.当代国际法热点问题研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2005：152.
[43]张庆麟,国际投资法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007：350.
[44]王燕.论区域贸易安排中的投资自由化[D].青岛：中国海洋大学,2009：30.
[45]黎四奇.ICSID、MIGA、WTO争端解决机制评述[J].云梦学刊,2004：49.
[46]郭鸣.区域投资规则若干法律问题研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2004：23.
[47]余劲松.论投资者与东道国间争端解决机制及其影响[J].中国法学,2005：43.
[48]杨丽艳.析RTAs协定中有关投资规则的法律问题——以中国为例[J].上海财经大学学报,2009(1)：36.
[49]金成华.东亚地区FTA谈判进程中面临的困境及其解决途径[J].上海大学学报,2008：35.
[50]邓群飞.基于技术结构视角的中国-东盟贸易关系及影响因素研究[D].长沙：湖南大学,2010.32.
[51]陆以全.中国-东盟自由贸易区投资争端解决机制评析—以缔约方与投资者争端解决为视角[J].西部法学评论,2011：40.
[52]李晓燕.ICSID仲裁机制的发展对中国的影响[J].大众商务,2010(2)：24.
[53]余劲松.论投资者与东道国间争端解决机制及其影响[J].中国法学,2005：43.
[54]朱莎.ICSID机制的发展及其完善兼论多边投资框架内争端解决机制的程序设计[J].武汉,武汉大学.
[1]陈安.国际投资争端案例精选[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005.
[2]树梅.国际投资法的理论与实践[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[3]石慧.投资条约仲裁机制的批判与重构[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[4]卢进勇,余劲松,齐春生.国际投资条约与协定新论[M].北京：人民出版社,2007.
[5]慕亚平,李伯桥.区域经济一体化与CEPA的法律问题研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[6]孙南申.国际投资法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[7]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009.
[8]杨丽艳,区域经济一体化法律制度研究——兼评中国的区域经济一体化法律对策[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[9]杨丽艳,东盟的法律和政策与现代国际法[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2000.
[10]李广辉,李红.当代国际法热点问题研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2005.
[11]呼书秀.中国与东盟发展相互投资的法律机制研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社2005.
[12]陈志波,米良.东盟国家对外经济法律制度研究[M].昆明：云南大学出版社,2006.
[13]王传丽,张丽英.国际经济法教学案例[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[14]曾令良,余敏友.全球化时代的国际法——基础、结构与挑战[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2005.
[15]张潇剑.国际民商事及经贸争端解决途径专论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[16]张庆麟.国际投资法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007.
[17]朱莎.ICSID机制的发展及其完善兼论多边投资框架内争端解决机制的程序设计[A].全球化时代的国际经济法：中国的视角国际研讨会论文集.2008.
[18]鲍薇.国际投资争端解决机制与WTO争端解决机制[J].法制与社会,2010.1.
[19]石慧.论投资者与国家之间争端解决方式的演进——从国家本位到投资者本位[J].工业技术经济,2007,7.
[20]张光.多边国际投资争议解决机制的新发展——WTO争议机制和解决国际投资[J].克山师专学报,2003(4)
[21]刘笋.国际投资保护的国际法制若干重要法律问题研究[M].法律出版社,2000.
[22]简学钦.WTO争端解决机制对国际投资法的影响[J].中山大学学报论丛,2005.
[23]Fank W.Swarker,KennethR.Redden and Larry B Wenger,The WTO and Dispute Resolution;Provides an Overview of International ADR under the WTO,Dispute Resolution Journal,August-October 2000.
[24]Jorn H.Jackson.Introduction and Overview,Symposium on the First Three Years of the WTO Dispute Settlement System,International Lawyer,Fall,1998.
[25]费赫夫.论NAFTA投资争端解决机制[J].辽宁行政学院学报,2006.
[26]余劲松.论投资者与东道国间争端解决机制及其影响[J].中国法学,2005.
[27]马迅. 《北美自由贸易协定》第十一章争议解决机制研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[28]张昕宇.中国-东盟自由贸易区仲裁机制研究[J].河北法学,2010.
[29]杨丽艳.析RTA协定中有关投资规则的法律问题-以中国为例[J].上海财经大学学报,2009.
[30]殷越男.国际经济调整中的民营企业走出去战略思考[J].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2010.
[31]World Investment Report 2011
[32]World Investment Report 2010
[33]余劲松,梁丹妮.公平公正待遇的最新发展动向及我国的对策[J].法学家,2007.
[34]张光.论国际投资仲裁中投资者利益与公共利益的平衡[J].西北政法大学学报,2011.
[35]StephanW.Schill. The Multilateralization of International Investment Law. Cambridge University Press.2009.
[2]汤树梅.国际投资法的理论与实践[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004：294.
[3]陈安.国际投资争端案例精选[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005：15.
[4]汤树梅.国际投资法的理论与实践[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004：295.
[5]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：7.
[6]石慧.论投资者与国家之间争端解决方式的演进—从国家本位到投资者本位[J].工业技术经济,2007,7.
[7]陈安.国际投资争端案例精选[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005.
[8]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：67.
[9]2012年4月10日查于http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/
[10]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：67.
[11]史玲.国际投资争端解决机制的比较分析[J].黑龙江对外经贸,2008：30.
[12]黎四奇.ICSID、MIGA、WTO争端解决机制评述[J].云梦学刊,2004：50.
[13]余敏友.世界贸易组织争端解决机制法律与实践[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,1998：208.
[14]《关于争端解决规定及程序谅解》
[15]赵维田.世贸组织的法律制度[M].长春：吉林人民出版,2000：31-32.
[16]陈立虎,赵艳敏.区域贸易争端解决机制刍议[A].见：武大国际法评论[C].武汉：231.
[17]张文浩.区域贸易安排争端解决机制比较研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2010：19.
[18]杜玉琼.CEPA法律问题研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学,2006：45.
[19]蔡鸳鸯.区域贸易安排下争端解决机制探究[J].法制与经济,2009(197)：83.
[20]李萍.NAFTA国际投资法律问题研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2003：109.
[21]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：46.
[22]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：12.
[23]NAFTA Article 1117
[24]NAFTA Article 1139
[25]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalclad
[26]杨丽艳.区域经济一体化法律制度研究——兼评中国的区域经济一体化法律对策[M].北京：法律出版社,2004：325.
[27]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009：41.
[28]http://www.asean-china-center.org/2010-06/08/c_13339843.htm
[29]张听宇.CAFTA投资仲裁规则研究-基于缔约方与投资者的争端解决机制[J].政法学刊,2010(27)：76.
[30]CAFTA Article 1103
[31]CAFTA Article 1404、1406、1408
[32]CAFTA Article 190、1902
[33]http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text
[34]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：13.
[35]张庆麟.国际投资法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007：334.
[36]马讯.《北美自由贸易协定》第十一章争议解决机制研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.17.
[37]胡晓红.中外双边投资协定争端解决机制模式选择——以中国与上合组织成员国间BITs为视角[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2009(2)：15.
[38]吕军锋.论WTO争端解决机制与ICSID的关系[J].榆林学院学报,2008：21.
[39]张露.北美自由贸易区投资争端解决机制研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2007：35.
[40]孙艳.国际投资合同法律适用[D].上海：复旦大学,2004：36.
[41]马讯.《北美自由贸易协定》第十一章争议解决机制研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.32.
[42]李广辉,李红.当代国际法热点问题研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2005：152.
[43]张庆麟,国际投资法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007：350.
[44]王燕.论区域贸易安排中的投资自由化[D].青岛：中国海洋大学,2009：30.
[45]黎四奇.ICSID、MIGA、WTO争端解决机制评述[J].云梦学刊,2004：49.
[46]郭鸣.区域投资规则若干法律问题研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2004：23.
[47]余劲松.论投资者与东道国间争端解决机制及其影响[J].中国法学,2005：43.
[48]杨丽艳.析RTAs协定中有关投资规则的法律问题——以中国为例[J].上海财经大学学报,2009(1)：36.
[49]金成华.东亚地区FTA谈判进程中面临的困境及其解决途径[J].上海大学学报,2008：35.
[50]邓群飞.基于技术结构视角的中国-东盟贸易关系及影响因素研究[D].长沙：湖南大学,2010.32.
[51]陆以全.中国-东盟自由贸易区投资争端解决机制评析—以缔约方与投资者争端解决为视角[J].西部法学评论,2011：40.
[52]李晓燕.ICSID仲裁机制的发展对中国的影响[J].大众商务,2010(2)：24.
[53]余劲松.论投资者与东道国间争端解决机制及其影响[J].中国法学,2005：43.
[54]朱莎.ICSID机制的发展及其完善兼论多边投资框架内争端解决机制的程序设计[J].武汉,武汉大学.
[1]陈安.国际投资争端案例精选[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005.
[2]树梅.国际投资法的理论与实践[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[3]石慧.投资条约仲裁机制的批判与重构[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[4]卢进勇,余劲松,齐春生.国际投资条约与协定新论[M].北京：人民出版社,2007.
[5]慕亚平,李伯桥.区域经济一体化与CEPA的法律问题研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[6]孙南申.国际投资法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2008.
[7]金成华.国际投资立法发展现状与展望[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2009.
[8]杨丽艳,区域经济一体化法律制度研究——兼评中国的区域经济一体化法律对策[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[9]杨丽艳,东盟的法律和政策与现代国际法[M].桂林：广西师范大学出版社,2000.
[10]李广辉,李红.当代国际法热点问题研究[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2005.
[11]呼书秀.中国与东盟发展相互投资的法律机制研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社2005.
[12]陈志波,米良.东盟国家对外经济法律制度研究[M].昆明：云南大学出版社,2006.
[13]王传丽,张丽英.国际经济法教学案例[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[14]曾令良,余敏友.全球化时代的国际法——基础、结构与挑战[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2005.
[15]张潇剑.国际民商事及经贸争端解决途径专论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2003.
[16]张庆麟.国际投资法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2007.
[17]朱莎.ICSID机制的发展及其完善兼论多边投资框架内争端解决机制的程序设计[A].全球化时代的国际经济法：中国的视角国际研讨会论文集.2008.
[18]鲍薇.国际投资争端解决机制与WTO争端解决机制[J].法制与社会,2010.1.
[19]石慧.论投资者与国家之间争端解决方式的演进——从国家本位到投资者本位[J].工业技术经济,2007,7.
[20]张光.多边国际投资争议解决机制的新发展——WTO争议机制和解决国际投资[J].克山师专学报,2003(4)
[21]刘笋.国际投资保护的国际法制若干重要法律问题研究[M].法律出版社,2000.
[22]简学钦.WTO争端解决机制对国际投资法的影响[J].中山大学学报论丛,2005.
[23]Fank W.Swarker,KennethR.Redden and Larry B Wenger,The WTO and Dispute Resolution;Provides an Overview of International ADR under the WTO,Dispute Resolution Journal,August-October 2000.
[24]Jorn H.Jackson.Introduction and Overview,Symposium on the First Three Years of the WTO Dispute Settlement System,International Lawyer,Fall,1998.
[25]费赫夫.论NAFTA投资争端解决机制[J].辽宁行政学院学报,2006.
[26]余劲松.论投资者与东道国间争端解决机制及其影响[J].中国法学,2005.
[27]马迅. 《北美自由贸易协定》第十一章争议解决机制研究[D].武汉：武汉大学,2005.
[28]张昕宇.中国-东盟自由贸易区仲裁机制研究[J].河北法学,2010.
[29]杨丽艳.析RTA协定中有关投资规则的法律问题-以中国为例[J].上海财经大学学报,2009.
[30]殷越男.国际经济调整中的民营企业走出去战略思考[J].世界贸易组织动态与研究,2010.
[31]World Investment Report 2011
[32]World Investment Report 2010
[33]余劲松,梁丹妮.公平公正待遇的最新发展动向及我国的对策[J].法学家,2007.
[34]张光.论国际投资仲裁中投资者利益与公共利益的平衡[J].西北政法大学学报,2011.
[35]StephanW.Schill. The Multilateralization of International Investment Law. Cambridge University Press.2009.