国际投资间接征收制度解读和反思
|
摘要
20世纪90年代以来,无论在NAFTA还是在ICSID体制内,投资者都频频对东道国基于维护环境、公共健康、经济调整等而采取的措施提出间接征收指控,严重威胁东道国维护公共利益的能力,促使人们认真对待投资者的私人权益与东道国的主权权力间的明显失衡问题。然而,国际投资协定的相关规定存在严重不足,有关仲裁实践也存在许多问题。因此,人们寻求对间接征收规则进行改革,间接征收成为国际投资法理论与实践的新热点。
本文第一章分析了间接征收的定义以及间接征收纠纷增多的原因。长期以来,《保护私人海外投资公约草案》等条约草案、国际投资协定和国际投资争端解决实践都试图界定间接征收。但由于间接征收的复杂性,以及投资者和东道国之间、发达国家和发展中国家之间复杂的利益冲突,使得间接征收难以有统一、精确的定义。当然,人们还是一定程度上取得了共识,即间接征收是指政府措施没有直接转移或剥夺投资者的财产权,但其效果等同于直接征收的情况。间接征收问题日益凸显主要是因为下列原因:(1)各国积极利用外国直接投资,几乎不再直接征收;(2)各国调整经济结构、转变发展方式,使间接征收增多;(3)国家为履行国家职能,需要管制外国投资,并且这种管制日益复杂化;(4)国家加强保护环境、人类健康和安全等公共利益;(5)“投资”定义宽泛、间接征收定义模糊等国际投资法本身存在的缺陷,加剧了间接征收问题。
本文第二章阐述了间接征收的形式和对象。间接征收的形式很多,典型的有如下几类:强制转让财产、骚扰投资经营、取消许可或批准、过度或任意征税、违法驱逐外国投资者、完全禁止转让或支配财产、实质干预企业的管理控制权。间接征收的对象是指可被间接征收的财产。根据国际投资协定的规定和间接征收仲裁实践,有形财产和无形财产都是间接征收的对象,但不是所有的无形财产都属于间接征收的对象。在确定间接征收的对象时,有的案例采用了“概念分割法”,将“随财产权而拥有的一组权利”中受到政府措施直接影响的部分予以分割、并解释为“单独的完整的权利”。这种做法可能将各种“财产权利”和“财产利益”都认定为“投资”,不适当地扩大间接征收的范围,因此应该采用“权利整体论”确定间接征收的对象,将其严格限定在国际投资协定规定的“投资”范围内。
本文第三章阐释了认定政府措施是否构成间接征收的标准和方法。如何认定政府措施是否构成间接征收是有关仲裁实践和理论研究中争议最大的问题。这一问题的争议非常深刻和生动地体现了投资者利益与国家利益、发展中国家利益与发达国家利益、经济价值与非经济价值之间的冲突。基于对有关仲裁实践的总结和归纳,一般认为认定间接征收的标准有三个:(1)政府措施对投资的影响;(2)政府措施的背景、性质和目的;(3)政府措施对投资者合理期待的干预。第三个标准是仲裁实践普遍采用的。但对于前两个标准,有的案例仅适用第一个标准(此种做法称作“唯一效果方法”),有的二者都适用(此种做法称作“效果兼性质方法”)。“唯一效果方法”聚焦于投资者的利益得失,容易忽视东道国利益,严重影响政府的管制权力,应予摒弃。适当的做法是综合采用三个标准。当然,间接征收的认定标准和方法需要在立法中进一步完善。
本文第四章研究了政府不应承担补偿责任的情形,即“治安权例外”。由于间接征收的认定是一个客观基础上的主观过程,即使严格按“效果兼性质方法”认定间接征收,也不能完全排除政府为保护公共健康、安全等公共利益而采取的必要的管制措施被认定为间接征收从而承担补偿责任的可能。因此,为了保证政府的管制权力,根据国家主权原则,对于国家为保护环境、人权以及追求重要的社会和经济目标而采取的管制措施,即使构成间接征收,国家也不应承担补偿责任。这就是“治安权例外”。当然,“治安权例外”只有在符合一定条件的情况下,才是合法有效的。“治安权例外”的前提应该是在合法的“治安权”范围内,并且还应符合善意、非歧视、正当程序和最小损害要求。
本文第五章分析了间接征收和强制许可的关系。知识产权长久以来就被认为是一种投资而受到国际投资协定的保护,也是间接征收的对象。通过强制许可,政府可以授权政府部门或其他第三方使用知识产权,从而直接干预私人拥有的知识产权。在间接征收视域下,如果该知识产权是外国投资者的投资,则强制许可的授予是一种对包含知识产权的外国投资产生直接影响的政府行为。根据认定间接征收的标准和方法,从理论上分析,强制许可可能构成间接征收。假若一强制许可构成间接征收,对比TRIPS协定规定的强制许可条件,国际投资协定中合法征收的要求有较大不同,尤其是在正当程序和补偿方面。国际投资协定提供的保护要高于TRIPS协定提供的保护。因此,外国投资者可能依据征收规定、通过投资者-国家投资争端解决程序索赔。这将不利于强制许可制度价值的实现,违背了设立强制许可制度的初衷。因此,应该明确将强制许可排除在间接征收之外,即间接征收规定不适用于符合TRIPS协定的强制许可。当然,“治安权例外”也可适用于强制许可。
本文第六章考察了中国有关间接征收的条约规定,并提出改进建议。在“投资”定义上,中国的投资协定采用了广义的以资产为基础的定义方式,这大大增加了国家管制措施引发间接征收纠纷的可能。在间接征收规定上,绝大多数投资协定没有明确间接征收的定义和认定标准,也没有规定“治安权例外”和强制许可例外。可以说,在应对间接征收问题上,中国的投资协定存在严重的法律缺陷。作为处于转型发展期、同为资本输入国和输出国的发展中大国,中国面临间接征收问题。因此,中国应该以可持续发展理念为指导,明确国际投资协定政策定位,平衡考虑经济发展、社会进步、环境保护和人权保障等不同价值,完善国际投资协定有关规定,即调整和充实条约序言、改进投资协定中的“投资”定义、明确间接征收的定义、完善间接征收的认定标准和方法、合理利用间接征收的例外。
Since the 1990s, under the NAFTA and ICSID investment dispute settlement mechanisms, foreign investors frequently claim against host states for the governments’measurs for the protection of the environment, public health, economic adjustment,which is a serious threat to the host states’ability to safeguard the public interest. These governments’measurs are alleged to constitute indirect expropriation by foreign investors.That makes people take seriously the significant imbalance between the investors private rights and host states’sovereign authority.However, the relevant provisions of international investment agreements are grossly inadequate, and the indirect expropriation arbitration practice has many problems. Therefore, people seek to reform and improve the rules of indirect expropriation, the issue of indirect expropriation has become the new hot spot of the theory and practice of international investment law.
The first chapter of the thesis analyses the definition of indirect expropriation and the reasons for the increase in disputes about indirect expropriation.Treaty drafts,such as The Proposed Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment,international investment agreements(IIAs)and the practices for international investment dispute settlement have been long on the trial of definition and connotation of indirect expropriation. However, the complexity of indirect expropriation and the complicated conflicts of interests between the investors and host countries as well as the developed and developing countries make it difficult to produce a unified and accurate definition. Definitely, certain common perspective has been reached to some point, that is, indirect expropriation refers to the government measures with the effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure. The reasons for the indirect expropriation to be the hot spot are categorized as follows:(1)States make comprehensive use of direct foreign investments actively and seldom expropriate directly;(2) States adjust their economic structure and transform their development modes, which lead to the increase in indirect expropriation;(3) States need to regulate foreign investment in order to exercise national functions and make the regulation more complicated.(4) States enhance the protection for the public interests such as the environment, human health and security;(5)The weaknesses of international investment laws,such as the broad definition of investment, the ambiguous definition of indirect expropriation, aggravates the issue of indirect expropriation.
The second chapter of the thesis expounds the form and object of indirect expropriation. It is necessary to understand the form and object of indirect expropriation in order to gain the more thorough and full-scale comprehension. The issues of indirect expropriation are presented in many forms with the typical examples classified as follows: involuntary alienation of property, interference with investment and business operation, cancel license or permission, overtaxation or arbitrary taxation, illegal deportation of foreign investors, complete prohibition of the transfer or control of property, substantial interference with the management and control of enterprise,. The object of indirect expropriation refers to what property can be indirectly expropriated, which includs tangible property and intangible property in accordance with the provisions of IIAs and indirect expropriation arbitration practices. Nevertheless,not all of intangible property can be indirectly expropriated.Indirect expropriation not only contains the expropriation on ownership control, but on the management and control of foreign enterprise. In certain cases,the technique of“conceptual severance”, whereby a part of the“bundle of property rights”that is directly affected by a measure is severed and construed to be separate whole right,has been adopted on the decision of expropriation object. The tribunal’s approach may consider every kind of“property right”and“property interest”a kind of“investment, which could result in the improper magnification of indirect expropriation scope. Consequently, we should adopt“parcel as a whole”theory to determine the object of indirect expropriation, and strictly limit it in the scope of“investment”of IIAs.
The third chapter of the thesis illuminates the criteria and method to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation. How to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation is the most controversial issue in relevant arbitration practices and theoretical disputes, which has thoroughly and vividly represented the conflicts of interests between investors and the state, the developing countries and developed countries as well as the economic value and non-economic value. In accordance with the summaries and categorization of the arbitration practices, the criteria for determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation are generally confirmed as follows:(1)the influence of government measure on investment;(2)the context, characteristics and purpose of government measure;(3) the extent to which the government measure interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations. The third criterion is generally adopted by the arbitration practice. In the case of the first two criteria, some cases adopted the former, which was“sole effect method”, while certain adopted both standards, which was called“effect and nature method”.“Sole effect method”focuses upon the interests of and the harm done to the investor. Adopting the method may make it easy to ignore the host state’s interests. So,“Sole effect method”may greatly impact on the government regulatory power, which therefore should be abandoned. Hence, the comprehensive utilization of the three criteria is the acceptable. Furthermore, the criteria and method should be improve in the IIAs.
The forth chapter of the thesis studies the issues where government should not bear compensation obligation. Due to the subjective in the process of determing indirect expropriation, strict implementation of“effect and nature method”can not completely exclude the possibility of compensation responsibility of government’s necessary regulatory measures for the sake of public interests such as public health and security. Therefore, according to the principle of state sovereignty, if the measures taken for the sake of environmental protection, human rights and pursuance of important social and economic objectives constituted indirect expropriation, the state should be exempt from the compensation obligation. This is called“police powers exceptions”, which is legal in accordance with certain specific circumstances. The premise for police powers exceptions should be in the legal area of police powers, and the exceptions should be in conformance with the requirements of“bona fide”, nondiscrimination, due process and slightest harm.
The fifth chapter of the thesis analyses the relationship between indirect expropriation and compulsory license. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have long been recognized as a form of“investment”entitled to protection under IIAs. IPRs are also one part of the object of indirect expropriation. Through the compulsory license, a government authority interferes directly with a privately owned IPRs, to authorize its use by the government or by one or more third parties. From the view of indirect expropriation, if the IPRs is a foreign investor’s investment, the authorization of a compulsory license is a government action which could create a direct impact on FDI involving intellectual property. According to the criteria and method to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation, the authorization of a compulsory license may constitute indirect expropriation in terms of the jurisprudence analysis. If a compulsory license constituted indirect expropriation, comparing with the provisions concerning compulsory license in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement),there are rather differences between the requirements on lawful expropriation in IIAs and the requirements for compulsory license in TRIPS Agreement, especialy in the aspects of due process and compensation. Accordingly, the level of protection in IIAs is higher than in TRIPS Agreement. Consequently, foreign investor may claim against host states by investor-state dispute settlement process based on the provisions of expropriation. If so,it is not good to realize the value of compulsory license institution,and this departes from the tenets of creating the institution. Thus compulsory license should definitely be excluded from the application of indirect expropriation provisions.Of course,the“Police Power exceptions”should also be applied to compulsory license.
The sixth chapter of the thesis investigates related provisions on indirect expropriation in the IIAs of China, and puts forwards some advice for improving these provisions.As for the definition of investment, the IIAs of China adopt a broad assets-based formulation,which greatly increase the possibility of indirect expropriation resulting from regulatory measures of state.So far,there are’t provisions concerning the definition of indirect expropriation and the criteria for determining whether a indirect expropriation has in fact taken place in the majority of the IIAs. The majority of the IIAs don’t provide the exceptions of“police powers”and compulsory license. As to dealing with the issues of indirect expropriation,it may be said that there are severe law faults in the IIAs of China. As a big developing country which is exerting itself to transform the development mode,and a capital importing and exporting country,China is confronted with the problem of indirect expropriation. Therefore, under the guidance of the notion of sustainable development,China should definitely establish its IIAs policy and position,think over how to balance different values,such as the economic development,social progress, protection of environment and human rights,and amend related provisions in IIAs.It is necessary to amend and enrich the preliminary remarks of IIAs, definitely define the definition of indirect expropriation, ameliorate the definition of investment in international investment agreements,improve the criteria and approach to determining whether indirect expropriation has occurred, properly make use of the exceptions of indirect expropriation.
本文第一章分析了间接征收的定义以及间接征收纠纷增多的原因。长期以来,《保护私人海外投资公约草案》等条约草案、国际投资协定和国际投资争端解决实践都试图界定间接征收。但由于间接征收的复杂性,以及投资者和东道国之间、发达国家和发展中国家之间复杂的利益冲突,使得间接征收难以有统一、精确的定义。当然,人们还是一定程度上取得了共识,即间接征收是指政府措施没有直接转移或剥夺投资者的财产权,但其效果等同于直接征收的情况。间接征收问题日益凸显主要是因为下列原因:(1)各国积极利用外国直接投资,几乎不再直接征收;(2)各国调整经济结构、转变发展方式,使间接征收增多;(3)国家为履行国家职能,需要管制外国投资,并且这种管制日益复杂化;(4)国家加强保护环境、人类健康和安全等公共利益;(5)“投资”定义宽泛、间接征收定义模糊等国际投资法本身存在的缺陷,加剧了间接征收问题。
本文第二章阐述了间接征收的形式和对象。间接征收的形式很多,典型的有如下几类:强制转让财产、骚扰投资经营、取消许可或批准、过度或任意征税、违法驱逐外国投资者、完全禁止转让或支配财产、实质干预企业的管理控制权。间接征收的对象是指可被间接征收的财产。根据国际投资协定的规定和间接征收仲裁实践,有形财产和无形财产都是间接征收的对象,但不是所有的无形财产都属于间接征收的对象。在确定间接征收的对象时,有的案例采用了“概念分割法”,将“随财产权而拥有的一组权利”中受到政府措施直接影响的部分予以分割、并解释为“单独的完整的权利”。这种做法可能将各种“财产权利”和“财产利益”都认定为“投资”,不适当地扩大间接征收的范围,因此应该采用“权利整体论”确定间接征收的对象,将其严格限定在国际投资协定规定的“投资”范围内。
本文第三章阐释了认定政府措施是否构成间接征收的标准和方法。如何认定政府措施是否构成间接征收是有关仲裁实践和理论研究中争议最大的问题。这一问题的争议非常深刻和生动地体现了投资者利益与国家利益、发展中国家利益与发达国家利益、经济价值与非经济价值之间的冲突。基于对有关仲裁实践的总结和归纳,一般认为认定间接征收的标准有三个:(1)政府措施对投资的影响;(2)政府措施的背景、性质和目的;(3)政府措施对投资者合理期待的干预。第三个标准是仲裁实践普遍采用的。但对于前两个标准,有的案例仅适用第一个标准(此种做法称作“唯一效果方法”),有的二者都适用(此种做法称作“效果兼性质方法”)。“唯一效果方法”聚焦于投资者的利益得失,容易忽视东道国利益,严重影响政府的管制权力,应予摒弃。适当的做法是综合采用三个标准。当然,间接征收的认定标准和方法需要在立法中进一步完善。
本文第四章研究了政府不应承担补偿责任的情形,即“治安权例外”。由于间接征收的认定是一个客观基础上的主观过程,即使严格按“效果兼性质方法”认定间接征收,也不能完全排除政府为保护公共健康、安全等公共利益而采取的必要的管制措施被认定为间接征收从而承担补偿责任的可能。因此,为了保证政府的管制权力,根据国家主权原则,对于国家为保护环境、人权以及追求重要的社会和经济目标而采取的管制措施,即使构成间接征收,国家也不应承担补偿责任。这就是“治安权例外”。当然,“治安权例外”只有在符合一定条件的情况下,才是合法有效的。“治安权例外”的前提应该是在合法的“治安权”范围内,并且还应符合善意、非歧视、正当程序和最小损害要求。
本文第五章分析了间接征收和强制许可的关系。知识产权长久以来就被认为是一种投资而受到国际投资协定的保护,也是间接征收的对象。通过强制许可,政府可以授权政府部门或其他第三方使用知识产权,从而直接干预私人拥有的知识产权。在间接征收视域下,如果该知识产权是外国投资者的投资,则强制许可的授予是一种对包含知识产权的外国投资产生直接影响的政府行为。根据认定间接征收的标准和方法,从理论上分析,强制许可可能构成间接征收。假若一强制许可构成间接征收,对比TRIPS协定规定的强制许可条件,国际投资协定中合法征收的要求有较大不同,尤其是在正当程序和补偿方面。国际投资协定提供的保护要高于TRIPS协定提供的保护。因此,外国投资者可能依据征收规定、通过投资者-国家投资争端解决程序索赔。这将不利于强制许可制度价值的实现,违背了设立强制许可制度的初衷。因此,应该明确将强制许可排除在间接征收之外,即间接征收规定不适用于符合TRIPS协定的强制许可。当然,“治安权例外”也可适用于强制许可。
本文第六章考察了中国有关间接征收的条约规定,并提出改进建议。在“投资”定义上,中国的投资协定采用了广义的以资产为基础的定义方式,这大大增加了国家管制措施引发间接征收纠纷的可能。在间接征收规定上,绝大多数投资协定没有明确间接征收的定义和认定标准,也没有规定“治安权例外”和强制许可例外。可以说,在应对间接征收问题上,中国的投资协定存在严重的法律缺陷。作为处于转型发展期、同为资本输入国和输出国的发展中大国,中国面临间接征收问题。因此,中国应该以可持续发展理念为指导,明确国际投资协定政策定位,平衡考虑经济发展、社会进步、环境保护和人权保障等不同价值,完善国际投资协定有关规定,即调整和充实条约序言、改进投资协定中的“投资”定义、明确间接征收的定义、完善间接征收的认定标准和方法、合理利用间接征收的例外。
Since the 1990s, under the NAFTA and ICSID investment dispute settlement mechanisms, foreign investors frequently claim against host states for the governments’measurs for the protection of the environment, public health, economic adjustment,which is a serious threat to the host states’ability to safeguard the public interest. These governments’measurs are alleged to constitute indirect expropriation by foreign investors.That makes people take seriously the significant imbalance between the investors private rights and host states’sovereign authority.However, the relevant provisions of international investment agreements are grossly inadequate, and the indirect expropriation arbitration practice has many problems. Therefore, people seek to reform and improve the rules of indirect expropriation, the issue of indirect expropriation has become the new hot spot of the theory and practice of international investment law.
The first chapter of the thesis analyses the definition of indirect expropriation and the reasons for the increase in disputes about indirect expropriation.Treaty drafts,such as The Proposed Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment,international investment agreements(IIAs)and the practices for international investment dispute settlement have been long on the trial of definition and connotation of indirect expropriation. However, the complexity of indirect expropriation and the complicated conflicts of interests between the investors and host countries as well as the developed and developing countries make it difficult to produce a unified and accurate definition. Definitely, certain common perspective has been reached to some point, that is, indirect expropriation refers to the government measures with the effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure. The reasons for the indirect expropriation to be the hot spot are categorized as follows:(1)States make comprehensive use of direct foreign investments actively and seldom expropriate directly;(2) States adjust their economic structure and transform their development modes, which lead to the increase in indirect expropriation;(3) States need to regulate foreign investment in order to exercise national functions and make the regulation more complicated.(4) States enhance the protection for the public interests such as the environment, human health and security;(5)The weaknesses of international investment laws,such as the broad definition of investment, the ambiguous definition of indirect expropriation, aggravates the issue of indirect expropriation.
The second chapter of the thesis expounds the form and object of indirect expropriation. It is necessary to understand the form and object of indirect expropriation in order to gain the more thorough and full-scale comprehension. The issues of indirect expropriation are presented in many forms with the typical examples classified as follows: involuntary alienation of property, interference with investment and business operation, cancel license or permission, overtaxation or arbitrary taxation, illegal deportation of foreign investors, complete prohibition of the transfer or control of property, substantial interference with the management and control of enterprise,. The object of indirect expropriation refers to what property can be indirectly expropriated, which includs tangible property and intangible property in accordance with the provisions of IIAs and indirect expropriation arbitration practices. Nevertheless,not all of intangible property can be indirectly expropriated.Indirect expropriation not only contains the expropriation on ownership control, but on the management and control of foreign enterprise. In certain cases,the technique of“conceptual severance”, whereby a part of the“bundle of property rights”that is directly affected by a measure is severed and construed to be separate whole right,has been adopted on the decision of expropriation object. The tribunal’s approach may consider every kind of“property right”and“property interest”a kind of“investment, which could result in the improper magnification of indirect expropriation scope. Consequently, we should adopt“parcel as a whole”theory to determine the object of indirect expropriation, and strictly limit it in the scope of“investment”of IIAs.
The third chapter of the thesis illuminates the criteria and method to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation. How to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation is the most controversial issue in relevant arbitration practices and theoretical disputes, which has thoroughly and vividly represented the conflicts of interests between investors and the state, the developing countries and developed countries as well as the economic value and non-economic value. In accordance with the summaries and categorization of the arbitration practices, the criteria for determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation are generally confirmed as follows:(1)the influence of government measure on investment;(2)the context, characteristics and purpose of government measure;(3) the extent to which the government measure interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations. The third criterion is generally adopted by the arbitration practice. In the case of the first two criteria, some cases adopted the former, which was“sole effect method”, while certain adopted both standards, which was called“effect and nature method”.“Sole effect method”focuses upon the interests of and the harm done to the investor. Adopting the method may make it easy to ignore the host state’s interests. So,“Sole effect method”may greatly impact on the government regulatory power, which therefore should be abandoned. Hence, the comprehensive utilization of the three criteria is the acceptable. Furthermore, the criteria and method should be improve in the IIAs.
The forth chapter of the thesis studies the issues where government should not bear compensation obligation. Due to the subjective in the process of determing indirect expropriation, strict implementation of“effect and nature method”can not completely exclude the possibility of compensation responsibility of government’s necessary regulatory measures for the sake of public interests such as public health and security. Therefore, according to the principle of state sovereignty, if the measures taken for the sake of environmental protection, human rights and pursuance of important social and economic objectives constituted indirect expropriation, the state should be exempt from the compensation obligation. This is called“police powers exceptions”, which is legal in accordance with certain specific circumstances. The premise for police powers exceptions should be in the legal area of police powers, and the exceptions should be in conformance with the requirements of“bona fide”, nondiscrimination, due process and slightest harm.
The fifth chapter of the thesis analyses the relationship between indirect expropriation and compulsory license. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have long been recognized as a form of“investment”entitled to protection under IIAs. IPRs are also one part of the object of indirect expropriation. Through the compulsory license, a government authority interferes directly with a privately owned IPRs, to authorize its use by the government or by one or more third parties. From the view of indirect expropriation, if the IPRs is a foreign investor’s investment, the authorization of a compulsory license is a government action which could create a direct impact on FDI involving intellectual property. According to the criteria and method to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation, the authorization of a compulsory license may constitute indirect expropriation in terms of the jurisprudence analysis. If a compulsory license constituted indirect expropriation, comparing with the provisions concerning compulsory license in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement),there are rather differences between the requirements on lawful expropriation in IIAs and the requirements for compulsory license in TRIPS Agreement, especialy in the aspects of due process and compensation. Accordingly, the level of protection in IIAs is higher than in TRIPS Agreement. Consequently, foreign investor may claim against host states by investor-state dispute settlement process based on the provisions of expropriation. If so,it is not good to realize the value of compulsory license institution,and this departes from the tenets of creating the institution. Thus compulsory license should definitely be excluded from the application of indirect expropriation provisions.Of course,the“Police Power exceptions”should also be applied to compulsory license.
The sixth chapter of the thesis investigates related provisions on indirect expropriation in the IIAs of China, and puts forwards some advice for improving these provisions.As for the definition of investment, the IIAs of China adopt a broad assets-based formulation,which greatly increase the possibility of indirect expropriation resulting from regulatory measures of state.So far,there are’t provisions concerning the definition of indirect expropriation and the criteria for determining whether a indirect expropriation has in fact taken place in the majority of the IIAs. The majority of the IIAs don’t provide the exceptions of“police powers”and compulsory license. As to dealing with the issues of indirect expropriation,it may be said that there are severe law faults in the IIAs of China. As a big developing country which is exerting itself to transform the development mode,and a capital importing and exporting country,China is confronted with the problem of indirect expropriation. Therefore, under the guidance of the notion of sustainable development,China should definitely establish its IIAs policy and position,think over how to balance different values,such as the economic development,social progress, protection of environment and human rights,and amend related provisions in IIAs.It is necessary to amend and enrich the preliminary remarks of IIAs, definitely define the definition of indirect expropriation, ameliorate the definition of investment in international investment agreements,improve the criteria and approach to determining whether indirect expropriation has occurred, properly make use of the exceptions of indirect expropriation.
引文
①苏力.制度是如何形成的[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2007:53.
①Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):553.
②OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL].[2010-01-05]. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/39286571.pdf.
③Rudolf Dolzer,M Stevens. Bilateral Investment Treaties[M].The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995:2.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:291.
②World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[EB/OL].[2010-01-05]. http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/WorldBank.pdf.此处的“适当补偿”并不是发展中国家所主张的适当补偿,而仍然是“赫尔规则”,《世界银行外国直接投资待遇指南》第四部分第2-8项规定,如果补偿是“充分、有效和立即的”,才被认为是“适当的”。
③Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:35-36.
④OECD. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Draft Consolidated Text,DAFFE/MAI(98)7/REV1 [EB/OL].[2010-01-15].http://www.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:40.
②UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:36.
③本文所引用的投资协定,除特别注明者外,都引自UNCTAD投资文件数据库。UNCTAD Investment Instruments Online,http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/docsearch____779.aspx.
④OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:6.
①UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:20.
②UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:21-22.
③Norah Gallagher,Laurence Shore. Bilateral Investment Treaties: Options and Drawbacks[J]. International Arbitration Law Review,2004,7(2):49,51.
①Andrew Paul Newcombe. Regulatory Expropriation,Investment Protection and International Law: When is Government Regulation Expropriatory and When Should Compensation be Paid?[EB/OL]. [2010-04-05].http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/RegulatoryExpropriation.pdf.
②UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2011:Non-Equity Modes of International Production and Development[R].United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:100.
①Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):68.
②伊—美求偿庭是伊朗和美国为了解决伊朗大革命后各国国民(主要是美国)对伊朗的诉讼、根据伊美解决求偿争端的宣言于1981年成立的。
③本文所引用的国际投资争端解决案例,除伊—美求偿庭裁决的案例外,引用情况分别为:(1)常设仲裁法院的案例引自http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/;(2)常设国际法院的案例引自http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/;(3)其他案例引自:The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID),http://www.worldbank.org/icsid;Investment Treaty Arbitration(ITA),http://ita.law.uvic.ca;Investmentclaims.com.http://www.investmentclaims.com
④Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal,The Hague,13 October 1922,para 318.
⑤Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits)(Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International JusticeJudgment 7,25 May 1925,para 44.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:122.
②Starrett Housing Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1985:154.
③Tippetts,Abbett,McCarthy,Stratton v.TAMS-AFFA[Z].Award,29 June 1984.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.6.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1986:225.
④曹晴.浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限[J].环球法律评论,2008(6):16.
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衡平[J].财经问题研究,2009(1): 89.
②Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/97/1, Award,30 August 2000,para 103.
③Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002,para 107.
①Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 115.
②Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 118.
③OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:3-4.
④余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:292.
①如美国-中美洲国家自由贸易协定(2004年1月28日)、美国-澳大利亚自由贸易协定(2004年3月1日)、美国-摩洛哥自由贸易协定(2004年6月15日)。
②[英]伊恩·布朗利.国际公法原理[M].曾令良,余敏友译.北京:法律出版社,2003:586.
①刘笋.晚近国际投资仲裁对国家主权的挑战及相关评析[C].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),2008:266,268-269.
②陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:126.
③吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:91.
④M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:85,131,357.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:357.
②M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:358; Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:120-121.
③例如,20世纪50-70年代,发展中国家推动联合国通过了一些有利于发展中国家的文件,如《关于经济发展与通商协定的决议》、《关于自由开发自然财富和自然资源的权利的决议》、《关于自然资源之永久主权宣言》、《建立国际经济新秩序宣言》、《建立国际经济新秩序行动纲领》、《各国经济权利和义务宪章》等。
④Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:39.
⑤Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:35.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:291-292; Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:39-40.
②1967年,OECD起草了《OECD国际投资与跨国企业宣言》(The OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises).
③Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:39.
④M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:297.
①Howard Mann,Konrad Von Moltke. NAFTA’s Chapter 11 and the Environment[EB/OL].[2010-03-10]. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/nafta.pdf.
②M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:356.
③陈安.国际经济法学专论(下)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006:679.
④1922年的Norwegian Shipowner Claims案普遍被认为是涉及间接征收的最早案例之一。
①Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):717.
②陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:126-129.
③Omar E.García-Bolívar.Sovereignty v.Investment Protection: Back to Calvo?[EB/OL]. [2010-02-05].http://works.bepress.com/omar_garcia_bolivar/12.
④徐崇利.利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿[J].环球法律评论,2008(6):29.
⑤M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:239.
⑥陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:130.
①陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:130.
②徐崇利.利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿[J].环球法律评论,2008(6):29.
③Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development?[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11:65-66.
④陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:131.
①陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:130.
②UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:7-10.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Hart Publishing,2008:35-36,41.
②Omar E.García-Bolívar.Sovereignty v.Investment Protection: Back to Calvo?[EB/OL]. [2010-02-05].http://works.bepress.com/omar_garcia_bolivar/12.
③陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:133-142;徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(2):5.
①余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:293.
②Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):559.
③OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL].[2010-01-05] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/ 39286571.pdf.
④C D Wallace. Legal Control of the Multinational Enterprise[M].Hague:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1982:276-279.参见余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:293.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:120-121.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):324.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:359-360.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):325-329.
③Gary,H Sampliner. Arbitration of Expropriation Cases under U.S.Investment Treaties:a Threat to Democracy or the Dog that didn't Bark?[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2003(1):8.
④M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:358,394.
⑤Vance R Koven. Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC[J].Harvard International Law Journal,1981(2):291.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:85-86,389-390.
②Antoine Goetz and others v.Republic of Burundi[Z].ICSID Case ARB/95/3,Introductory Note.
③Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002,para 107.
④Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 115.
①Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 110.
②余劲松,吴志攀.国际经济法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2005:445.
③World Bank. Report to the Development Committee and Guidelines on The Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[R].International Legal Materials,1992(31):1375.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:13-14.
②M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:393.
③邵津.国际法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000:71.
④Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989,Para 10. See Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):10.
①美国司法部的下设机构,负责对于美国国有的基于法律或国际条约应得的财产的损失向外国政府提出赔偿的诉讼进行裁决。
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):314.
③Gary,H Sampliner. Arbitration of Expropriation Cases under U.S.Investment Treaties:a Threat to Democracy or the Dog that didn't Bark?[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2003(1):8.
①吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:91;余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社, 2007:292.
②吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:91.
③余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:292.
①UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:24.
②UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:24.
①UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:2.
②UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:36.
③美国-乌拉圭BIT附件B(2);美国-卢旺达BIT附件B(2).
④美国-澳大利亚FTA附件11-B(2);美国-智利FTA附件10-D(2);多美尼加共和国-中美洲-美国FTA附件10-C(2);美国-摩洛哥FTA附件10-B(2).
①Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal,The Hague,13 October 1922,para 318.
②Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal,The Hague,13 October 1922,para 325.
③Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits)(Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice.Judgment 7,25 May 1925,para 44.
④George H Aldrich.What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property?The Decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal[J].American Journal of International Law,1994,88(4):598.
⑤Starrett Housing Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1985:156.
⑥Amoco International Finance Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,14 July 1987.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.15.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1988,para 108.
①Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v.Iran[Z].Award,29 June 1989.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.21.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1990,para 106.
②Southern Pacific Properties(Middle East)Limited v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/84/3,Award,20 May 1992,paras 164-165.
③Wena Hotels Ltd.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/98/4,Award,8 December 2000,paras 96-101.
④CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001,paras 591-609.
⑤CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001,para 591.
⑥Tokios Tokel?s v.Ukraine[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/18, Award and Separate Opinion,26 July 2007,para 111.
⑦S Alexandro v.Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty,The Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v.Pakistan and SGS v.Philippines [J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2004(5):559.
①Thomas Waelde,Abba Kolo. Environmental Regulation,Investment Protection and“Regulatory Taking”in International Law[J].International and Comparative Law Quarterly,2001(4):835.
②Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 17.
③The Oscar Chinn Case (Britain v.Belgium)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice,1934 (ser.A/B) 63,Judgment 61,12 December 1934.
④Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 6;Final Merits Award,10 April 2001,paras 89,121.
①Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,paras 96-98.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,paras 108-128.
③S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,paras 231-232.
④Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa(CEMSA) v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID,Case ARB (AF)/99/1, Final Award,16 December 2002,paras 1,152.
⑤Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 15.
①Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part IV Chapter A,para 2.
②Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part IV Chapter D,paras 16-18.
③徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(2):3.
①Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J].Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3):16-17.
②Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 102.
③Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 101.
④Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 110.
①Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J].Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3):55.
②Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J].Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3):55-58;Ethan Shenkman. Could Principles of Fifth Amendment Jurisprudence be Helpful in Analysing Regulatory Expropriation Claims under International Law?[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):189-192;Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):33.
③Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):33.
④M J Radin. The Liberal Conception of Property: Crosscurrents in the Jurisprudence of Takings[G]. M J Radin,ed.Reinterpreting Property.The University of Chicago Press,1993:127 -128;Andrew Newcombe.The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review– Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):32.
⑤Howard Mann,Julie A Soloway. Untangling the Expropriation and Regulation Relationship:Is There a Way Forward?[EB.OL]. [2010-03-10]. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords -commerciaux/assets/pdfs/untangle-e.pdf.
①R Higgins. The Taking of Property by the State: Recent Developments in International Law[J]. Recueil des Cours–Académie de Droit International,1982176(3):276-277.see OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment, Number 2004/4:5.
②徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):2.
③UNCTAD. Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: Trends in Investment Rulemaking[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2006/5.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007:44.
①徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):2-4;蔡从燕.效果标准与目的标准之争:间接征收认定的新发展[J].西南政法大学学报,2006(6):85-89;L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer. Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment:I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2004,19(2):300;OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment, Number 2004/4:9-20.
②徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):2-3.
③Glamis Gold,Ltd.v.The United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Award,8 June 2009,para 356.
①Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11:79.
②Louis Sohn, Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):553.
①Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 102.
②Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 115.
③“协定”指西班牙和墨西哥签订的相互促进和保护投资协定(1996年12月18日生效)。
④“决定”指墨西哥环境部的一个机构于1998年11月25日作出的拒绝授权Cytrar(在墨西哥经营废弃物填埋场的合资企业)经营废弃物填埋场,并命令其关闭废弃物填埋场的决定。
⑤Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 115.
⑥S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,para 283.
⑦Eastern Sugar B.V.v.Czech Republic[Z].SCC Case 088/2004,Partial Award,27 March 2007,para 210.
⑧Sempra Energy International v.The Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/02/16,Award,28 September 2007,para 285.
①CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001,para 604.
②Parkerings-Compagniet AS v.Lithuania[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/05/8,Award,11 Septempber 2007,papa 437.
③CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005,paras 260-264.
④Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006,para 322.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4.
②CMS Gas Transmission Co.v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8, Award,12 May 2005,para 259;Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006,para 321.
③Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State [J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):723.
④J Martin Wagner. International Investment, Expropriation and Environmental Protection[J]. Golden Gate University Law Review,1999,29(3):465-538.
⑤Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 116.
①LG&E v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/02/1,Decision on Liability,3 October 2006,paras 190,193.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,paras 283 -288.
③Wena Hotels Ltd.v. Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/98/4,Award,8 December 2000, paras 99-100.
④Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002,paras 103,107.
⑤Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State [J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):723.
①徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):3.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):310-312.
①Katharina A,Byrne. Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent[J].The Canada Yearbook of International Law,2000,38:91-94.
②Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 116.
③Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v.Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989,para 209.
④仲裁庭在脚注中列举了一些案例以支持其观点,如Tippetts v. Iran案,Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v. Iran and NIOC案,Tecmed v. Mexico案,Occidental Exploration & Production Co.v.Republic of Ecuador案,Metalclad v. Mexico案,Pope & Talbot v.Canada案。See Compa?iáde Aguas del Aconquija S.A.and Vivendi Universal v.Argentine Republic,ICSID Case No.ARB/97/3,Award,20 August 2007, footnote 373.
⑤Compa?iáde Aguas del Aconquija S.A.and Vivendi Universal v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/97/3,Award,20 August 2007,para 7.5.20.
①CCL v.Republic of Kazakhstan[Z].SCC Case 122/2001,Final Award (2004),Stockholm International Arbitration Review,2005(1):124-125,173.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):337.
③W Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,74:121.
④W Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,74:121.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R]. OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:16.
②Katharina A,Byrne. Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent[J].The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,2000,38:119.
③蔡从燕.效果标准与目的标准之争:间接征收认定的新发展[J].西南政法大学学报,2006(6):89.
④Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J]. New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11: 79;OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R]. OECD Working Papers on International Investment, Number 2004/4:19.
①Andre Von Walter. The Investor’s Expectations in International Investment Arbitration[A]. August Reinisch and Christina Knahr,ed.International Investment Law in Context.Eleven International Publishing,2008:73-174.
②Apurba Khatiwada, Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investment[EB/OL].[2010-02-15]. http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/indirect_expropriation_apurba.pdf.
③王锡锌.行政法上的正当期待保护原则述论[J].东方法学,2009(1):18.
④OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:19.
⑤Christoph Schreuer,Ursula Kriebaum.At What Time Must Legitimate Expectations Exist? [EB/OL]. [2010-11-10].http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/97_atwhattime.pdf.
①International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v.Mexico[Z].UNCITRAL,Award,26 January 2006,para 147.
②L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer. Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2004,19(2):306-308.
③Thomas Waelde,Abba Kolo. Environmental Regulation,Investment Protection and“Regulatory Taking”in International Law[J].International and Comparative Law Quarterly,2001(4):819-820.
①Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited, 1985:156.
②Waste Management,Inc.v.The United Mexican States[Z].ISCID Case No.ARB(AF)/00/3,Final Award, 30 April 2004),para 160.
③Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/02/1, Award,17 July 2006,para 199.
④Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 110.
⑤Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 7.
⑥Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 8.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:19.
②MTBE是一种叫做甲基叔丁基醚的汽油添加剂.
③Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005, Part II,Chapter D,paras 9-10.
④Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J]. The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):737-739.
①Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):33.
②Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations:Balancing the Rights of the State and the Individual under International Law in a Global Society[J]. International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):194.
③Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):34.
①Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands) v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 305.
②Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11:79-80.
③Rudolf Dolzer,Felix Bloch. Indirect Expropriation: Conceptual Realignments?[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):158-159.
①Alberto R Salazar V. NAFTA Chapter 11, Regulatory Expropriation and Domestic Counter- Advertising Law[J]. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law,2010,27(1):57.
②Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits)(Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice,Judgment 7,25 May 1925,para 44.
③Phelps Dodge Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 March 1986.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.10. Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1987:128-131.
④Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purposes[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):170.
①Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].Decision by the Tribunal on a request of the Claimant concerning the filing of the Respondent's Counter-Memorial and its annexes in ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/97/1,31 March 1998,paras 509-510 and para 48.
②Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v.Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989,Para 209. see Rudolf Dolzer,Felix Bloch. Indirect Expropriation:Conceptual Realignments?[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):162.
③Patrick Mitchell v.Democratic Republic of the Congo[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/99/7,Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award,1 November 2006,para 53.
④Biwater Gauff(Tanzania)Ltd.v.United Republic of Tanzania[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/05/22,Award, 24 July 2008,para 463.
⑤Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/96/1, 17 February 2000,para 71.
⑥Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/96/1, 17 February 2000,para 71.
①Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/96/1, 17 February 2000, para72.
②Elyse M Freeman. Regulatory Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11:Some Lessons From the European Court of Human Rights[J].Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,2003(42):209.
③M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:358-385.
④Beauvais, Joel C. Regulatory Expropriations under NAFTA: Emerging Principles and Lingering Doubts[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(10):283-284.
⑤Appleton, Barry. Regulatory Takings: the International Law Perspective[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):47.
⑥Anne K Hoffmann. Indirect Expropriation[M].August Reinisch,ed. Standards of Investment Protection.New York:Oxford University Press,2008:168.
①L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer.Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2004,19(2):300; Philippe Sands. Searching for Balance: Concluding Remarks[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):98-207.
②徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):5.
③Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J]. The Journal of World Investment &Trade,2007,8(5):718.
①徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):4.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,para 285.
③Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,paras 97,108-110,122.
④Feldman v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/99/1,Award on Merits,16 December 2002,para 103.
⑤Methanex v.United States[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,3 August 2005,Part IV Chapter D,para 15.
①Philippe Sands. Searching for Balance:Concluding Remarks[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):204.
①Gonzalo T Santos. Protection of Foreign Investments under International Law[J].Philippine Law Journal,1983(58):292.
②Gonzalo T Santos. Protection of Foreign Investments under International Law[J].Philippine Law Journal,1983(58):292.292-293.
③OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4.
①Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):554.
②OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL].[2010-01-05].http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/ 39286571.pdf.
③Restatement of the Law Third,the Foreign Relations of the United States[Z].American Law Institute,Volume 1,1987,Section 712,Commentg.
④OECD. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Draft Consolidated Text,DAFFE/MAI(98)7/REV1 [EB/OL].[2010-01-05]. http://www.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf.
⑤Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.paras 256,259-260.
⑥Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 255.
①Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006,paras 278,310-311.
②Feldman v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/99/1,Award on Merits,16 December 2002; Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000; Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case ARB/96/; ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006,para 423.
③Justin R Marlles. Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatery Expropriation and Environmental Regulation in International Investment Law[J].Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 2007,16(2):310.
④Emma Aisbetty,Larry Karpz,Carol McAusland. Police-powers,regulatory takings and the efficient compensation of domestic and foreign investors[EB/OL].[2010-03-15]. http://escholarship. org/ uc/item/5x84h5kf.
⑤Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2003(74):129.
⑥Rahim Moloo,Justin Jacinto. Environmental and Health Regulation:Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties[J].Berkeley Journal of International Law,2011,29(1):15.
⑦Tokios Tokel?s v.Ukraine[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/18, Award and Separate Opinion,26 July 2007,para 111.
①Methanex v.United States[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,3 August 2005,para 410.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,para 281; Lauder(USA)v.Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award 3 September 2001,para 198; Saluka Investments BV(The Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006, para 255.
③Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purposes[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):170.
④Ian Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law[M].7th ed.Oxford University Press, 2008:536.
⑤Rahim Moloo,Justin Jacinto. Environmental and Health Regulation:Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties[J].Berkeley Journal of International Law,2011,29(1):16.
⑥吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:40-41.
①Howard Mann,Konrad von Moltke. Protecting Investor Rights and the Public Good: Assessing NAFTA′s Chapter 11[EB/OL].[2010-03-10].http://www.iisd.org/trade/ILSDWorkshop.
②United States–Chile Free Trade Agreement,Chapter Ten:Investment[EB/OL].[2010-04-10]. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/chile/asset_upload_file1_4004.pdf.英文原文为:Except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives,such as public health,safety,and the environment,do not constitute indirect expropriations.
①UNCTAD. Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements(2005)[R].IIA MONITOR No.2(2005),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE /IIT/2005/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2005:5.
②Draft Art 8.8(I)of the investment chapter in the context of the EU/PACP EPA negotiations,DG Trade G 1(D)(2006)of 10 October 2006[EB/OL].[2010-05-10]. http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/doc/ new_investment_chpt_EU-PAC.doc.
①Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purpose[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):172.
②Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purpose[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):167-168.
③Michael G Parisi. Moving Toward Transparency?An Examination of Regulatory Takings in International Law[J].Emory International Law Review,2005,19:397.
④Howard Mann,Konrad von Moltke. Protecting Investor Rights and the Public Good:Assessing NAFTA′s Chapter 11[EB/OL].[2010-07-10].http://www.iisd.org/trade/ILSDWorkshop.
①Simon Baughen. Expropriation and Environmental Regulation:The Lessons of NAFTA Chapter Eleven[J].Journal of Environmental Law,2006,18(2):211.
②Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Expropriations in International Law:Carlos Calvo, Honorary NAFTA Citizen[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):27.
③Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):23.
①邵津.国际法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000:28-30.
②例如,1972年《斯德哥尔摩宣言》的第7条原则指出:国家应采取一切可能的步骤防止危害人类健康、损害生物资源和海洋生物、破坏自然和谐或妨碍对海洋的其他合法利用的物质所造成的海洋污染;《联合国海洋法公约》第192条规定:各国有保护和保全海洋环境的义务。
③[英]帕特莎·波尼,埃伦·波义尔.国际法与环境[M].那力,王彦志,王小钢译.2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2007:267-268.
④[英]帕特莎·波尼,埃伦·波义尔.国际法与环境[M].那力,王彦志,王小钢译.2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2007:267.
①徐显明.国际人权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2004:183.
①LG&E v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/1,Decision on Liability,3 October 2006,paras 238,240.
②Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 258.
③《哈佛草案》第6条规定不得拒绝司法或行政救济,第7条规定不得拒绝公正的申诉,第8条规定行政决定或司法判决不得违法。See Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):550-551.
④Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):554.
⑤例如,Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 255.
①例如,United States–Chile Free Trade Agreement,Chapter Ten:Investment[EB/OL].[2010-02-01]. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/chile/asset_upload_file1_4004.pdf.
②例如,Draft Art 8.8(I) of the investment chapter in the context of the EU/PACP EPA negotiations,DG Trade G 1(D)(2006) of 10 October 2006[EB/OL].[2010-05-10]. http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/doc/new_investment_chpt_EU-PAC.doc.
③ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006,para 423.
④ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006,para 432.
①Frederick M Abbott.Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Light of U.S. Federal Law[R].UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development,Issue Paper No.12 February 2006.
②刘笋.知识产权保护在国际投资法中的地位[J].河北法学,2001(3):47.
③万金波.论国际专利强制许可制度中利益平衡的嬗变[G].王立民,黄武双.知识产权法研究(第3卷).北京:北京大学出版社,2006:161-162.
①UNCTAD. Intellectual Property Provisions in International Investment Arrangements[R].IIA MONITOR No.1(2007),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIA/2007/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007:3-4.
②OECD.Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements:An Overview[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,No.2010/1:4.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:11-12.
②余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,1997:329-330.
③M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:12.
①UNCTAD. Intellectual Property Provisions in International Investment Arrangements[R].IIA MONITOR No.1(2007),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIA/2007/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007:2.
②林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:1.
③徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:95-96.
④林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:21.
①刘笋.知识产权保护在国际投资法中的地位[J].河北法学,2001(3):47.
②徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:95.
③Ronald A.Cass,Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property:The Exception that Ate the Rule?[R].Washington Legal Foundation,Working Paper Series No.150,September 2007:1-3.
④徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:95.
⑤万金波.论国际专利强制许可制度中利益平衡的嬗变[G].王立民,黄武双.知识产权法研究(第3卷).北京:北京大学出版社,2006:161-162.
①林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:176-180.
①郭寿康,左晓东.专利强制许可制度的利益平衡[J].知识产权,2006(2):62.
①林秀芹. TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:6-12.
②郭寿康,左晓东.专利强制许可制度的利益平衡[J].知识产权,2006(2):60,63.
③林秀芹. TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:60-61,93-95.
①Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):30.
①D Gervais. The TRIPS Agreement:Drafting History and Analysis[M].London:Sweet&Maxwell,1998:166.参见林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:316.
②Susan Vastano Vaughan. Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals under TRIPS: What Standard of Compensation?[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2001(25):87.
③UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on TRIPS and Development[R].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005:476-477.
④Carlos M Correa. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement[M].New York: Oxford University Press,2007:322.
⑤Susan Vastano Vaughan. Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals under TRIPS:What Standard of Compensation?[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2001(25):100-104.
⑥林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:301.
①Holger Hestermeyer. Human Rights and the WTO: The case of Patents and Access to Medicines[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007: 248.see Prabhash Ranjan. Medical Patents and Expropriation in International Investment Law-with Special Reference to India[J]. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law,2008,5(3):99.
②UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on TRIPS and Development[R]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005:475.
③Carlos M Correa. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement[M].New York: Oxford University Press,2007:322-323.
④Carlos Correa. Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries[EB/OL].[2011-04-17].http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/h2963e/h2963e.pdf.
⑤林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:349-351.
①Carlos Correa. Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries[EB/OL].[2011-04-17].http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/h2963e/h2963e.pdf.
②林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:353.
③Chee Yoke Ling,陈惜平.知识产权与不太昂贵药品的可及性:一些亚洲国家的经[EB/OL].[2010-06-11]. http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/tfs/ggjkipcq/llsj/200812/P020081231762563143628.doc.
①Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (U.S.Model Bilateral Investment Treaty(2004))[EB/OL].[2010-04-10]. http://www.state.gov/documents/ organization/ 117601.pdf.
②Agreement Between Canda and the Republic of Peru for the Promotion and Protection of Investments [EB/OL].[2011-06-12]. http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/canada_peru.pdf.不过有一定的差异,加拿大式的规定要求在“符合WTO协定(WTO Agreement)的范围内”,而不是在符合“TRIPS协定的范围内”。
③例如,智利-韩国自由贸易协定第10.13条第7款。See Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Chile[EB/OL].[2010-10-19]. http://ptas.mcgill.ca/Agreements%20pdfs/Chile-Korea.pdf.
①季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3):192-194.
②徐崇利.从南北纷争焦点的转移看国际投资法的晚近发展[J].比较法研究,1997(1):44-54.
③王彦志.经济全球化、可持续发展与国际投资法第三波[J].国际经济法学刊,2006(3):489-490;徐崇利.国际投资自由化与国际社会立法的兴起[J].法律科学,2002(5):116-120.
④季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3):196.
⑤季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3):196-201.
①陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:31-40.
①[美]博登海默.法理学——法哲学及其方法[M].邓正来译.北京.华夏出版社,1987:149.
[1]陈安.国际经济法学专论(下)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[2]陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[3]林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[4]吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005.
[5] [奥]曼弗雷德·诺瓦克.国际人权制度导论[M].柳华文译.北京:北京大学出版社,2010.
[6] [英]帕特莎·波尼,埃伦·波义尔.国际法与环境[M].那力,王彦志,王小钢译.2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2007.
[7]邵津.国际法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000.
[8] [美]托马斯·伯根索尔,黛娜·谢尔顿,戴维·斯图尔特.国际人权法精要[M].黎作恒译.北京:法律出版社,2010.
[9]万金波.论国际专利强制许可制度中利益平衡的嬗变[G].王立民,黄武双.知识产权法研究(第3卷).北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[10]徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[11]徐显明.国际人权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[12] [英]伊恩·布朗利.国际公法原理[M].曾令良,余敏友译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[13]余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[14]余劲松,吴志攀.国际经济法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2005.
[1] [法]阿克赛尔·伯杰.中国双边投资协定新纲领:实体内容、合理性及其对国际投资法创制的影响[J].杨小强译.国际经济法学刊,2009,16(4).
[2]蔡从燕.效果标准与目的标准之争:间接征收认定的新发展[J].西南政法大学学报, 2006(6).
[3]曹晴.浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限[J].环球法律评论, 2008(6).
[4]郭寿康,左晓东.专利强制许可制度的利益平衡[J].知识产权, 2006(2).
[5]季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3).
[6]王锡锌.行政法上的正当期待保护原则述论[J].东方法学, 2009(1).
[7]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衡平[J].财经问题研究, 2009(1).
[8]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[J].法商研究, 2010(1).
[9]刘笋.晚近国际投资仲裁对国家主权的挑战及相关评析[ C].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.
[10]刘笋.知识产权保护在国际投资法中的地位[J].河北法学,2001(3).
[11]王彦志.经济全球化、可持续发展与国际投资法第三波[J].国际经济法学刊, 2006,13(3).
[12]徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学, 2008(2).
[13]徐崇利.从南北纷争焦点的转移看国际投资法的晚近发展[J].比较法研究, 1997(1).
[14]徐崇利.国际投资自由化与国际社会立法的兴起[J].法律科学, 2002(5).
[15]徐崇利.利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿[J].环球法律评论, 2008(6).
[16]詹晓宁,葛顺奇.国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义[J].国际经济合作,2003(1).
[1] Chee Yoke Ling,陈惜平.知识产权与不太昂贵药品的可及性一些亚洲国家的经验[EB/OL].[2010-06-11]. http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/tfs/ggjkipcq/llsj/200812/P020081231762563143628.doc.
[2]联合国经济及社会理事会.跨国公司和其他工商企业在人权方面的责任准则UNDoc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2.[EB/OL].[2010-11-27]. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/chinese/panels/itb/papers/itb1101cb1-115-3c.pdf.
[3]潘惜唇. TRIPS协定弹性条款与多哈宣言[EB/OL].[2010-03-05]. http://article.chinalawinfo.com/article_print.asp?articleid=861.
[4]商务部、国家统计局、国家外汇管理局.2010年度中国对外直接投资统计公报[EB/OL].[2011-09-15]. http://hzs.mofcom.gov.cn/accessory/201109/1316069604368.pdf.
[5]中华人民共和国政府与东南亚国家联盟成员国政府全面经济合作框架协议投资协议[EB/OL].[2010-06-24]. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/inforimages/200908/20090819134338764.pdf.
[6]张晓松,刘铮,陈玉明.经济领域的一场深刻变革--加快经济发展方式转变述评[EB/OL].[2011-05-25]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2010-02/08/content_12955847.htm.
[7]章于芳,方辰.后危机时代的银行接管机制(上篇)[EB/OL].[2010-12-16]. http://www.shfinancialnews.com/xww/2009jrb/node5019/node5036/node5048/userobject1ai57286.html.
[8]章于芳,方辰.后危机时代的银行接管机制(下篇)[EB/OL].[2010-12-16]. http://www.shfinancialnews.com/xww/2009jrb/node5019/node5036/node5048/userobject1ai57674.html.
[1] Andre Von Walter. The Investor’s Expectations in International Investment Arbitration[A]. August Reinisch and Christina Knahr,ed. International Investment Law in Context.Eleven International Publishing,2007.
[2] Anne K Hoffmann. Indirect Expropriation[M].August Reinisch,ed. Standards of Investment Protection.New York:Oxford University Press, 2008.
[3] Carlos M Correa. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights:A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement[M].New York: Oxford University Press,2007.
[4] C D Wallace. Legal Control of the Multinational Enterprise[M].Hague:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1982.
[5] D Gervais. The TRIPS Agreement:Drafting History and Analysis[M]. London: Sweet&Maxwell,1998.
[6] Holger Hestermeyer. Human Rights and the WTO:The case of Patents and Access to Medicines[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[7] Ian Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law[M].7th ed.Oxford University Press,2008.
[8] M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed. Cambridge University Press,2004.
[9] Rudolf Dolzer,M Stevens. Bilateral Investment Treaties[M].The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995.
[10] Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008.
[1] Alberto R Salazar V. NAFTA Chapter 11, Regulatory Expropriation and Domestic Counter-Advertising Law[J].Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law,2010,27(1).
[2] Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purposes[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5).
[3] Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2005,20(1).
[4] Appleton, Barry. Regulatory Takings: the International Law Perspective[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11).
[5] Beauvais, Joel C. Regulatory Expropriations under NAFTA: Emerging Principles and Lingering Doubts[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(10).
[6] Cai Congyan.Outward Foreign Direct Investment Protection and the Effectiveness of Chinese BIT Practice[J].The Journal of World Investment and Trade,2006,7(5).
[7] Elyse M Freeman. Regulatory Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11: Some Lessons From the European Court of Human Rights[J].Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,2003,42.
[8] Ethan Shenkman. Could Principles of Fifth Amendment Jurisprudence be Helpful in Analysing Regulatory Expropriation Claims under International Law?[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11).
[9] Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations: Balancing the Rights of the State and the Individual under International Law in a Global Society[J]. International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5).
[10] Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Expropriations in International Law:Carlos Calvo, Honorary NAFTA Citizen[J].New York University Environmental LawJournal,2002(11).
[11] G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law?[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1963(3).
[12] George H. Aldrich. What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property? The Decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal[J].American Journal of International Law,1994,88(4).
[13] Gary, H Sampliner. Arbitration of Expropriation Cases under U.S.Inevstment Treaties:a Threat to Democracy or the Dog that didn't Bark?[J].ICSID Review- Foreign Investment Law Journal,2003(1).
[14] Gonzalo T Santos. Protection of Foreign Investments under International Law [J].Philippine Law Journal,1983(58).
[15] Herman Abs,Shawcross. The Proposed Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment:A Round Table:Comment on the Draft Convention by its Authors [J].Journal of Public Law,1960(9).
[16] J Martin Wagner. International Investment,Expropriation and Environmental Protection[J]. Golden Gate University Law Review,1999,29(3).
[17] Justin R Marlles. Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatery Expropriation and Environmental Regulation in International Investment Law[J].Journal of Transnational Law and Policy,2007,16(2) .
[18] Katharina A,Byrne. Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent[J].The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,2000,38.
[19] L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer. Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment:I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICISD Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2004,19(2).
[20] Louis Sohn, Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3).
[21] Louis Sohn, Richard Baxter. Responsibilities of States for Injuries to the Economic Interest of Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law, 1961,55.
[22] M J Radin. The Liberal Conception of Property:Crosscurrents in the Jurisprudence of Takings[G]. M J Radin,ed.Reinterpreting Property.The University of Chicago Press,1993.
[23] Mahnaz Malik. Recent Developments in the Definition of Investment inInternational Investment Agreements[G].2nd Annual Forum of Developing Country Investment Negotiators,3 November 2008.
[24] Maurizio Brunetti. NAFTA CHAPTER 11:The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, NAFTA Chapter 11, and the Doctrine of Indirect Expropriation[J]. Chicago Journal of International Law,2001(2):212.
[25] Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J]. Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3).
[26] Michael G Parisi. Moving Toward Transparency?An Examination of Regulatory Takings in International Law[J].Emory International Law Review,2005,19.
[27] Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane.Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,75.
[28] Norah Gallagher,Laurence Shore. Bilateral Investment Treaties:Options and Drawbacks[J].International Arbitration Law Review,2004,7(2).
[29] Philippe Sands. Searching for Balance: Concluding Remarks[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11).
[30] Prabhash Ranjan. Medical Patents and Expropriation in International Investment Law–with Special Reference to India[J].Manchester Journal of International Economic Law,2008,5(3).
[31] Rahim Moloo,Justin Jacinto.Environmental and Health Regulation:Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties[J]. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2011,29(1).
[32] R Higgins. The Taking of Property by the State: Recent Developments in International Law[J].Recueil des Cours–Académie de Droit International,1982 (3).
[33] Robert Bird,Daniel R Cahoy. The Impact of Compulsory Licensing on Foreign Direct Investment: A Collective Bargaining Approach[J].American Business Law Journal,2008,2(45).
[34] Roberto Echandi. The New Generation of International Investment Agreements: Recent Developments in the Asia–Pacific Region[J].Asia Europe Journal,2009 (7).
[35] Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11.
[36] Rudolf Dolzer,Felix Bloch. Indirect Expropriation:Conceptual Realignments?[J]. International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5).
[37] S Alexandrov. Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty,The Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v.Pakistan and SGS v.Philippines[J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2004(5).
[38] Simon Baughen. Expropriation and Environmental Regulation: The Lessons of NAFTA Chapter Eleven[J].Journal of Environmental Law,2006,18(2).
[39] SR Ratner. Corporations and Human Rights:A Theory of Legal Responsibilit[J]. Yale Law Journal,2001,111(3).
[40] Susan Vastano Vaughan. Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals under TRIPS: What Standard of Compensation?[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2001(25).
[41] Thomas Waelde,Abba Kolo. Environmental Regulation,Investment Protection and“Regulatory Taking”in International Law[J].International and Comparative Law Quarterly,2001(4).
[42] Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2997,8(5).
[43] Vance R Koven. Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC[J].Harvard International Law Journal,1981(2).
[44] W Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,74.
[45] Weston,Burns H.“Constructive Takings”under International Law:A Modes Foray Into the Problem of Creeping Expropriation[J].Virginia Journal of International Law,1975(16).
[46] Kelly M.Mann. United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation: The North American Free Trade Agreement Provides Powerful Private Right of Action to Foreign Investors[J].The Urban Lawyer,2003,35(4).
[1] OECD. Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements:An Overview[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,2010(1).
[2] OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4.
[3] UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on TRIPS and Development[R].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[4] UNCTAD. Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006:Trends in Investment Rulemaking[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2006/5.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007.
[5] UNCTAD. International Investment Arrangements:Trends and Emerging Issues[R].UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development,UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2005/11.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2006.
[6] UNCTAD. Intellectual Property Provisions in International Investment Arrangements[R].IIA MONITOR No.1 (2007),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIA/2007/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007.
[7] UNCTAD. Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements(2005) [R]. IIA MONITOR No. 2 (2005),International Investment Agreements. UNCTAD/WEB/ITE /IIT/2005/1. United Nations,New York and Geneva,2005.
[8] UNCTAD. Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements(2008– June 2009)[R].IIA MONITOR No.3(2009),International Investment Agreements. UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/IA/2009/8.
[9] UNCTAD. Scope and Definition. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011.
[10] UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000.
[11] UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2003——FDI Policies for Development: NationalInternationalPerspectives(Overview)[R].UNCTAD/WIR/2003 (Overview).United Nations,New York and Geneva,2003.
[12] UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2011:Non-Equity Modes of International Production and Development[R].United Nations,New York and Geneva, 2011.
[13] Frederick M Abbott. Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Light of U.S. Federal Law[R].UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development,2006.
[14] Ronald A. Cass, Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property:The Exception that Ate the Rule?[R].Washington Legal Foundation, Working Paper Series No.150,September 2007.
[15] World Bank. Report to the Development Committee and Guidelines on The Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[R].International Legal Materials, 1992(31).
[16] UNCTAD-ICTSD. Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries[R]. UNCTAD - ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development,Issue Paper 17(2006).
[1] Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal, The Hague,13 October 1922.
[2] Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits) (Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice Judgment 7,25 May 1925.
[3] The Oscar Chinn Case (Britain v.Belgium)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice,1934 (ser.A/B) 63,Judgment 61,12 December 1934.
[4] Amoco International Finance Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,14 July 1987.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vo.l15.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1988.
[5] Phelps Dodge Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 March 1986.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.10. Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1987.
[6] Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v.Iran[Z].Award,29 June 1989.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.21.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1990.
[7] Starrett Housing Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited, 1985.
[8] Tippetts,Abbett,McCarthy,Stratton v.TAMS-AFFA[Z].Award,29 June 1984. Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.6.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited, 1986.
[9] ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006.
[10] Antoine Goetz and others v.Republic of Burundi[Z].ICSID Case ARB/95/3, Introductory Note.
[11] Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006.
[12] Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v.Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989.
[13] Biwater Gauff(Tanzania)Ltd.v.United Republic of Tanzania[Z].ICSID CaseARB/05/22,Award, 24 July 2008.
[14] CCL v.Republic of Kazakhstan[Z].SCC Case 122/2001,Final Award(2004), Stockholm International Arbitration Review,2005(1).
[15] CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001.
[16] CMS Gas Transmission Co.v.Argentina[Z].ICSID(W. Bank) Case No.ARB/01/8, Final Award,12 May 2005.
[17] Compa?iáde Aguas del Aconquija S.A.and Vivendi Universal v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/97/3,Award,20 August 2007.
[18] Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case ARB/96/1, Award of the Tribunal, 17 February 2000.
[19] Eastern Sugar B.V.v.Czech Republic[Z].SCC Case 088/2004,Partial Award,27 March 2007.
[20] EnCana Corporation v.Republic of Ecuador[Z].LCIA Case UN3481,Award, 3 February 2006.
[21] Ethyl Corporation v.the Government of Canada[Z]. UNCITRAL,Award on Jurisdition,24 June 1998.
[22] Feldman v.The United Mexican States [Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/99/1, Award on Merits,16 December 2002.
[23] Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/02/1, Award,17 July 2006.
[24] Glamis Gold,Ltd.v.The United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Award,8 June 2009.
[25] International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v.Mexico[Z].UNCITRAL,Award, 26 January 2006.
[26] Lauder(USA)v.Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award 3 September 2001.
[27] LG&E v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/1,Decision on Liability,3 October 2006.
[28] Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa (CEMSA) v.United Mexican Statesv[Z].ICSID,Case ARB (AF)/99/1, Final Award,16 December 2002.
[29] Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/ 97/1,Award,30 August 2000.
[30] Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005.
[31] Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002.
[32] Patrick Mitchell v.Democratic Republic of the Congo[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award,1 November 2006.
[33] Parkerings-Compagniet AS v.Lithuania[Z].ICSID Case ARB/05/8,Award, 11 Septempber 2007.
[34] Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Merits Award,10 April 2001.
[35] Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000.
[36] S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000.
[37] Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL, Partial Award,17 March 2006.
[38] Sempra Energy International v.The Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/ 16,Award,28 September 2007.
[39] Southern Pacific Properties(Middle East)Limited v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z]. ICSID Case ARB/84/3,Award,20 May 1992.
[40] Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003.
[41] Tokios Tokel?s v.Ukraine[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/18, Award and Separate Opinion,26 July 2007.
[42] Waste Management,Inc.v.The United Mexican States[Z].ISCID Case ARB(AF)/ 00/3,Final Award,30 April 2004).
[43] Wena Hotels Ltd.v. Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/98/4,Award, 8 December 2000.
[1] Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway and […]for the Promotion and Protection of Investments,Draft version 191207[EB/OL].[2011-06-12]. http://italaw.com/documents/NorwayModel2007.doc.
[2] Andrew Paul Newcombe. Regulatory Expropriation,Investment Protection and International Law: When Is Government Regulation Expropriatory and When Should Compensation Be Paid?[EB/OL].[2010-04-05]. http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/RegulatoryExpropriation.pdf.
[3] Apurba Khatiwada, Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investment[EB/OL]. [2010-02-15].http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/indirect_expropriation_apurba.pdf.
[4] Carlos Correa. Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries [EB/OL] . [2011-04-17]. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/h2963e/h2963e.pdf.
[5] Christoph Schreuer,Ursula Kriebaum.At What Time Must Legitimat Expectations Exist? [EB/OL]. [2010-11-10]. http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/97_atwhattime.pdf
[6] Draft Art 8.8(I) of the investment chapter in the context of the EU/PACP EPA negotiations,DG Trade G 1(D)(2006) of 10 October 2006[EB/OL]. [2010-05-10]. http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/doc/new_investment_chpt_EU-PAC.doc.
[7] Emma Aisbetty,Larry Karpz,Carol McAusland. Police-powers,regulatory takings and the efficient compensation of domestic and foreign investors[EB/OL]. [2010-03-15].http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5x84h5kf.
[8] Exchange of Letters on Expropriation[EB/OL].[2010-03-25]. http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Singapore_FTA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file58_4058.pdf.
[9] Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Chile[EB/OL]. [2010-10-19]. http://ptas.mcgill.ca/Agreements%20pdfs/Chile-Korea.pdf.
[10] Howard Mann,Julie A Soloway. Untangling the Expropriation and Regulation Relationship:Is There a Way Forward?[EB.OL]. [2010-03-10]. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/untangle-e.pdf.
[11] Howard Mann,Konrad von Moltke. Protecting Investor Rights and the Public Good:Assessing NAFTA′s Chapter 11[EB/OL].[2010-08-16]. http://www.iisd.org/trade/ILSDWorkshop.
[12] Howard Mann,Konrad Von Moltke. A Southern Agenda on Investment? Promoting Development with Balanced Rights and Obligations for Investors, Host States and Home States[EB/OL].[2010-07-10]. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/investment_southern_agenda.pdf.
[13] Howard Mann, Konrad Von Moltke. NAFTA’s Chapter 11 and the Environment[EB/OL].[2010-03-10]. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/nafta.pdf.
[14] OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL]. [2010-01-05].http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/39286571.pdf.
[15] OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of 27 June 2000[EB/OL]. [2010-11-29].http://www.oecd.org/daf/investment/guidelines/mnetext.htm.
[16] OECD. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Draft Consolidated Text, DAFFE/MAI(98)7/REV1[EB/OL].[2010-01-15]. http://www.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf.
[17] Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment(U.S.Model Bilateral Investment Treaty(2004))[EB/ OL].[2010-04-10].http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/117601.pdf.
[18] United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement,Chapter Ten:Investment[EB/OL]. [2010-04-10].http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/chile/asset_upload_file1_4004.pdf.
[19] World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[EB/OL]. [2010-01-05].http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/WorldBank.pdf.
①Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):553.
②OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL].[2010-01-05]. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/39286571.pdf.
③Rudolf Dolzer,M Stevens. Bilateral Investment Treaties[M].The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995:2.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:291.
②World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[EB/OL].[2010-01-05]. http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/WorldBank.pdf.此处的“适当补偿”并不是发展中国家所主张的适当补偿,而仍然是“赫尔规则”,《世界银行外国直接投资待遇指南》第四部分第2-8项规定,如果补偿是“充分、有效和立即的”,才被认为是“适当的”。
③Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:35-36.
④OECD. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Draft Consolidated Text,DAFFE/MAI(98)7/REV1 [EB/OL].[2010-01-15].http://www.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:40.
②UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:36.
③本文所引用的投资协定,除特别注明者外,都引自UNCTAD投资文件数据库。UNCTAD Investment Instruments Online,http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/docsearch____779.aspx.
④OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:6.
①UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:20.
②UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:21-22.
③Norah Gallagher,Laurence Shore. Bilateral Investment Treaties: Options and Drawbacks[J]. International Arbitration Law Review,2004,7(2):49,51.
①Andrew Paul Newcombe. Regulatory Expropriation,Investment Protection and International Law: When is Government Regulation Expropriatory and When Should Compensation be Paid?[EB/OL]. [2010-04-05].http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/RegulatoryExpropriation.pdf.
②UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2011:Non-Equity Modes of International Production and Development[R].United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:100.
①Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):68.
②伊—美求偿庭是伊朗和美国为了解决伊朗大革命后各国国民(主要是美国)对伊朗的诉讼、根据伊美解决求偿争端的宣言于1981年成立的。
③本文所引用的国际投资争端解决案例,除伊—美求偿庭裁决的案例外,引用情况分别为:(1)常设仲裁法院的案例引自http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/;(2)常设国际法院的案例引自http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/;(3)其他案例引自:The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID),http://www.worldbank.org/icsid;Investment Treaty Arbitration(ITA),http://ita.law.uvic.ca;Investmentclaims.com.http://www.investmentclaims.com
④Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal,The Hague,13 October 1922,para 318.
⑤Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits)(Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International JusticeJudgment 7,25 May 1925,para 44.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:122.
②Starrett Housing Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1985:154.
③Tippetts,Abbett,McCarthy,Stratton v.TAMS-AFFA[Z].Award,29 June 1984.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.6.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1986:225.
④曹晴.浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限[J].环球法律评论,2008(6):16.
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衡平[J].财经问题研究,2009(1): 89.
②Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/97/1, Award,30 August 2000,para 103.
③Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002,para 107.
①Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 115.
②Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 118.
③OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:3-4.
④余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:292.
①如美国-中美洲国家自由贸易协定(2004年1月28日)、美国-澳大利亚自由贸易协定(2004年3月1日)、美国-摩洛哥自由贸易协定(2004年6月15日)。
②[英]伊恩·布朗利.国际公法原理[M].曾令良,余敏友译.北京:法律出版社,2003:586.
①刘笋.晚近国际投资仲裁对国家主权的挑战及相关评析[C].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),2008:266,268-269.
②陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:126.
③吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:91.
④M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:85,131,357.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:357.
②M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:358; Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:120-121.
③例如,20世纪50-70年代,发展中国家推动联合国通过了一些有利于发展中国家的文件,如《关于经济发展与通商协定的决议》、《关于自由开发自然财富和自然资源的权利的决议》、《关于自然资源之永久主权宣言》、《建立国际经济新秩序宣言》、《建立国际经济新秩序行动纲领》、《各国经济权利和义务宪章》等。
④Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:39.
⑤Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:35.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:291-292; Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:39-40.
②1967年,OECD起草了《OECD国际投资与跨国企业宣言》(The OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises).
③Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:39.
④M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:297.
①Howard Mann,Konrad Von Moltke. NAFTA’s Chapter 11 and the Environment[EB/OL].[2010-03-10]. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/nafta.pdf.
②M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:356.
③陈安.国际经济法学专论(下)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006:679.
④1922年的Norwegian Shipowner Claims案普遍被认为是涉及间接征收的最早案例之一。
①Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):717.
②陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:126-129.
③Omar E.García-Bolívar.Sovereignty v.Investment Protection: Back to Calvo?[EB/OL]. [2010-02-05].http://works.bepress.com/omar_garcia_bolivar/12.
④徐崇利.利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿[J].环球法律评论,2008(6):29.
⑤M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:239.
⑥陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:130.
①陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:130.
②徐崇利.利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿[J].环球法律评论,2008(6):29.
③Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development?[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11:65-66.
④陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:131.
①陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:130.
②UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:7-10.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Hart Publishing,2008:35-36,41.
②Omar E.García-Bolívar.Sovereignty v.Investment Protection: Back to Calvo?[EB/OL]. [2010-02-05].http://works.bepress.com/omar_garcia_bolivar/12.
③陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:133-142;徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(2):5.
①余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:293.
②Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):559.
③OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL].[2010-01-05] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/ 39286571.pdf.
④C D Wallace. Legal Control of the Multinational Enterprise[M].Hague:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1982:276-279.参见余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:293.
①Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008:120-121.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):324.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:359-360.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):325-329.
③Gary,H Sampliner. Arbitration of Expropriation Cases under U.S.Investment Treaties:a Threat to Democracy or the Dog that didn't Bark?[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2003(1):8.
④M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:358,394.
⑤Vance R Koven. Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC[J].Harvard International Law Journal,1981(2):291.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:85-86,389-390.
②Antoine Goetz and others v.Republic of Burundi[Z].ICSID Case ARB/95/3,Introductory Note.
③Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002,para 107.
④Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 115.
①Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 110.
②余劲松,吴志攀.国际经济法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2005:445.
③World Bank. Report to the Development Committee and Guidelines on The Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[R].International Legal Materials,1992(31):1375.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:13-14.
②M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:393.
③邵津.国际法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000:71.
④Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989,Para 10. See Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):10.
①美国司法部的下设机构,负责对于美国国有的基于法律或国际条约应得的财产的损失向外国政府提出赔偿的诉讼进行裁决。
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):314.
③Gary,H Sampliner. Arbitration of Expropriation Cases under U.S.Investment Treaties:a Threat to Democracy or the Dog that didn't Bark?[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2003(1):8.
①吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:91;余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社, 2007:292.
②吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:91.
③余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:292.
①UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:24.
②UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:24.
①UNCTAD. Scope and Definition.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011:2.
②UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000:36.
③美国-乌拉圭BIT附件B(2);美国-卢旺达BIT附件B(2).
④美国-澳大利亚FTA附件11-B(2);美国-智利FTA附件10-D(2);多美尼加共和国-中美洲-美国FTA附件10-C(2);美国-摩洛哥FTA附件10-B(2).
①Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal,The Hague,13 October 1922,para 318.
②Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal,The Hague,13 October 1922,para 325.
③Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits)(Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice.Judgment 7,25 May 1925,para 44.
④George H Aldrich.What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property?The Decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal[J].American Journal of International Law,1994,88(4):598.
⑤Starrett Housing Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1985:156.
⑥Amoco International Finance Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,14 July 1987.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.15.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1988,para 108.
①Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v.Iran[Z].Award,29 June 1989.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.21.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1990,para 106.
②Southern Pacific Properties(Middle East)Limited v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/84/3,Award,20 May 1992,paras 164-165.
③Wena Hotels Ltd.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/98/4,Award,8 December 2000,paras 96-101.
④CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001,paras 591-609.
⑤CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001,para 591.
⑥Tokios Tokel?s v.Ukraine[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/18, Award and Separate Opinion,26 July 2007,para 111.
⑦S Alexandro v.Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty,The Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v.Pakistan and SGS v.Philippines [J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2004(5):559.
①Thomas Waelde,Abba Kolo. Environmental Regulation,Investment Protection and“Regulatory Taking”in International Law[J].International and Comparative Law Quarterly,2001(4):835.
②Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 17.
③The Oscar Chinn Case (Britain v.Belgium)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice,1934 (ser.A/B) 63,Judgment 61,12 December 1934.
④Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 6;Final Merits Award,10 April 2001,paras 89,121.
①Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,paras 96-98.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,paras 108-128.
③S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,paras 231-232.
④Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa(CEMSA) v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID,Case ARB (AF)/99/1, Final Award,16 December 2002,paras 1,152.
⑤Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 15.
①Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part IV Chapter A,para 2.
②Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part IV Chapter D,paras 16-18.
③徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(2):3.
①Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J].Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3):16-17.
②Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 102.
③Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 101.
④Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 110.
①Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J].Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3):55.
②Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J].Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3):55-58;Ethan Shenkman. Could Principles of Fifth Amendment Jurisprudence be Helpful in Analysing Regulatory Expropriation Claims under International Law?[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):189-192;Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):33.
③Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):33.
④M J Radin. The Liberal Conception of Property: Crosscurrents in the Jurisprudence of Takings[G]. M J Radin,ed.Reinterpreting Property.The University of Chicago Press,1993:127 -128;Andrew Newcombe.The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review– Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):32.
⑤Howard Mann,Julie A Soloway. Untangling the Expropriation and Regulation Relationship:Is There a Way Forward?[EB.OL]. [2010-03-10]. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords -commerciaux/assets/pdfs/untangle-e.pdf.
①R Higgins. The Taking of Property by the State: Recent Developments in International Law[J]. Recueil des Cours–Académie de Droit International,1982176(3):276-277.see OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment, Number 2004/4:5.
②徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):2.
③UNCTAD. Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006: Trends in Investment Rulemaking[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2006/5.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007:44.
①徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):2-4;蔡从燕.效果标准与目的标准之争:间接征收认定的新发展[J].西南政法大学学报,2006(6):85-89;L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer. Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment:I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2004,19(2):300;OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment, Number 2004/4:9-20.
②徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):2-3.
③Glamis Gold,Ltd.v.The United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Award,8 June 2009,para 356.
①Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11:79.
②Louis Sohn, Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):553.
①Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000,para 102.
②Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 115.
③“协定”指西班牙和墨西哥签订的相互促进和保护投资协定(1996年12月18日生效)。
④“决定”指墨西哥环境部的一个机构于1998年11月25日作出的拒绝授权Cytrar(在墨西哥经营废弃物填埋场的合资企业)经营废弃物填埋场,并命令其关闭废弃物填埋场的决定。
⑤Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 115.
⑥S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,para 283.
⑦Eastern Sugar B.V.v.Czech Republic[Z].SCC Case 088/2004,Partial Award,27 March 2007,para 210.
⑧Sempra Energy International v.The Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/02/16,Award,28 September 2007,para 285.
①CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001,para 604.
②Parkerings-Compagniet AS v.Lithuania[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/05/8,Award,11 Septempber 2007,papa 437.
③CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005,paras 260-264.
④Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006,para 322.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4.
②CMS Gas Transmission Co.v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8, Award,12 May 2005,para 259;Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006,para 321.
③Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State [J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):723.
④J Martin Wagner. International Investment, Expropriation and Environmental Protection[J]. Golden Gate University Law Review,1999,29(3):465-538.
⑤Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 116.
①LG&E v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/02/1,Decision on Liability,3 October 2006,paras 190,193.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,paras 283 -288.
③Wena Hotels Ltd.v. Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/98/4,Award,8 December 2000, paras 99-100.
④Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002,paras 103,107.
⑤Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State [J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):723.
①徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):3.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):310-312.
①Katharina A,Byrne. Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent[J].The Canada Yearbook of International Law,2000,38:91-94.
②Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,para 116.
③Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v.Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989,para 209.
④仲裁庭在脚注中列举了一些案例以支持其观点,如Tippetts v. Iran案,Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v. Iran and NIOC案,Tecmed v. Mexico案,Occidental Exploration & Production Co.v.Republic of Ecuador案,Metalclad v. Mexico案,Pope & Talbot v.Canada案。See Compa?iáde Aguas del Aconquija S.A.and Vivendi Universal v.Argentine Republic,ICSID Case No.ARB/97/3,Award,20 August 2007, footnote 373.
⑤Compa?iáde Aguas del Aconquija S.A.and Vivendi Universal v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/97/3,Award,20 August 2007,para 7.5.20.
①CCL v.Republic of Kazakhstan[Z].SCC Case 122/2001,Final Award (2004),Stockholm International Arbitration Review,2005(1):124-125,173.
②G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law? [J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1962(33):337.
③W Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,74:121.
④W Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,74:121.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R]. OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:16.
②Katharina A,Byrne. Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent[J].The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,2000,38:119.
③蔡从燕.效果标准与目的标准之争:间接征收认定的新发展[J].西南政法大学学报,2006(6):89.
④Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J]. New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11: 79;OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R]. OECD Working Papers on International Investment, Number 2004/4:19.
①Andre Von Walter. The Investor’s Expectations in International Investment Arbitration[A]. August Reinisch and Christina Knahr,ed.International Investment Law in Context.Eleven International Publishing,2008:73-174.
②Apurba Khatiwada, Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investment[EB/OL].[2010-02-15]. http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/indirect_expropriation_apurba.pdf.
③王锡锌.行政法上的正当期待保护原则述论[J].东方法学,2009(1):18.
④OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:19.
⑤Christoph Schreuer,Ursula Kriebaum.At What Time Must Legitimate Expectations Exist? [EB/OL]. [2010-11-10].http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/97_atwhattime.pdf.
①International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v.Mexico[Z].UNCITRAL,Award,26 January 2006,para 147.
②L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer. Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2004,19(2):306-308.
③Thomas Waelde,Abba Kolo. Environmental Regulation,Investment Protection and“Regulatory Taking”in International Law[J].International and Comparative Law Quarterly,2001(4):819-820.
①Starrett Housing Corp. v. Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports, Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited, 1985:156.
②Waste Management,Inc.v.The United Mexican States[Z].ISCID Case No.ARB(AF)/00/3,Final Award, 30 April 2004),para 160.
③Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/02/1, Award,17 July 2006,para 199.
④Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/97/1,Award,30 August 2000,para 110.
⑤Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 7.
⑥Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005,Part I–Preface,para 1;Part II,Chapter D,para 8.
①OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4:19.
②MTBE是一种叫做甲基叔丁基醚的汽油添加剂.
③Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005, Part II,Chapter D,paras 9-10.
④Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J]. The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2007,8(5):737-739.
①Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):33.
②Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations:Balancing the Rights of the State and the Individual under International Law in a Global Society[J]. International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):194.
③Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):34.
①Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands) v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 305.
②Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11:79-80.
③Rudolf Dolzer,Felix Bloch. Indirect Expropriation: Conceptual Realignments?[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):158-159.
①Alberto R Salazar V. NAFTA Chapter 11, Regulatory Expropriation and Domestic Counter- Advertising Law[J]. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law,2010,27(1):57.
②Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits)(Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice,Judgment 7,25 May 1925,para 44.
③Phelps Dodge Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 March 1986.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.10. Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1987:128-131.
④Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purposes[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):170.
①Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].Decision by the Tribunal on a request of the Claimant concerning the filing of the Respondent's Counter-Memorial and its annexes in ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/97/1,31 March 1998,paras 509-510 and para 48.
②Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v.Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989,Para 209. see Rudolf Dolzer,Felix Bloch. Indirect Expropriation:Conceptual Realignments?[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):162.
③Patrick Mitchell v.Democratic Republic of the Congo[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/99/7,Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award,1 November 2006,para 53.
④Biwater Gauff(Tanzania)Ltd.v.United Republic of Tanzania[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/05/22,Award, 24 July 2008,para 463.
⑤Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/96/1, 17 February 2000,para 71.
⑥Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/96/1, 17 February 2000,para 71.
①Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB/96/1, 17 February 2000, para72.
②Elyse M Freeman. Regulatory Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11:Some Lessons From the European Court of Human Rights[J].Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,2003(42):209.
③M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:358-385.
④Beauvais, Joel C. Regulatory Expropriations under NAFTA: Emerging Principles and Lingering Doubts[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(10):283-284.
⑤Appleton, Barry. Regulatory Takings: the International Law Perspective[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):47.
⑥Anne K Hoffmann. Indirect Expropriation[M].August Reinisch,ed. Standards of Investment Protection.New York:Oxford University Press,2008:168.
①L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer.Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2004,19(2):300; Philippe Sands. Searching for Balance: Concluding Remarks[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):98-207.
②徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):5.
③Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J]. The Journal of World Investment &Trade,2007,8(5):718.
①徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学,2008(3):4.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,para 285.
③Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003,paras 97,108-110,122.
④Feldman v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/99/1,Award on Merits,16 December 2002,para 103.
⑤Methanex v.United States[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,3 August 2005,Part IV Chapter D,para 15.
①Philippe Sands. Searching for Balance:Concluding Remarks[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):204.
①Gonzalo T Santos. Protection of Foreign Investments under International Law[J].Philippine Law Journal,1983(58):292.
②Gonzalo T Santos. Protection of Foreign Investments under International Law[J].Philippine Law Journal,1983(58):292.292-293.
③OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4.
①Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):554.
②OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL].[2010-01-05].http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/ 39286571.pdf.
③Restatement of the Law Third,the Foreign Relations of the United States[Z].American Law Institute,Volume 1,1987,Section 712,Commentg.
④OECD. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Draft Consolidated Text,DAFFE/MAI(98)7/REV1 [EB/OL].[2010-01-05]. http://www.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf.
⑤Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.paras 256,259-260.
⑥Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 255.
①Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006,paras 278,310-311.
②Feldman v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/99/1,Award on Merits,16 December 2002; Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000; Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case ARB/96/; ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006,para 423.
③Justin R Marlles. Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatery Expropriation and Environmental Regulation in International Investment Law[J].Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 2007,16(2):310.
④Emma Aisbetty,Larry Karpz,Carol McAusland. Police-powers,regulatory takings and the efficient compensation of domestic and foreign investors[EB/OL].[2010-03-15]. http://escholarship. org/ uc/item/5x84h5kf.
⑤Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2003(74):129.
⑥Rahim Moloo,Justin Jacinto. Environmental and Health Regulation:Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties[J].Berkeley Journal of International Law,2011,29(1):15.
⑦Tokios Tokel?s v.Ukraine[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/18, Award and Separate Opinion,26 July 2007,para 111.
①Methanex v.United States[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,3 August 2005,para 410.
②S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000,para 281; Lauder(USA)v.Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award 3 September 2001,para 198; Saluka Investments BV(The Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006, para 255.
③Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purposes[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):170.
④Ian Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law[M].7th ed.Oxford University Press, 2008:536.
⑤Rahim Moloo,Justin Jacinto. Environmental and Health Regulation:Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties[J].Berkeley Journal of International Law,2011,29(1):16.
⑥吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005:40-41.
①Howard Mann,Konrad von Moltke. Protecting Investor Rights and the Public Good: Assessing NAFTA′s Chapter 11[EB/OL].[2010-03-10].http://www.iisd.org/trade/ILSDWorkshop.
②United States–Chile Free Trade Agreement,Chapter Ten:Investment[EB/OL].[2010-04-10]. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/chile/asset_upload_file1_4004.pdf.英文原文为:Except in rare circumstances, nondiscriminatory regulatory actions by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives,such as public health,safety,and the environment,do not constitute indirect expropriations.
①UNCTAD. Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements(2005)[R].IIA MONITOR No.2(2005),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE /IIT/2005/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2005:5.
②Draft Art 8.8(I)of the investment chapter in the context of the EU/PACP EPA negotiations,DG Trade G 1(D)(2006)of 10 October 2006[EB/OL].[2010-05-10]. http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/doc/ new_investment_chpt_EU-PAC.doc.
①Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purpose[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):172.
②Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purpose[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5):167-168.
③Michael G Parisi. Moving Toward Transparency?An Examination of Regulatory Takings in International Law[J].Emory International Law Review,2005,19:397.
④Howard Mann,Konrad von Moltke. Protecting Investor Rights and the Public Good:Assessing NAFTA′s Chapter 11[EB/OL].[2010-07-10].http://www.iisd.org/trade/ILSDWorkshop.
①Simon Baughen. Expropriation and Environmental Regulation:The Lessons of NAFTA Chapter Eleven[J].Journal of Environmental Law,2006,18(2):211.
②Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Expropriations in International Law:Carlos Calvo, Honorary NAFTA Citizen[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11):27.
③Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):23.
①邵津.国际法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000:28-30.
②例如,1972年《斯德哥尔摩宣言》的第7条原则指出:国家应采取一切可能的步骤防止危害人类健康、损害生物资源和海洋生物、破坏自然和谐或妨碍对海洋的其他合法利用的物质所造成的海洋污染;《联合国海洋法公约》第192条规定:各国有保护和保全海洋环境的义务。
③[英]帕特莎·波尼,埃伦·波义尔.国际法与环境[M].那力,王彦志,王小钢译.2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2007:267-268.
④[英]帕特莎·波尼,埃伦·波义尔.国际法与环境[M].那力,王彦志,王小钢译.2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2007:267.
①徐显明.国际人权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2004:183.
①LG&E v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/1,Decision on Liability,3 October 2006,paras 238,240.
②Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 258.
③《哈佛草案》第6条规定不得拒绝司法或行政救济,第7条规定不得拒绝公正的申诉,第8条规定行政决定或司法判决不得违法。See Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):550-551.
④Louis Sohn,Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3):554.
⑤例如,Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,17 March 2006.para 255.
①例如,United States–Chile Free Trade Agreement,Chapter Ten:Investment[EB/OL].[2010-02-01]. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/chile/asset_upload_file1_4004.pdf.
②例如,Draft Art 8.8(I) of the investment chapter in the context of the EU/PACP EPA negotiations,DG Trade G 1(D)(2006) of 10 October 2006[EB/OL].[2010-05-10]. http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/doc/new_investment_chpt_EU-PAC.doc.
③ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006,para 423.
④ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006,para 432.
①Frederick M Abbott.Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Light of U.S. Federal Law[R].UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development,Issue Paper No.12 February 2006.
②刘笋.知识产权保护在国际投资法中的地位[J].河北法学,2001(3):47.
③万金波.论国际专利强制许可制度中利益平衡的嬗变[G].王立民,黄武双.知识产权法研究(第3卷).北京:北京大学出版社,2006:161-162.
①UNCTAD. Intellectual Property Provisions in International Investment Arrangements[R].IIA MONITOR No.1(2007),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIA/2007/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007:3-4.
②OECD.Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements:An Overview[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,No.2010/1:4.
①M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:11-12.
②余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,1997:329-330.
③M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed.Cambridge University Press,2004:12.
①UNCTAD. Intellectual Property Provisions in International Investment Arrangements[R].IIA MONITOR No.1(2007),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIA/2007/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007:2.
②林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:1.
③徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:95-96.
④林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:21.
①刘笋.知识产权保护在国际投资法中的地位[J].河北法学,2001(3):47.
②徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:95.
③Ronald A.Cass,Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property:The Exception that Ate the Rule?[R].Washington Legal Foundation,Working Paper Series No.150,September 2007:1-3.
④徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:95.
⑤万金波.论国际专利强制许可制度中利益平衡的嬗变[G].王立民,黄武双.知识产权法研究(第3卷).北京:北京大学出版社,2006:161-162.
①林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:176-180.
①郭寿康,左晓东.专利强制许可制度的利益平衡[J].知识产权,2006(2):62.
①林秀芹. TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:6-12.
②郭寿康,左晓东.专利强制许可制度的利益平衡[J].知识产权,2006(2):60,63.
③林秀芹. TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:60-61,93-95.
①Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2005,20(1):30.
①D Gervais. The TRIPS Agreement:Drafting History and Analysis[M].London:Sweet&Maxwell,1998:166.参见林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:316.
②Susan Vastano Vaughan. Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals under TRIPS: What Standard of Compensation?[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2001(25):87.
③UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on TRIPS and Development[R].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005:476-477.
④Carlos M Correa. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement[M].New York: Oxford University Press,2007:322.
⑤Susan Vastano Vaughan. Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals under TRIPS:What Standard of Compensation?[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2001(25):100-104.
⑥林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:301.
①Holger Hestermeyer. Human Rights and the WTO: The case of Patents and Access to Medicines[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007: 248.see Prabhash Ranjan. Medical Patents and Expropriation in International Investment Law-with Special Reference to India[J]. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law,2008,5(3):99.
②UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on TRIPS and Development[R]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2005:475.
③Carlos M Correa. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement[M].New York: Oxford University Press,2007:322-323.
④Carlos Correa. Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries[EB/OL].[2011-04-17].http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/h2963e/h2963e.pdf.
⑤林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:349-351.
①Carlos Correa. Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries[EB/OL].[2011-04-17].http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/h2963e/h2963e.pdf.
②林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:353.
③Chee Yoke Ling,陈惜平.知识产权与不太昂贵药品的可及性:一些亚洲国家的经[EB/OL].[2010-06-11]. http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/tfs/ggjkipcq/llsj/200812/P020081231762563143628.doc.
①Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (U.S.Model Bilateral Investment Treaty(2004))[EB/OL].[2010-04-10]. http://www.state.gov/documents/ organization/ 117601.pdf.
②Agreement Between Canda and the Republic of Peru for the Promotion and Protection of Investments [EB/OL].[2011-06-12]. http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/canada_peru.pdf.不过有一定的差异,加拿大式的规定要求在“符合WTO协定(WTO Agreement)的范围内”,而不是在符合“TRIPS协定的范围内”。
③例如,智利-韩国自由贸易协定第10.13条第7款。See Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Chile[EB/OL].[2010-10-19]. http://ptas.mcgill.ca/Agreements%20pdfs/Chile-Korea.pdf.
①季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3):192-194.
②徐崇利.从南北纷争焦点的转移看国际投资法的晚近发展[J].比较法研究,1997(1):44-54.
③王彦志.经济全球化、可持续发展与国际投资法第三波[J].国际经济法学刊,2006(3):489-490;徐崇利.国际投资自由化与国际社会立法的兴起[J].法律科学,2002(5):116-120.
④季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3):196.
⑤季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3):196-201.
①陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007:31-40.
①[美]博登海默.法理学——法哲学及其方法[M].邓正来译.北京.华夏出版社,1987:149.
[1]陈安.国际经济法学专论(下)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
[2]陈安.国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
[3]林秀芹.TRIPS体制下的专利强制许可制度研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[4]吕岩峰,何志鹏,孙璐.国际投资法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2005.
[5] [奥]曼弗雷德·诺瓦克.国际人权制度导论[M].柳华文译.北京:北京大学出版社,2010.
[6] [英]帕特莎·波尼,埃伦·波义尔.国际法与环境[M].那力,王彦志,王小钢译.2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2007.
[7]邵津.国际法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2000.
[8] [美]托马斯·伯根索尔,黛娜·谢尔顿,戴维·斯图尔特.国际人权法精要[M].黎作恒译.北京:法律出版社,2010.
[9]万金波.论国际专利强制许可制度中利益平衡的嬗变[G].王立民,黄武双.知识产权法研究(第3卷).北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[10]徐红菊.专利许可法律问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[11]徐显明.国际人权法[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[12] [英]伊恩·布朗利.国际公法原理[M].曾令良,余敏友译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[13]余劲松.国际投资法[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[14]余劲松,吴志攀.国际经济法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2005.
[1] [法]阿克赛尔·伯杰.中国双边投资协定新纲领:实体内容、合理性及其对国际投资法创制的影响[J].杨小强译.国际经济法学刊,2009,16(4).
[2]蔡从燕.效果标准与目的标准之争:间接征收认定的新发展[J].西南政法大学学报, 2006(6).
[3]曹晴.浅析间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施的界限[J].环球法律评论, 2008(6).
[4]郭寿康,左晓东.专利强制许可制度的利益平衡[J].知识产权, 2006(2).
[5]季烨.中国双边投资条约政策与定位的实证分析[J].国际经济法学刊,2009,16(3).
[6]王锡锌.行政法上的正当期待保护原则述论[J].东方法学, 2009(1).
[7]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衡平[J].财经问题研究, 2009(1).
[8]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[J].法商研究, 2010(1).
[9]刘笋.晚近国际投资仲裁对国家主权的挑战及相关评析[ C].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.
[10]刘笋.知识产权保护在国际投资法中的地位[J].河北法学,2001(3).
[11]王彦志.经济全球化、可持续发展与国际投资法第三波[J].国际经济法学刊, 2006,13(3).
[12]徐崇利.“间接征收”之界分:东道国对外资管理的限度[J].福建法学, 2008(2).
[13]徐崇利.从南北纷争焦点的转移看国际投资法的晚近发展[J].比较法研究, 1997(1).
[14]徐崇利.国际投资自由化与国际社会立法的兴起[J].法律科学, 2002(5).
[15]徐崇利.利益平衡与对外资间接征收的认定及补偿[J].环球法律评论, 2008(6).
[16]詹晓宁,葛顺奇.国际投资条约:投资和投资者的范围与定义[J].国际经济合作,2003(1).
[1] Chee Yoke Ling,陈惜平.知识产权与不太昂贵药品的可及性一些亚洲国家的经验[EB/OL].[2010-06-11]. http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo/tfs/ggjkipcq/llsj/200812/P020081231762563143628.doc.
[2]联合国经济及社会理事会.跨国公司和其他工商企业在人权方面的责任准则UNDoc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2.[EB/OL].[2010-11-27]. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/chinese/panels/itb/papers/itb1101cb1-115-3c.pdf.
[3]潘惜唇. TRIPS协定弹性条款与多哈宣言[EB/OL].[2010-03-05]. http://article.chinalawinfo.com/article_print.asp?articleid=861.
[4]商务部、国家统计局、国家外汇管理局.2010年度中国对外直接投资统计公报[EB/OL].[2011-09-15]. http://hzs.mofcom.gov.cn/accessory/201109/1316069604368.pdf.
[5]中华人民共和国政府与东南亚国家联盟成员国政府全面经济合作框架协议投资协议[EB/OL].[2010-06-24]. http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/inforimages/200908/20090819134338764.pdf.
[6]张晓松,刘铮,陈玉明.经济领域的一场深刻变革--加快经济发展方式转变述评[EB/OL].[2011-05-25]. http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2010-02/08/content_12955847.htm.
[7]章于芳,方辰.后危机时代的银行接管机制(上篇)[EB/OL].[2010-12-16]. http://www.shfinancialnews.com/xww/2009jrb/node5019/node5036/node5048/userobject1ai57286.html.
[8]章于芳,方辰.后危机时代的银行接管机制(下篇)[EB/OL].[2010-12-16]. http://www.shfinancialnews.com/xww/2009jrb/node5019/node5036/node5048/userobject1ai57674.html.
[1] Andre Von Walter. The Investor’s Expectations in International Investment Arbitration[A]. August Reinisch and Christina Knahr,ed. International Investment Law in Context.Eleven International Publishing,2007.
[2] Anne K Hoffmann. Indirect Expropriation[M].August Reinisch,ed. Standards of Investment Protection.New York:Oxford University Press, 2008.
[3] Carlos M Correa. Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights:A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement[M].New York: Oxford University Press,2007.
[4] C D Wallace. Legal Control of the Multinational Enterprise[M].Hague:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1982.
[5] D Gervais. The TRIPS Agreement:Drafting History and Analysis[M]. London: Sweet&Maxwell,1998.
[6] Holger Hestermeyer. Human Rights and the WTO:The case of Patents and Access to Medicines[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007.
[7] Ian Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law[M].7th ed.Oxford University Press,2008.
[8] M Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment[M].2nd ed. Cambridge University Press,2004.
[9] Rudolf Dolzer,M Stevens. Bilateral Investment Treaties[M].The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1995.
[10] Surya P Subedi. International Investment Law[M].Reconciling Policy and Princple.Oxford:Hart Publishing,2008.
[1] Alberto R Salazar V. NAFTA Chapter 11, Regulatory Expropriation and Domestic Counter-Advertising Law[J].Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law,2010,27(1).
[2] Allen S Weiner. Indirect Expropriations:The Need for a Taxonomy of“Legitimate”Regulatory Purposes[J].International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5).
[3] Andrew Newcombe. The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law[J].ICSID Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2005,20(1).
[4] Appleton, Barry. Regulatory Takings: the International Law Perspective[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11).
[5] Beauvais, Joel C. Regulatory Expropriations under NAFTA: Emerging Principles and Lingering Doubts[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(10).
[6] Cai Congyan.Outward Foreign Direct Investment Protection and the Effectiveness of Chinese BIT Practice[J].The Journal of World Investment and Trade,2006,7(5).
[7] Elyse M Freeman. Regulatory Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11: Some Lessons From the European Court of Human Rights[J].Columbia Journal of Transnational Law,2003,42.
[8] Ethan Shenkman. Could Principles of Fifth Amendment Jurisprudence be Helpful in Analysing Regulatory Expropriation Claims under International Law?[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11).
[9] Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations: Balancing the Rights of the State and the Individual under International Law in a Global Society[J]. International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5).
[10] Francisco Orrego Vicuna. Regulatory Expropriations in International Law:Carlos Calvo, Honorary NAFTA Citizen[J].New York University Environmental LawJournal,2002(11).
[11] G C Christie. What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law?[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,1963(3).
[12] George H. Aldrich. What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property? The Decisions of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal[J].American Journal of International Law,1994,88(4).
[13] Gary, H Sampliner. Arbitration of Expropriation Cases under U.S.Inevstment Treaties:a Threat to Democracy or the Dog that didn't Bark?[J].ICSID Review- Foreign Investment Law Journal,2003(1).
[14] Gonzalo T Santos. Protection of Foreign Investments under International Law [J].Philippine Law Journal,1983(58).
[15] Herman Abs,Shawcross. The Proposed Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment:A Round Table:Comment on the Draft Convention by its Authors [J].Journal of Public Law,1960(9).
[16] J Martin Wagner. International Investment,Expropriation and Environmental Protection[J]. Golden Gate University Law Review,1999,29(3).
[17] Justin R Marlles. Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatery Expropriation and Environmental Regulation in International Investment Law[J].Journal of Transnational Law and Policy,2007,16(2) .
[18] Katharina A,Byrne. Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent[J].The Canadian Yearbook of International Law,2000,38.
[19] L Yves Fortier,Stephen L Drymer. Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment:I Know It When I See It,or Caveat Investor[J].ICISD Review–Foreign Investment Law Journal,2004,19(2).
[20] Louis Sohn, Richard Baxter. Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law,1961,55(3).
[21] Louis Sohn, Richard Baxter. Responsibilities of States for Injuries to the Economic Interest of Aliens[J].The American Journal of International Law, 1961,55.
[22] M J Radin. The Liberal Conception of Property:Crosscurrents in the Jurisprudence of Takings[G]. M J Radin,ed.Reinterpreting Property.The University of Chicago Press,1993.
[23] Mahnaz Malik. Recent Developments in the Definition of Investment inInternational Investment Agreements[G].2nd Annual Forum of Developing Country Investment Negotiators,3 November 2008.
[24] Maurizio Brunetti. NAFTA CHAPTER 11:The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, NAFTA Chapter 11, and the Doctrine of Indirect Expropriation[J]. Chicago Journal of International Law,2001(2):212.
[25] Mattew C Porterfield. International Expropriation Rules and Federalism[J]. Stanford Environmental Law Journal,2004,23(3).
[26] Michael G Parisi. Moving Toward Transparency?An Examination of Regulatory Takings in International Law[J].Emory International Law Review,2005,19.
[27] Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane.Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,75.
[28] Norah Gallagher,Laurence Shore. Bilateral Investment Treaties:Options and Drawbacks[J].International Arbitration Law Review,2004,7(2).
[29] Philippe Sands. Searching for Balance: Concluding Remarks[J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002(11).
[30] Prabhash Ranjan. Medical Patents and Expropriation in International Investment Law–with Special Reference to India[J].Manchester Journal of International Economic Law,2008,5(3).
[31] Rahim Moloo,Justin Jacinto.Environmental and Health Regulation:Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties[J]. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2011,29(1).
[32] R Higgins. The Taking of Property by the State: Recent Developments in International Law[J].Recueil des Cours–Académie de Droit International,1982 (3).
[33] Robert Bird,Daniel R Cahoy. The Impact of Compulsory Licensing on Foreign Direct Investment: A Collective Bargaining Approach[J].American Business Law Journal,2008,2(45).
[34] Roberto Echandi. The New Generation of International Investment Agreements: Recent Developments in the Asia–Pacific Region[J].Asia Europe Journal,2009 (7).
[35] Rudolf Dolzer. Indirect Expropriation: New Development? [J].New York University Environmental Law Journal,2002,11.
[36] Rudolf Dolzer,Felix Bloch. Indirect Expropriation:Conceptual Realignments?[J]. International Law FORUM Du Droit International,2003(5).
[37] S Alexandrov. Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty,The Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v.Pakistan and SGS v.Philippines[J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2004(5).
[38] Simon Baughen. Expropriation and Environmental Regulation: The Lessons of NAFTA Chapter Eleven[J].Journal of Environmental Law,2006,18(2).
[39] SR Ratner. Corporations and Human Rights:A Theory of Legal Responsibilit[J]. Yale Law Journal,2001,111(3).
[40] Susan Vastano Vaughan. Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals under TRIPS: What Standard of Compensation?[J].Hastings International and Comparative Law Review,2001(25).
[41] Thomas Waelde,Abba Kolo. Environmental Regulation,Investment Protection and“Regulatory Taking”in International Law[J].International and Comparative Law Quarterly,2001(4).
[42] Ursula Kriebaum. Regulatory Takings:Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State[J].The Journal of World Investment & Trade,2997,8(5).
[43] Vance R Koven. Expropriation and the“Jurisprudence”of OPIC[J].Harvard International Law Journal,1981(2).
[44] W Michael Reisman,Robert D Sloane. Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation[J].The British Yearbook of International Law,2004,74.
[45] Weston,Burns H.“Constructive Takings”under International Law:A Modes Foray Into the Problem of Creeping Expropriation[J].Virginia Journal of International Law,1975(16).
[46] Kelly M.Mann. United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation: The North American Free Trade Agreement Provides Powerful Private Right of Action to Foreign Investors[J].The Urban Lawyer,2003,35(4).
[1] OECD. Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements:An Overview[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,2010(1).
[2] OECD.“Indirect Expropriation”and the“Right to Regulate”in International Investment Law[R].OECD Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2004/4.
[3] UNCTAD-ICTSD. Resource Book on TRIPS and Development[R].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[4] UNCTAD. Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995-2006:Trends in Investment Rulemaking[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2006/5.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007.
[5] UNCTAD. International Investment Arrangements:Trends and Emerging Issues[R].UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development,UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2005/11.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2006.
[6] UNCTAD. Intellectual Property Provisions in International Investment Arrangements[R].IIA MONITOR No.1 (2007),International Investment Agreements.UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIA/2007/1.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2007.
[7] UNCTAD. Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements(2005) [R]. IIA MONITOR No. 2 (2005),International Investment Agreements. UNCTAD/WEB/ITE /IIT/2005/1. United Nations,New York and Geneva,2005.
[8] UNCTAD. Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements(2008– June 2009)[R].IIA MONITOR No.3(2009),International Investment Agreements. UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/IA/2009/8.
[9] UNCTAD. Scope and Definition. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II[R].UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/2.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2011.
[10] UNCTAD. Taking of Property.UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements[R]. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15.United Nations,New York and Geneva,2000.
[11] UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2003——FDI Policies for Development: NationalInternationalPerspectives(Overview)[R].UNCTAD/WIR/2003 (Overview).United Nations,New York and Geneva,2003.
[12] UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2011:Non-Equity Modes of International Production and Development[R].United Nations,New York and Geneva, 2011.
[13] Frederick M Abbott. Intellectual Property Provisions of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements in Light of U.S. Federal Law[R].UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development,2006.
[14] Ronald A. Cass, Compulsory Licensing of Intellectual Property:The Exception that Ate the Rule?[R].Washington Legal Foundation, Working Paper Series No.150,September 2007.
[15] World Bank. Report to the Development Committee and Guidelines on The Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[R].International Legal Materials, 1992(31).
[16] UNCTAD-ICTSD. Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries[R]. UNCTAD - ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development,Issue Paper 17(2006).
[1] Norwegian Shipowners Claims(Norway v.America)[Z].Award of the Tribunal, The Hague,13 October 1922.
[2] Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (The Merits) (Germany v. Poland)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice Judgment 7,25 May 1925.
[3] The Oscar Chinn Case (Britain v.Belgium)[Z].Permanent Court of International Justice,1934 (ser.A/B) 63,Judgment 61,12 December 1934.
[4] Amoco International Finance Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,14 July 1987.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vo.l15.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1988.
[5] Phelps Dodge Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 March 1986.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.10. Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1987.
[6] Phillips Petroleum Company Iran v.Iran[Z].Award,29 June 1989.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.21.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited,1990.
[7] Starrett Housing Corp.v.Iran[Z].Award,19 December 1983.Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.4.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited, 1985.
[8] Tippetts,Abbett,McCarthy,Stratton v.TAMS-AFFA[Z].Award,29 June 1984. Iran-US Claims Tribunal Reports,Vol.6.Cambridge:Grotius Publications Limited, 1986.
[9] ADC Affiliate Ltd.v.Hungary[Z].ICSID Case ARB/03/16,Award,2 Octorber 2006.
[10] Antoine Goetz and others v.Republic of Burundi[Z].ICSID Case ARB/95/3, Introductory Note.
[11] Azurix v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/01/12,Award,14 July 2006.
[12] Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v.Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana[Z]. Award on Jurisdiction and Liability,27 October 1989.
[13] Biwater Gauff(Tanzania)Ltd.v.United Republic of Tanzania[Z].ICSID CaseARB/05/22,Award, 24 July 2008.
[14] CCL v.Republic of Kazakhstan[Z].SCC Case 122/2001,Final Award(2004), Stockholm International Arbitration Review,2005(1).
[15] CME v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award,13 September 2001.
[16] CMS Gas Transmission Co.v.Argentina[Z].ICSID(W. Bank) Case No.ARB/01/8, Final Award,12 May 2005.
[17] Compa?iáde Aguas del Aconquija S.A.and Vivendi Universal v.Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/97/3,Award,20 August 2007.
[18] Compa?ía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A.v.Republic of Costa Rica[Z].ICSID Case ARB/96/1, Award of the Tribunal, 17 February 2000.
[19] Eastern Sugar B.V.v.Czech Republic[Z].SCC Case 088/2004,Partial Award,27 March 2007.
[20] EnCana Corporation v.Republic of Ecuador[Z].LCIA Case UN3481,Award, 3 February 2006.
[21] Ethyl Corporation v.the Government of Canada[Z]. UNCITRAL,Award on Jurisdition,24 June 1998.
[22] Feldman v.The United Mexican States [Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/99/1, Award on Merits,16 December 2002.
[23] Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/02/1, Award,17 July 2006.
[24] Glamis Gold,Ltd.v.The United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Award,8 June 2009.
[25] International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v.Mexico[Z].UNCITRAL,Award, 26 January 2006.
[26] Lauder(USA)v.Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award 3 September 2001.
[27] LG&E v.Argentina[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/1,Decision on Liability,3 October 2006.
[28] Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa (CEMSA) v.United Mexican Statesv[Z].ICSID,Case ARB (AF)/99/1, Final Award,16 December 2002.
[29] Metalclad Corporation v.The United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB(AF)/ 97/1,Award,30 August 2000.
[30] Methanex Corporation v.United States of America[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Award,9 August 2005.
[31] Midlle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co.S.A.v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/6,Award,12 April 2002.
[32] Patrick Mitchell v.Democratic Republic of the Congo[Z].ICSID Case ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award,1 November 2006.
[33] Parkerings-Compagniet AS v.Lithuania[Z].ICSID Case ARB/05/8,Award, 11 Septempber 2007.
[34] Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Final Merits Award,10 April 2001.
[35] Pope & Talbot,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Interim Merits Award,26 June 2000.
[36] S D Myers,Inc.v.Canada[Z].UNCITRAL,Partial Award on the Merits,13 November 2000.
[37] Saluka Investments BV(the Netherlands)v.The Czech Republic[Z].UNCITRAL, Partial Award,17 March 2006.
[38] Sempra Energy International v.The Argentine Republic[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/ 16,Award,28 September 2007.
[39] Southern Pacific Properties(Middle East)Limited v.Arab Republic of Egypt[Z]. ICSID Case ARB/84/3,Award,20 May 1992.
[40] Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed,S.A.v.United Mexican States[Z].ICSID Case ARB (AF)/00/2, Award,29 May 2003.
[41] Tokios Tokel?s v.Ukraine[Z].ICSID Case ARB/02/18, Award and Separate Opinion,26 July 2007.
[42] Waste Management,Inc.v.The United Mexican States[Z].ISCID Case ARB(AF)/ 00/3,Final Award,30 April 2004).
[43] Wena Hotels Ltd.v. Arab Republic of Egypt[Z].ICSID Case ARB/98/4,Award, 8 December 2000.
[1] Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway and […]for the Promotion and Protection of Investments,Draft version 191207[EB/OL].[2011-06-12]. http://italaw.com/documents/NorwayModel2007.doc.
[2] Andrew Paul Newcombe. Regulatory Expropriation,Investment Protection and International Law: When Is Government Regulation Expropriatory and When Should Compensation Be Paid?[EB/OL].[2010-04-05]. http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/RegulatoryExpropriation.pdf.
[3] Apurba Khatiwada, Indirect Expropriation of Foreign Investment[EB/OL]. [2010-02-15].http://www.ksl.edu.np/cpanel/pics/indirect_expropriation_apurba.pdf.
[4] Carlos Correa. Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries [EB/OL] . [2011-04-17]. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/h2963e/h2963e.pdf.
[5] Christoph Schreuer,Ursula Kriebaum.At What Time Must Legitimat Expectations Exist? [EB/OL]. [2010-11-10]. http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/97_atwhattime.pdf
[6] Draft Art 8.8(I) of the investment chapter in the context of the EU/PACP EPA negotiations,DG Trade G 1(D)(2006) of 10 October 2006[EB/OL]. [2010-05-10]. http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/doc/new_investment_chpt_EU-PAC.doc.
[7] Emma Aisbetty,Larry Karpz,Carol McAusland. Police-powers,regulatory takings and the efficient compensation of domestic and foreign investors[EB/OL]. [2010-03-15].http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5x84h5kf.
[8] Exchange of Letters on Expropriation[EB/OL].[2010-03-25]. http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Singapore_FTA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file58_4058.pdf.
[9] Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Chile[EB/OL]. [2010-10-19]. http://ptas.mcgill.ca/Agreements%20pdfs/Chile-Korea.pdf.
[10] Howard Mann,Julie A Soloway. Untangling the Expropriation and Regulation Relationship:Is There a Way Forward?[EB.OL]. [2010-03-10]. http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/untangle-e.pdf.
[11] Howard Mann,Konrad von Moltke. Protecting Investor Rights and the Public Good:Assessing NAFTA′s Chapter 11[EB/OL].[2010-08-16]. http://www.iisd.org/trade/ILSDWorkshop.
[12] Howard Mann,Konrad Von Moltke. A Southern Agenda on Investment? Promoting Development with Balanced Rights and Obligations for Investors, Host States and Home States[EB/OL].[2010-07-10]. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/investment_southern_agenda.pdf.
[13] Howard Mann, Konrad Von Moltke. NAFTA’s Chapter 11 and the Environment[EB/OL].[2010-03-10]. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/nafta.pdf.
[14] OECD. Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention[EB/OL]. [2010-01-05].http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/4/39286571.pdf.
[15] OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of 27 June 2000[EB/OL]. [2010-11-29].http://www.oecd.org/daf/investment/guidelines/mnetext.htm.
[16] OECD. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Draft Consolidated Text, DAFFE/MAI(98)7/REV1[EB/OL].[2010-01-15]. http://www.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf.
[17] Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment(U.S.Model Bilateral Investment Treaty(2004))[EB/ OL].[2010-04-10].http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/117601.pdf.
[18] United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement,Chapter Ten:Investment[EB/OL]. [2010-04-10].http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/chile/asset_upload_file1_4004.pdf.
[19] World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment[EB/OL]. [2010-01-05].http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/WorldBank.pdf.