宰肥羊再無代價？再探源於投資人訴地主國爭端解決機制之雙邊投資條約違反訴訟對地主國FDI流入的影響

Abstract

在跨國投資興盛的時代背景下，雙邊投資條約（BITs）的簽訂普遍被視為國家保護外國直接投資（FDI）投資決心的展現，而當某一國違反BITs條款、導致投資人循投資人訴地主國爭端解決機制（ISDS）提出仲裁訴訟時，外界通常認為該國缺乏保護投資的決心、甚至有侵害資產的意圖。儘管以上理論本身邏輯為大多數人所接受，但訴訟是否確實損害投資該國的信心、減少該國的FDI流入量，學界看法不一，從全然支持、部分支持到全然反對的主張都存在。 究竟一國違反了BITs條款而涉入訴訟，是否會使自身的未來FDI流入減少？為了回答這個問題，筆者基於過往研究的成果建立分析框架後，蒐集各國從1991年至2022年的FDI流入數據，同時蒐集、分類並統計各國在不同年份的BITs違反訴訟案件數量，並以多元迴歸分析檢視兩者的關係。過往研究的成果顯示FDI流入變化和BITs違反訴訟案件的發生並沒有明顯相關，或是只和特定型態──如包含「直接徵收」事由且以開發中國家為被告──之案件有明顯相關；筆者的分析結果儘管同樣僅部分支持兩者的相關性，但與過往研究得到的結果有所差異：首先，無論被告地主國的開發程度為何，一旦涉入包含「直接徵收」事由的案件，該案件會在出現不利判決時，與FDI流入有明顯負相關，而被告地主國若是已開發國家，影響幅度比起在作為開發中國家的情況下會更大；另外，無論被告開發程度為何，一旦涉入包含「公平公正待遇違反」事由的案件，該案件會在出現不利判決時，與FDI流入也會有明顯負相關；對於其他類型的案件，筆者沒有發現負相關的證據。 藉由檢視具代表性個案之脈絡，筆者提出之所以BITs違反訴訟與FDI流入之間的關係，會因案件型態而有所不同，可能與三項因素有關：第一是地主國的行為及後果明顯易辨認；第二是投資人本身具有或經刻意營造的、對地主國投射的早期正當性假象；第三是仲裁庭發揮「信號」的功能、明確展示地主國被告違反國際投資法。這三項因素當中，第一及第二項任一若存在，不利判決都可能讓投資人感受到BITs違反訴訟的負面含意，促成或增強案件與FDI流入之間的負面關聯；而第三項或許能解釋為何上述負面關聯只呈現於「仲裁結果出爐」時間點。 至此，筆者指出以「聲譽成本」理論解釋投資流入方面違反國際投資法的後果時，需要留意該成本的形成機制，並非簡單、單一因素造成，還源自於更多元、更廣泛因素的異質性。

Recent theories suggest that signing bilateral investment treaties (BITs) signals a country’s commitment to protect investments, whereas the country’s involvement in arbitral cases—initiated by foreign investors due to its violation of BITs—may indicate its failure to protect investments, or even raise suspicions of property infringement. Although the line of reasoning has gained wide acceptance, scholarly perspectives remain divided on whether the claims truly undermine investors’ confidence in investing in the country and reduce the country’s FDI inflows, encompassing unwavering support, moderate approval, and firm opposition. Will a state lose its future FDI inflows after it violates BITs and is involved in arbitral cases? To answer this question, the author establishes the analytical framework inspired by pioneered research, and examines the relation between FDI inflows and the number of BITs claims—both are annual—with multiple regression models and the data spanning from 1991 to 2022. Previous studies concluded that changes in FDI inflows are not significantly related to the increase in annual claims, or that this is a case only if the claims have “direct expropriation” causes and defendants as developing countries. As a finding differing from their conclusion, the analysis results indicate a significantly negative relation between FDI inflows and the conclusion of certain BITs claims that decided against the state. These certain claims include those having “direct expropriation” causes—whose negative effect will be reinforced if it has a developed country defendant other than developing one, and those having “violating requirements of fair-and-equal treatment (FET)” causes. After studies of representative cases, the author points out three possible factors that may contribute to variation in such a relation among different types of arbitration cases. The first one is the clear identifiability of the defendant’s disputed measures; the second one is the “illusion of legitimacy” over the host state occurs, either manipulated by the state or generated by investors themselves; the last one is whether the tribunal “signals” by clarifying the host state’s violation of international investment law. Either the first or the second factor may give rise to the effect of a BITs claim’s state-against decision that exposes investors to the claim’s negative implication and thus establishes or intensifies the negative relation between the claim and the FDI inflows. The third one may explain why this relation only appears at the point of rendering decisions. Building on this finding, the author highlights that when employing the “reputational cost” theory to explain the consequences of BITs violation on investment inflows, it is important to recognize that the mechanism through which such costs arise may be shaped by the heterogeneity within a set of broader and more diverse factors, rather than by a simple, straightforward cause.