請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46962
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 羅昌發(Chang-Fa Lo) | |
dc.contributor.author | Po-chen Cheng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 鄭博臣 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T05:44:10Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2010-08-21 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2010-08-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2010 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2010-08-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文文獻
專書 柯澤東(2008),《國際貿易習慣法暨國際商務仲裁》,元照。 二、英文文獻 專書 ALVAREZ, GUILLERMO AGUILER & REISMAN, W. MICHAEL (ED.) (2008), THE REASONS REQUIREMENT IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION: CRITICAL CASE STUDIES, MARTONUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS. CHEN, HUPING (2002), OECD’S MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT: A CHINESE PERSPECTIVE, KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL. DOLZER, RUDOLF & SCHRUEUR, CHRISTOPH (2008), PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. FOLSOM, RALPH H. (2004), NAFTA AND FREE TRADE IN THE AMERICAS, THOMSON WEST. ICSID (1968), CONVENTION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES BETWEEN STATES AND NATIONALS OF OTHER STATES: DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE ORIGIN AND FORMULATION OF THE CONVENTION (2), WASHINGTON: ICSID PUBLICATION. KRYVOI, YARASLAU (2010), INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID). INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF LAWS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL. MCLACHLAN QC, CAMPBELL (ET AL.) (2007), INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION: SUBSTANTIVE PRINCIPLES, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. MUCHLINSKI, PETER (ET AL.) (2008), THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. NEWCOMBE, ANDREW & PARADELL, LUIS (2009), LAW AND PRACTICE OF INVESTMENT TREATIES: STANDARDS OF TREATMENT, WOLTERS KLUWER. Ortino, Federico (ET AL) (2006), INVESTMENT TREATY LAW: CURRENT ISSUES VOLUME 1, BRITISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW. REED, LUCY (ET AL) (2004), ‘GUIDE TO ICSID ARBITRATION”, KLUWER LAW INTERNATIONAL. ROGERS, CATHERINE A. & ALFORD, ROGER P. (ED.) (2009), ‘THE FUTURE OF INVESTMENT ARBITRATION’ , OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. RUBINS, N. (2003), ‘THE NOTION OF “INVESTMENT” IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATIONS’ IN N HORN (ED), ARBITRATING FOREIGN INVESTMENT DISPUTES. SCHREUER, CHRISTOPH H (2001), THE ICSID CONVENTION: A COMMENTARY, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. SHAN, W. (ED) (2007), REDEFINING SOVEREIGNTY, HART PUBLISHING. SORNARAJAH, M. (2004), THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. SUBEDI, SURYA P (2008), INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: RECONCILING POLICY AND PRINCIPLE, HART PUBLISHING. WEILER, TODD (ED) (2005), LEADING CASES FROM THE ICSID, NAFTA, BILATERAL TREATIES AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW. 期刊文章 Bottini, Gabriel, Should Arbitrators Live on Mars? Challenge of Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration, 32 SUFFOLK TRANSNAT'L L. REV. 341 (2009) Burke-White, William W., The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability Under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System (January 24, 2008). U OF PENN, INST FOR LAW & ECON RESEARCH PAPER NO. 08-01 (2008) Certilman, Steven A., A Comparison of Selected International Arbitration Rules, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CONFLICT PREVENTION & RESOLUTION, VOL. 26, NO. 5, P.91 (2008) Cheng, Tai-Heng, Power, Authority and International Investment Law, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW, VOL. 20, P. 465 (2005) Coe Jr., Jack J, Toward a Complementary Use of Conciliation in Investor-State Disputes – A Preliminary Sketch, 12 U.C. DAVIS J. INT'L L. & POL'Y 7 (Oct 2005) Franck, Susan D., Empirically Evaluating Claims About Investment Treaty Arbitration, NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW, VOL. 86 (2007) Franck, Susan D., The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions, FORDHAM LAW REVIEW, VOL. 73 (2005) Gaines, Sanford E., Environmental Policy Implications of Investor-State Arbitration under NAFTA Chapter 11 (October 2005) Gantz, David A., An Appellate Mechanism for Review of Arbitral Decisions in Investor-State Disputes: Prospects and Challenges, VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW (Jan 2006) Griffith, Gavan and Mitchell, Andrew D., Contractual Dispute Resolution in International Trade: The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976) and the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules (1980), MELBOURNE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. 3; U OF MELBOURNE LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER NO. 217 (2002) Lo, Chang-fa, The Legal and Practical Constrains of Using Commercial Arbitration to Handle Investment Disputes, CONTEMPORARY ASIA ARBITRATION JOURNAL, VOLUME 3 NUMBER 1 (MAY 2010) SAMRA, Harout, Five Years Later: The CMS Award Placed in the Context of the Argentine Financila Crisis and the ICSID Arbitration Boom, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI INTER-AMERICAN LAW REVIEW, SPRING/SUMMER, 38: 679 (2006-2007) Shany, Yuval, Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?, EJIL, VOL. 16 NO. 5 (2005) Sloane, Robert D., Breaking the Genuine Link: The Contemporary International Legal Regulation of Nationality (September 3, 2008), HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, VOL. 50, BOSTON UNIV. SCHOOL OF LAW WORKING PAPER NO. 08-27 (Winter 2009) Stanic, Ana, Challenging Arbitrators and the Importance of Disclosure: Recent Cases and Reflections (2009). CROATIAN ARBITRATION YEARBOOK, VOL. 16; SOAS SCHOOL OF LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 08-2010 (2009) Stone Sweet, Alec, Investor-State Arbitration: Proportionality's New Frontier, LAW & ETHICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS: VOL. 4 : ISS. 1, ARTICLE 4 (2010) Supnik, Kate M., Making Amends: Amending the ICSID Convention to Reconcile Competiing Interests in International Investment Law, 59 DUKE L.J. 343 (2009) Tams, Christian J., An Appealing Option? The Debate about an ICSID Appellate Structure, ESSAYS IN TRANSNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW, NO. 57 (Jun 2006) Tams, Christian J., Is There A Need for an ICSID Appellate Structure?, THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES: TAKING STOCK AFTER 40 YEARS, HOFMANN, TAMS, EDS., NOMOS, BADEN-BADEN (2007) 條約 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ICSID Convention North American Free Trade Agreement U.S. – Argentina BIT U.S. – Chile FTA U.S. – Singapore FTA MAI Draft Consolidated Text 判決與仲裁判斷 ICSID仲裁判斷 Camuzzi International S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2) CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8) Award CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision on Argentine Republic’s Request for a Continued Stay of Enforcement of the Award of 1 September 2006 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Decision of the ad hoc committee on the application for annulment of the Argentine Republic of 25 September 2007 Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3) EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23) Enron Corporation, Ponderosa Assets, L.P v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3) Award LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1) Decision on Liability LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1) Award Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16) Award Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16) (Annulment Proceeding) Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Application for Annulment of the Award SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of the Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13) SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6) Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17) Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19) 利用UNCITRAL規則之仲裁判斷 AWG Group Ltd. V. The Argentine Republic, Decision on the proposal for the disqualification of a member of the arbitral tribunal, 22 Oct 2007 CME Czech Republic B.V. (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic (partial award) ICJ判決 Avena (Mexico v US) [2004] ICJ Rep (forthcoming). Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia) [1997] Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Opinion of 9 July 2004 [2004] ICJ Rep (forthcoming), 43 ILM (2004) 1009 (hereinafter OPT Wall). Oil Platforms (Iran v US) [2003] ICJ Rep 90. ECHR判決 HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 5493/72 [1976] ECHR 5 (7 December 1976) 網路資料 About UNCITRAL, http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/zh/about/origin.html (last visit: 21 Jul 2010) Antonio R. Parra, Applicable Law in Investor-State Arbitration, http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12112009316810/applicable_law_in_investor-state_arbitration.doc (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) BBC News, Human Rights Act: How it works, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/946390.stm (last visit: 15 Jul 2010) Bretton Woods Project, ICSID in crisis Straight-jacket or investment protection?, http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-564878 (last visit: 14 Jul 2010) Bretton Woods Project, Threats to withdraw from Bank's investment tribunal, http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-554233 (last visit: 14 Jul 2010) Bottari, Mary, NAFTA's Investor ‘Rights’: A Corporate Dream, A Citizen Nightmare, MULTINATIONAL MONITOR MAGAZINE (April 2001) http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/NAFTA_FTAA/NAFTA_FTAA_InvestorsRights.html (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) Obreras, Comité Fronterizo de, Six Years of NAFTA: A View from Inside the Maquiladoras, http://www.cfomaquiladoras.org/english%20site/seis_tlc.en.html (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) Diaz, Fernando Cabrera, Pan American Energy takes Bolivia to ICSID over nationalization of Chaco Petroleum, http://www.investmenttreatynews.org/cms/news/archive/2010/05/11/pan-american-energy-takes-bolivia-to-icsid-over-nationalization-of-chaco-petroleum.aspx (last visit: 15 Jul 2010) Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001), http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) Gardiner, John L. & Freyer, Dana H. & Schnabl, Marco E. (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP), Ecuador Attempts to Withdraw Consent to ICSID Jurisdiction for Natural Resource Disputes, http://www.skadden.com/content/Publications/Publications1377_0.pdf (last visit: 15 Jul 2010) International Bar Association, IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, http://www.ibanet.org/Publications/publications_IBA_guides_and_free_materials.aspx (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) International Chamber of Commerce, What is ICC?, http://www.iccwbo.org/id93/index.html (last visit: 22 Jul 2010) The ICSID Caseload – Statistics, http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ListCases (last visit: 16 Jun 2010) ICSID Secretariat, Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration, (22 Oct 2004) http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=NewsReleases&pageName=Archive_%20Announcement14 (last visit: 10 Jul 2010) Juris International, International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, http://www.jurisint.org/en/ctr/32.html (last visit: 22 Jul 2010) Kirton, John, NAFTA Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: An Overview, http://www.envireform.utoronto.ca/publications/john-kirton/may27-2004.pdf (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) Mann, H & Moltke, K von, A Southern Agenda on Investment? Promoting Development with Balanced Rights and Obligations for Investors, Host States and Home States, WINNIPEG, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (2005), http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/envis/sdev/investment_southern_agenda.pdf (last visit: 18 Jul 2010) NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (31 Jul 2001), http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/NAFTA-Interpr.aspx?lang=en (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) OECD, Improving the System of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: An Overview Working Papers on International Investment (Nov 2006), http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/59/36052284.pdf (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) Parra, Antonio R., Applicable Law in Investor-State Arbitration, http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12112009316810/applicable_law_in_investor-state_arbitration.doc (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) Peterson, Luke Eric, Argentina and UK firm send arbitrator-challenge to venue where reasons are provided, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/itn_oct30_2007.pdf (last visit: 2 Jul 2010) Peterson, Luke Eric, Dutch Court finds arbitrator in conflict due to role of counsel to another investor, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/investment_investsd_dec17_2004.pdf (last visit: 13 Jul 2010) PETERSON, Luke Eric & Cabrera, Fernando, ICSID rejects Argentina’s bid to disqualify tribunal in Sempra/Camuzzi arbitration, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/itn_june13_2007.pdf (last visit: 2 Jul 2010) Peterson, Luke Eric, Secret $185 Million award against Argentina comes to light in D.C. Court, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/itn_april1_2008.pdf (last visit: 4 Jul 2010) Peterson, Luke Eric, ICSID committee annuls Argentine crisis award; surprising development underscores need to reckon with exceptions clause in US-Argentina BIT, http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20100630 (last visit: 18 Jul 2010) Public Citizen, NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Cases - Lessons for the Central America Free Trade Agreement (2005), http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAReport_Final.pdf (last visit: 19 Jul 2010) Schneiderman, David, Judicial Politics and International Investment Arbitration: Seeking an Explanation for Conflicting Outcomes, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=david_schneiderman (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) Tieleman, Katia, The Failure of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the Absence of a Global Public Policy Network, http://www.gppi.net/fileadmin/gppi/Tieleman_MAI_GPP_Network.pdf (last visit: 20 July 2010) Working Paper of the ICSID Secretariat, Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations (12 May 2005), http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=NewsReleases&pageName=Archive_%20Announcement22 (last visit: 10 Jul 2010) WTO相關文件 Technical cooperation and capacity building in Doha WTO MINISTERIAL 2001: MINISTERIAL DECLARATION , WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1 (20 November 2001) Technical Cooperation in Hong Kong WTO MINISTERIAL 2005: MINISTERIAL DECLARATION (WT/MIN(05)/DEC) WTO technical assistance and training, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/teccop_e/tct_e.htm (last visit: 20 Jul 2010) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/46962 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 世界貿易組織(the World Trade Organization;WTO)在杜哈回合後陷入談判僵局,開發中與已開發國家對於諸多議題無法達成共識,而使多邊貿易談判陷入停滯狀態。有鑑於此,在多邊貿易談判進展未見曙光之前,許多國家開始積極尋找洽簽自由貿易協定(Free Trade Agreements;FTAs)或雙邊投資協定(Bilateral Investment Treaties;BITs)的機會,以期維持甚至促進一國的經濟發展。
在越來越多FTAs或BITs被簽定的同時,國際投資仲裁糾紛的數目也日益增加。然而,國際投資法這個法領域的發展其實在1990年代以前幾乎是空白的狀態,以致於國際投資仲裁庭的仲裁人在對於相關法律的適用與解釋並無一致的看法,而在某程度形成各執一詞的情形。 此外,國際投資仲裁的審理上多採特設(ad hoc)仲裁庭模式,而且彼此的判斷互不影響,且無上訴機制的檢驗。因此,很有可能造成具類似甚至相同背景事實的案件,卻可能由不同的仲裁庭推導出不同的判斷結果。實際上,也的確發生過這一類的問題。近來,一連串與阿根廷有關之仲裁案即為明證。 阿根廷為因應其2001年所面臨的經濟危機,採行了一連串的行政措施,導致不少的外國投資人損失慘重。也因此,阿根廷搖身一變成為國際投資爭端解決中心(International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes;ICSID)的最大戶被告。然而,因為阿根廷的國際投資仲裁案件多由臨時仲裁庭處理,且沒有上訴機制來解決法律適用與解釋的爭議,使得背景事實基本上是一模一樣的案件,同樣的雙邊投資協定(US-Argentina BIT),卻僅因為由不同仲裁庭的仲裁人審理,致使判斷結果南轅北轍,暴露出國際投資爭端體系的風險也是弱點,而弱化了相關機構與判斷的權威性與正當性。 有鑒於國際投資仲裁之判斷一致有其重要性,要求以ICSID為首的仲裁機構進行國際投資仲裁相關改革的建制,而成立國際投資仲裁的上訴機構獲得不少的擁護者,論者以為如此以來可大大提升國際投資仲裁判斷的一致性與可預測性。然而,不管是將上訴機構納入WTO底下、增加於ICSID體系中,或者是創設最高投資法院或新增入國際法院中,都需要透過會員國至少多數的同意始能通過。在一個爭議性仍極高的問題,強大的政治支持是必須的。不管是從目前開發中國家與已開發國家對於杜哈回合的僵局仍持續進行,或是學界自己對於上訴機構建立的正反意見都有且支持人數差不多的情況下,上訴機構最大的程序問題就是在有無機會透過公約或協定「誕生」的問題。本文以為從目前的國際政治氣氛,上訴機構能被建立的機會實在不大。即使程序問題不存在,從實體面觀察,上訴機構的設立仍需要大量的人力與預算經費。然而,是否有足夠的人力以及預算還是一大問題。即使有足夠人力,經費要如何產生?開發中國家更不想多付任何錢。若此,是否亦連帶影響到程序上建立的問題?此外,有足夠的人力並不代表品質的確保。是否有足夠數量的仲裁人能勝任於國際投資仲裁體系中,進而強化仲裁判斷一致性,也尚有疑問。再者,仲裁判斷之一致性是否確實能因上訴機構的建制而有明顯改善仍屬未知,且延長的仲裁程序對投資人的影響實為弊大於利,上訴機構之建制如何回應這些問題當屬其面臨之一大挑戰。 因此,本文以為在程序問題不大可能成功,且實體問題亦然之情況下,或許試圖從體制內改革為一較佳之方法。本文以為對於體制內的改革,或許有幾項辦法值得參考,亦即仲裁庭對於邊際裁量原則的運用來平衡投資人權利與公共利益、擴大ICSID公約第52條之解釋與適用、提升判斷透明性、改善仲裁人資格、合併案件,以及制度性的幫助開發中國家於國際投資仲裁中的相關準備與訓練。 若上述的措施能被確實落實,應可有效地提升國際投資仲裁判斷的一致性與可預測性,從而提升仲裁機構與判斷的正當性與權威性,並吸引更多國家的參與與加入,來達實現日後國際投資體系多邊化的可能。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The World Trade Organization (WTO) has been in a stalemate ever since Doha Round. Developing countries and developed countries cannot reach a consensus on many issues. Given it is still difficult to see the light from the end of the tunnel, many countries actively started looking for opportunities to sign the Free Trade Agreement (FTAs) or Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) in order to promote their economic growth and development.
With more and more FTAs and BITs being signed, the number of international investment disputes has been increasing at the same time. However, the development of the legal field of international investment law is basically blank before the 1990s, and thus, arbitrators at the international investment arbitration tribunal have their own ideas concerning application and interpretation of related laws. In addition, most tribunals are ad hoc, and there is no precedent and appellate system in international law. Therefore, it is likely that cases which share similar if not the same circumstances, may lead to different judgments by different tribunals. This situation did happen in reality. Recent arbitration awards against the Argentine Republic are clear examples of this. Argentina adopted a series of administrative measures in order to deal with the economic crisis in 2001, and investors suffered greatly. Consequently, Argentina became the member State which receives the most complaints by investors at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Because most arbitrations were handled by ad hoc tribunals, and there was no appellate mechanism to solve the disputes concerning application and interpretation of international investment law, outcomes of arbitral awards differ significantly even though the fact is identical, the legal source or the cited treaty is the same, and only the arbitrators are different. This shows the risk and also the weakness of the international investment dispute system, and weakens related institutions’ authority and legitimacy. Keeping in mind that the importance of inconsistency of arbitral awards in international investment, voices have been raised demanding that the arbitration institutions be reformed, particularly the ICSID given its influence in international investment law. Quite a few people support the idea of establishing appellate mechanism in the system of international investment arbitration. Supporters argue that such a mechanism will thus increase awards’ consistency and predictability. However, to include the appellate body into the WTO, to add into the ICSID system, or to create a Supreme Investment Court (SIC), or to add another chamber under the International Court of Justice (ICJ), requires consent by at least half of the member States. It is necessary to acquire strong political will to deal with a highly controversial issue. However, be it the on-going stalemate between developing and developed countries over Doha Round, or the on-going debates in the academic world, it seems rather difficult to establish the appellate mechanism. In addition, even if it is possible to acquire most countries’ support to create the appellate mechanism, where would the funding come from? Is there enough qualified manpower? What about the prolonged arbitral process that investors have to endure? Therefore, the author believes that is it more practical to first reform within the international investment arbitration system. The author suggests several methods, including the introduction of margin of appreciation doctrine into the arbitral process, expanding the interpretation and application of Article 52 of the ICSID Convention, enhancing transparency of arbitral process, improving the qualification required for arbitrators, consolidating cases with identical facts and issues, and assisting and training developing countries for the international investment arbitration preparations. If the abovementioned measures can be implemented, the author believes that consistency and predictability of arbitral awards in international investment can be effectively enhanced, legitimacy of arbitral awards and authorities of investment arbitration institutions can consequently be enhanced. Such a change may attract more countries to join the system, and realize the possibility of the multilateraliazation of the international investment system. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T05:44:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-99-R96a21105-1.pdf: 784100 bytes, checksum: fa5bff5e4d681705da610199e345814b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝詞 i
摘要 ii Abstract v 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與目的 1 第二節 研究範圍與方法 3 第二章 國際投資爭端解決機制及其問題 4 第一節 國際投資爭端的定義 4 第二節 國際投資爭端之發生與類型 5 第一項 目前主要國際投資爭端解決機制與規則 10 第一款 國際投資爭端解決中心(ICSID)端解決機制 10 第一目 ICSID爭端解決機制簡介 10 第二目 ICSID爭端解決機制內容 11 第三目 ICSID爭端解決機制評價 13 第二款 北美自由貿易協定(NAFTA)爭端解決機制 18 第一目 NAFTA爭端解決機制簡介 18 第二目 NAFTA爭端解決機制內容 19 第三目 NAFTA爭端解決機制評價 21 第三款 聯合國國際貿易法委員會(UNCITRAL)爭端解決機制 25 第一目 UNCITRAL爭端解決機制簡介 25 第二目 UNCITRAL爭端解決機制內容 27 第三目 UNCITRAL爭端解決機制評價 30 第四款 國際商務仲裁機制之利用 31 第一目 國際商務仲裁機制簡介 31 第二目 國際商務仲裁機制內容 33 第三目 國際商務仲裁機制評價 35 第二項 多邊投資協定(MAI)的提議與失敗 35 第一款 MAI爭端解決機制簡介 35 第二款 MAI爭端解決機制內容 36 第三款 MAI爭端解決機制評價 39 第一目 MAI的優點 39 第二目 MAI 的缺陷及不足 40 第四節 國際投資爭端解決機制之共同特性與問題 41 第一項 共同特性 41 第二項 共同問題 42 第三項 ICSID爭端解決機制的特殊問題 42 第三章 由若干阿根廷仲裁案檢視ICSID爭端解決機制之問題 43 第一節 阿根廷仲裁案背景事實簡介 43 第一項 阿根廷金融危機的由來與發展 43 第二項 阿根廷金融危機爆發的原因 44 第二節 與阿根廷金融危機相關之主要國際投資仲裁案 ─ 以危急情況規則的適用為例 45 第一項 CMS天然氣運輸公司 45 第一款 仲裁判斷 45 第一目 案情簡介 45 第二目 兩造主張 45 第三目 仲裁庭意見 48 第二項 安隆債權人清償公司(Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation; formerly Enron Corporation) 50 第一款 仲裁判斷 50 第一目 案情簡介與兩造主張 50 第二目 仲裁庭意見 51 第三項 Sempra國際能源公司 52 第一款 仲裁判斷 52 第一目 案情簡介與兩造主張 52 第二目 仲裁庭意見 53 第四項 LG&E能源公司 55 第一款 仲裁判斷 55 第一目 案情簡介與兩造主張 55 第二目 仲裁庭意見 56 第五項 阿根廷相關仲裁案综合評析 58 第一款 阿根廷採取的措施是否為唯一方法? 58 第二款 阿根廷的基本利益是否面臨嚴重且迫切的危險? 59 第三款 阿根廷是否促成經濟危機發生? 60 第四款 阿根廷可否援引美國─阿根廷BIT第4條第3款有關緊急狀態的規定來免責? 60 第五款 經濟危機是否屬於美國─阿根廷BIT第11條「基本安全利益」的範圍?.. 61 第六款 美國─阿根廷BIT第11條是否為自動履行條款? 62 第七款 小結 63 第三節 阿根廷政府之其他訴訟策略 64 第一項 程序事項 64 第一款 仲裁人資格異議 64 第一目 ICSID公約對仲裁人異議的規定 64 第二目 阿根廷提出的仲裁人異議 67 第三目 對阿根廷仲裁人異議申請的分析 71 第二項 仲判斷定後之救濟程序 72 第一款 申請暫停(stay)執行仲判斷定 73 第二款 仲裁撤銷(annulment)程序 76 第一目 CMS案 76 第二目 Sempra案 80 第四節 由各個仲裁案觀察現有機制之困境 83 第一項 各仲裁判斷之歧異與不可預測性 83 第二項 判斷之正當性及權威性與仲裁撤銷程序之效果及不足 83 第四章 上訴機制之建立與問題解決之可行性 84 第一節 建立國際投資爭端仲裁上訴機制的各項方案 84 第一項 納入WTO的上訴機構 89 第二項 於ICSID中設立投資爭端仲裁上訴機制 92 第三項 創設常設性的投資法院 94 第四項 最高投資法院的設立 96 第二節 建立國際投資爭端仲裁上訴機制對解決仲裁機制問題之助益 97 第一項 一致性之加強 98 第二項 提升仲裁判斷之可預測性 101 第三項 提升仲裁判斷之正當性 102 第四項 提升仲裁判斷之權威性 103 第三節 建立國際投資爭端仲裁上訴機制之實際與理論上之困難 104 第一項 《ICSID公約》修改的難度 104 第二項 不符合立法者原意 105 第三項 上訴機制與一致性非完全正相關 106 第四項 無法保障投資人 108 第五項 上訴機構之問題 108 第一款 上訴機構之程序問題 108 第二款 上訴機構之實體問題 109 第三款 小結 109 第五章 國際投資爭端仲裁上訴機制的補充方案 110 第一節 擴大國際投資爭端解決公約第52條之解釋與適用 110 第一項 目前的解釋與適用模式 110 第二項 建議之解釋與適用模式 110 第二節 提升透明性 111 第一項 仲裁機構對透明性的相關措施 111 第一款 從NAFTA出發 111 第二款 ICSID與UNCITRAL對透明性的相關規定 113 第二項 ICSID與UNCITRAL對仲裁程序公開與參與之改革 114 第三項 仲判斷定之公開 115 第四項 仲判斷定理由之完整性 116 第五項 小結 117 第三節 引進邊際裁量原則 118 第一項 邊際裁量原則之簡介 118 第二項 邊際裁量原則運用於國際法的支持理由 120 第一款 制度性優勢 120 第二款 民主代表性 121 第三款 國家責任歸咎的謹慎行使 121 第三項 國際法院適用邊際裁量原則的案例 122 第一款 歐洲人權法院 122 第二款 WTO爭端解決小組 123 第四節 改善仲裁人資格 123 第一項 目前對仲裁人之相關規定 126 第一款 ICSID公約 126 第一目 ICSID公約第14條 126 第二目 ICSID公約第57條 127 第二款 UNCITRAL規則 128 第三款 國際律師協會(International Bar Association)準則 129 第二項 小結 131 第五節 合併案件 131 第六節 對開發中會員國之協助 132 第一項 WTO之相關措施 132 第二項 建立一定培訓機制 134 第七節 小結 135 第六章 結論 136 參考文獻 138 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 由若干阿根廷仲裁案論國際投資仲裁判斷及其不一致之解決 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Solutions to the Inconsistency of Awards for International Investment Arbitration – Reflections from ICSID Awards against the Argentine Republic | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 98-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林彩瑜(Tsai-Yu Lin),楊培侃(Pei-kan Yang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 上訴機制,阿根廷,雙邊投資協定,仲裁判斷一致性,自由貿易協定,國際投資爭端解決中心,國際投資仲裁, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | appellate mechanism,the Argentine Republic,bilateral investment treaties (BITs),consistency of arbitral awards,free tarde agreements (FTAs),international centre for settlement of investment disputes (ICSID),international investment arbitration, | en |
dc.relation.page | 146 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2010-08-19 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-99-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 765.72 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。