請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/57234
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 羅昌發 | |
dc.contributor.author | Kai-Wei Chan | en |
dc.contributor.author | 詹凱惟 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T06:38:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-08-01 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2014-08-01 | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2014-07-30 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文資料
專書 郭華春(譯注)(2013)。《債權人視角下的主權債務重組法律問題研究》。北京:法律。(簡體字版)。(Guo Huachun [Trans. & Comm.]. [2013]. Legal Aspects of Sovereign Debt Restructuring. Beijing: Law. [in simplified Chinese].) 郭華春(譯注)(2012)。《國際法視角下的主權債務違約》。北京:法律。(簡體字版)。(Guo Huachun [Trans. & Comm.]. [2012]. Sovereign Defaults before International Courts and Tribunals. Beijing: Law. [in simplified Chinese].) 論文 董琳琳(2010) 《國家主權債務重組法律問題研究》,華東政法大學法律學院法律研究所碩士學位論文。 鄭博臣(2010),《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》, ,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。 英文資料 專書 ANDREW NEWCOMBE & LLUIS PARADELL LAW AND PRACTICE OF INVESTMENT TREATIES. STANDARDS OF TREATMENT, (2009). CHARLES D. SCHMERLER & JAMES R. SILENAT, THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL INSOLVENCIES AND DEBT RESTRUCTURING, OCEANA PUBLICATIONS (2006). CHRISTOPH SCHREUER, THE ICSID CONVENTION A COMMENTARY (2nd ed., 2009). FEDERICO STURZENEGGER & JEROMIN ZETTELMEYER, DEBT DEFAULTS AND LESSONS FROM A DECADE OF CRISES (2007). KEVIN P. GALLAGHER, THE CLASH OF GLOBALIZATIONS: ESSAYS ON THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY (2013). MARGARET MOSES, THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION (2008) MICHAEL WAIBEL, SOVEREIGN DEFAULTS BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (2011) M. SORNARAJAH, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT, (3rd ed., 2010). REBECCA M. NELSON, SOVEREIGN DEBT IN ADVANCED ECONOMIES: OVERVIEW AND ISSUES FOR CONGRESS, (2013). RUDOLF DOLZER & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2008). 期刊 Aldo Caliari, Risk Associated With Trends In the Treatment of Sovereign Debt in Bilateral Trade and Investment Treaties, in COMPENDIUM ON DEBT SUSTAINABILITY AND DEVELOPMENT 211 (UNCTAD, 2009) Aron Broches, The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes: Some Observations on Jurisdiction, 5 COITUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 263 (1966). Anne O. Krueger, A New Approach To Sovereign Debt Restructuring, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 2. Anne Krueger & Sean Hagan ,Sovereign Workouts: An IMF Perspective , 6 CHI. J. INT'L L. 203(2006) Anna Gelpern, Building a Better Seating Chart for Sovereign Restructurings, 53EMORY LAW J.1119 (2004). Byrne, K. Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent', 38 CAN. Y.B. INT'L L. 89 (2000) CAMPBELL MCLACHLAN ET AL.,INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION: SUBSTANTIVE PRINCIPLES ¶7.152-7.153 (2008) Christoph Schreuer, Fair and Equitable Treatment in Arbitral Practice, 6(3) J. WORLD INV.& TRAD 356 (2005). Eternity Global Master Fund Limited, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Of New York And Jpmorgan Chase Bank, 375 F.3d 168, 5(2003) Ellie Norton, International Investment Arbitration and the European Debt Crisis,13 CHI. J. INT'L L. 291 (2013). Felipe Suescun De Roa, Investor-State Arbitration in Sovereign Debt Restructuring: The Role of Holdouts, 30 (2) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 131 (2013). Joanna Simoes, Sovereign Bond Disputes Before Icsid Tribunals: Lessons From The Argentina Crisis 17 LAW & BUS. REV. AM. 683 (2011). Jonathan Sedlak, Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Statutory Reform or Contractual Solution?, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 1483 (2004) Josef Ostřansky, Sovereign Defaults and Investment Arbitration, graduate institute of international and development studies (2012) Joy Dey, Collective Action Clauses Sovereign Bond holers Cornered?,15 LAW & BUS. REV. AM. 485 (2009). Karen Halverson Cross, Arbitration as a Means of Resolving Sovereign Debt Disputes, 17 AM. Riv. INT'L Atu. 335 (2006). Kevin P. Gallagher, Financial Crises and International Investment Agreements: The Case of Sovereign Debt Restructuring, 3(3) GLOBAL POLICY 362 (2012). loannis Glinavos, Investor Protection v. State Regulatory Discretion: Definitions of Expropriation and Shrinking Regulatory Competence, 13 EUR. J.L. REFORM 97 (2011) Mahnaz Malik,Definition of Investment in International Investment, DEfiNITION OF INVESTMENT IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS 5 (2009) Michael Waibel, Opening Pandora's Box: Sovereign Bonds in International Arbitration,101 AM. J. OF INT’L L. 711 (2007). Nouriel Roubini & Brad Setser, Domestic And External Debt: The Doomed Quest For Equal Treatment, 35 Geo. J. Int'l L. 795 (2003). Nouriel Roubini & Brad Setser, Improving the Sovereign Debt Restructuring Process: Problems in Restructuring, Proposed Solutions, and a Roadmap for Reform, PETERSON INST. FOR INT’L ECON.1 (2003) Otto Sandrock, The Case for More Arbitration When Sovereign Debt is to be Restructured: Greece as an Example, 23 AM. REV. INT'L ARB. 507 (2012). Peter Griffin & Ania Farren, How ICSID can protect sovereign bondholders, INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL LAW REVIEW 1 (sep. 2005) Sean Hagan, Designing a Legal Framework to Restructure Sovereign Debt, 36 Geo. J. Int'l L. 299 (2005). Tomoko Ishikawa, Collective Action Clauses in Sovereign Bond Contracts and Investment Treaty Arbitration – An Approach to Reconcile the Irreconcilable, ACCOUNTING, ECONOMICS AND LAW: A CONVIVIUM, WALTER DE GRUYTER 1 (2013). 國際條約 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States,14 October 1966, 2004 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty 2004Canada Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Agreement between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Italy on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Oct. 14, 1993 Agreement between The Government of The Republic of Korea and The Government of Japan for The Liberalisation, Promotion and Protection of Investment, Mar. 22, 2002 Agreement between The Government of The United Mexican States and The Government of The Republic of India on The Promotion and Protection of Investments, May 21,2007 The North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Jan. 1, 1994 The Treaty between the Government of The United States of America And The Government of The State of Bahrain concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment with Annex and Protocol, Sep. 29, 1999, Treaty between United States of America and The Argentine Republic concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment, Nov. 14,1991 投資仲裁判斷 Abaclat and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, (Aug. 4, 2011) ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary, award,ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16,(Oct 2, 2006) Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. V. The Slovak Republic, ICSID case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (May 24, 1999) Camuzzi International S.A. v. Argentina [I], ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction (May 11, 2005) CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No.ARB/01/8, Award ( May 12, 2005) Compania de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award (Aug 20, 2007). Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9,award (Sep 5, 2008). Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentina, ICSIDCase No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (Aug. 2, 2004) El Paso Energy v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction (Apr. 27, 2006). Emilio Augustin Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (Jan. 25, 2000) Eudoro Armando Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No.ARB/98/5, award, (Jul 26, 2001) Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, award (Mar 9, 1998) Genin v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award ( June 25, 2001). Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Award, (July 3, 2008). Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ,ICSID Case No.ARB/03/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (Apr 22, 2005). Joy Mining Mach. Ltd. v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction (Aug.6,2004). Lauder v. Czech Republic, Final Award, (UNCITRAL Arb. Trib. Sept. 3, 2001. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc .v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1,Decision on Liability (Oct 3, 2006). Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award, ( June 26, 2003) Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment,(Apr 16, 2009). Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v.United Mexican States,ICSID Case No.ARB(AF)/99/1, (2002). Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (NAFTA), Award, (August 30, 2000) Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award (Oct. 11, 2002). Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award (Oct. 12, 2005) Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No.ARB/03/24, decision on Jurisdiction,( Feb.8, 2005) Poštova banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8. Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Canada, UNCITRAL case (Apr. 10, 2001) RosinvestUK Ltd. v. the Russian Federation,SCC (Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) Case No. Arbitration V 079/2005, Award on Jurisdiction (October 2007) Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4 Decision on Jurisdiction, (Jul 31, 2001). S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL case, award on liability, (Nov 13, 2000) SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No.ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction(Aug 6, 2003) SGS v. Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, (Feb. 12, 2010) SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of The Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (Jan 29, 2004). Siemens A.G. v. Arg., ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award, (Feb. 6, 2007) Southern Pacific Properties Ltd. v. Egypt, Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, (Apr. 14, 1988). Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, award, (May 29, 2003) Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (“Number 2”), award, ICSIDCase No. ARB(AF)/00/3 (Apr 30, 2004) Wena Hotels Ltd. V. Arab Republic ofEgypt, ICSID ARB/98/4,award, (Dec 8, 2000). 其他文件與網路資料 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 200 (9th ed. 2009) C.G. Paulus and S.T. Kargman, Reforming the Process of Sovereign Debt Restructuring: A proposal for A Sovereign Debt Tribunal, Workshop on Debt, Finance and Emerging Issues in Financial Integration, Financing for Development Office (FFD), DESA, 8 and 9 April 2008 Christopher Schreuer, Lecture at the Arbitration Academy for International Law in Paris: The Development of Investment Arbitration (July 5, 2011) Christoph Trebeschy,The Cost of Aggressive Sovereign Debt Policies: How Much is the Private Sector Affected? IMF working paper WP/09/29 (2009). Greek Debt Restructuring and Abaclat v.Argentina – The impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) on the Greek default, CENTER FOR TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION, ARBITRATION AND COMMERCIAL LAW NYU BLOG (Dec 15th, 2013), International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, (Apr. 2006). IMF, Collective Action Clauses: Recent Developments and Issues Prepared by the International Capital Markets 1, 5 (March 25, 2003). IMF, IMF MEMBERS' QUOTAS AND VOTING POWER, AND IMF BOARD OF GOVERNOR. IMF, Proposed Features of a Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 3-4 (2003). IMF, Progress Report to the International Monetary and Financial Committee on Crisis Resolution, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND REPORT 1 (2005). IMF, Sovereign Debt Restructuring—Recent Developments And Implications For The Fund’S Legal And Policy Framework 27 (2013). IMF, PROPOSALS FOR A SOVEREIGN DEBT RESTRUCTURING MECHANISM (SDRM). IMF,The Design and Effectiveness of Collective Action Clauses 2(June 6.2002). Jeff Hornbeck, Argentina’s Defaulted Sovereign Debt: Dealing with the “Holdouts”, U.S. CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (2010). John Taylor, Sovereign Debt Restructuring: A US Perspective, (April 2, 2002). Jonathan Macey, How Argentina's Default Could Be New York's Loss, WALL STREET JOURNAL (April 20, 2014). Kenneth Rogoff & Jeromin Zettelmeyer, Bankruptcy Procedures for Sovereigns: A History of Ideas, 1976-2001 ,49(3) IMF STAFF PAPERS1, (2002). Kevin P. Gallagher, The New Vulture Culture: Sovereign Debt Restructuring and Trade and Investment Treaty 23 (The IDEAs Working Paper Series, Paper no. 02/2011, 2011). Kevin P. Gallagher, Mission Creep: International Investment Agreements and Sovereign Debt Restructuring, INVESTMENT TREATY NEWS (IISD) (JAN.12, 2012). Lee Buchheit & G. Mitu Gulati, “Sovereign Bonds and the Collective Will”, GEORGETOWN-SLOAN PROJECT ON BUSINESS INSTITUTIONS REPORTS 1, 10 (2002). Mark Allen, Sovereign Debt Restructurings and the Domestic Economy Experience in Four Recent Cases Prepared, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (2002). Securing High Investment Protection for EU Investors: A Review of Member States' Model BITs, KOMMERSKOLLEGIUM NATIONAL BOARD OF TRADE (2011). Stephan Kueffner, Correa Defaults on Ecuador Bonds, Seeks Restructuring (Dec. 12, 2008). Stephan W. Schill, German Constitutional Court Rules on Necessity in Argentine Bondholder Case, 11 (20) INSIGHTS (July 31, 2007). S&P Capital IQ,Q4 2013 issue of S&P Capital IQ’s Global Sovereign Debt Credit Risk Report, A Market Driven Perspective 1, 5 Udaibir S. Das et al., Restructuring Sovereign Debt: Lessons from Recent History, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND 4 (2012). Udaibir S. Das et al , Sovereign Debt Restructurings 1950–2010:Literature Survey, Data, and Stylized Facts, IMF WORKING PAPER, WP/12/203, 5 (2012). UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment, UN Doc. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11, Vol. III, 12 (1999). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], Sovereign Debt Restructuring and International Investment Agreement, at 2 (July, 2011). Yan Liu,Collective Action Clauses in International Sovereign Bonds 1 (August 30, 2002). | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/57234 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 主權債務重整(Sovereign Debt Restructuring, SDR)一直都是國家處理主權債務違約問題的重要機制,然而國際間欠缺統一處理主權債務重整之機制或者法規範,因此主權債務投資人無法順利透過爭端解決程序,補償債務重整時之損失。然而在Abaclat and others v. Argentina Republic 與 Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v. Argentine Republic兩起投資仲裁案件後,各界開始關注國際投資條約適用於主權債務重整案件之情形。投資協定是否可能成為外國債券持有人在重整案件下的救濟途徑?更甚地,投資協定是否有可能填補主權債務重整欠缺國際間統一法規制之問題?
本文將從國際投資條約角度,討論國際投資條約對主權債務重整案件之影響與兩者間互動,並從程序法律與實質法律問題分析現代投資條約對於主權債務重整機制之影響。試圖對於國際投資條約適用於主權債務重整之法律問題提出改革建議。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Sovereign Debt Restructuring (SDR) is an effective and important mechanism to solve sovereign debt default problems. However, due to lack of an international regulation or dispute settlement mechanism for foreign bondholders, the bondholders have no effective methods for seeking compensation under the sovereign debt restructuring process.
After two cases, Abaclat and others v. Argentina Republic and Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v. Argentine Republic have attracted much attention in the application of international investment arbitration in sovereign debt restructuring. Can “International Investment Agreement” provide the dispute settlement mechanism for the foreign bondholders? Furthermore, can “International Investment Agreement” solve the problem which of lacking comprehensive mechanism of sovereign debt restructuring? To find the answers of those questions, the dissertation will discuss the complex and controversial relationship between the international investment agreement and the sovereign debt restructuring. And try to provide the policy suggestions of this controversial problem. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T06:38:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R99a21095-1.pdf: 2805409 bytes, checksum: 7f76c4c9ecd0c6e40aaf9f84a93f2b12 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 2 第二節 研究方法 4 第三節 名詞說明 4 第四節 研究範圍 5 第一項 限於私人債權人態樣 5 第二項 不討論國內主權債務重整問題 6 第五節 本文架構 6 第二章 主權債務之概念及其重整之運作 9 第一節 主權債務之定義與特殊性 9 第二節 主權債務重整概念與種類 12 第三節 主權債務重整程序障礙 15 第一項 債權人待遇不一致問題 16 第二項 債權人訴訟競爭問題 17 第三項 少數債權人干擾重整程序問題 18 第四節 契約方法:集體行動條款 19 第一項 集體行動條款之發展歷程 20 第二項 集體行動條款之主要內容 21 第三項 集體行動條款適用實踐遭遇之問題 24 第五節 國際貨幣基金倡議之「主權債務重整機制(SDRM)」 26 第一項 SDRM發展歷程 27 第二項 SDRM設計原理原則 28 第三項 SDRM之具體內容 30 第四項 SDRM之缺陷與可參考之處 33 第六節 評析現存機制對債權人權益保障不足代小結 35 第三章 傳統與現代國際投資條約下的主權債務規範 37 第一節 傳統國際投資條約下主權債務重整衍生法律問題 37 第一項 傳統國際投資條約對主權債務交易工具之規範 38 第二節 主權債券是否具備投資性質與仲裁庭管轄爭議 41 第一項 ICSID公約與雙邊投資保障條約規範爭議 42 第二項 主權債券是否具備投資性質爭議 46 第三節 契約訴訟與條約訴訟管轄競合問題 54 第一項 契約之訴與條約之訴具有獨立且平行之關係 55 第二項 集體行動條款僅能排除傘型條款所提起之投資仲裁 57 第三項 集體行動條款不拘束國際投資仲裁之規範漏洞 58 第四項 契約中制訂排除仲裁條款之可能性 59 第五項 傳統國際投資條約規範無法解決規範漏洞問題 62 第四節 現代國際投資條約下適用主權債務重整之法律問題 65 第一項 現代國際投資條約的規範目的與方向 65 第二項 主權債務重整專章規範態樣 67 第五節 現代國際投資條約之優勢與不足代小結 72 第一項 填補集體行動條款規範漏洞問題 72 第二項 現代國際投資條約仍存有缺陷 73 第四章 主權債務重整所觸發的國際投資條約責任 75 第一節 最惠國待遇與國民待遇 75 第一項 最惠國待遇原則 76 第二項 國民待遇 79 第三項 地主國實施主權債務重整困境 84 第二節 徵收問題 85 第一項 徵收之意涵與要件 86 第二項 單純主權債務違約 88 第三項 扣減主權債券面額價值 91 第四項 強制主權債務重整 95 第三節 公平公正原則 98 第一項 公平公正原則意涵 99 第二項 單純違反債券發行契約 100 第三項 強制主權債務重整 102 第四節 例外條款適用可能性 110 第一項 例外條款之意涵與適用 110 第二項 主權債務重整案件適用例外條款可能性 112 第五節 小結 114 第五章 國際投資條約對主權債務適當性分析與未來改革建議 116 第一節 國際投資仲裁作為解決主權債務重整方法之優勢 116 第一項 國際投資仲裁具備中立性 117 第二項 國際投資仲裁消弭勝訴判決無法執行問題 119 第三項 增強債權人談判籌碼 121 第二節 國際投資仲裁介入主債務重整案件之疑慮 121 第一項 國際投資仲裁較傳統訴訟更可能阻礙主權債務重整 122 第二項 國際投資仲裁介入主權債務重整恐引發主權債務危機 123 第三項 投資仲裁無法解決主權債務重整程核心問題 124 第四項 主權債務案件具備高度專業特性 125 第三節 地主國恣意重整與債券持有人濫訴方為問題核心 126 第四節 主權債務重整機制配合國際投資條約規範 127 第五節 小結 131 第六章 結論 132 參考文獻 135 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 國際投資條約適用於主權債務重整之法律問題及未來改革方向 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Sovereign Debt Restructuring under International Investment Agreement: The Legal Issues and Policy Suggestions | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 102-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 林彩瑜 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李念祖,楊培侃 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 主權債務重整,國際投資條約,主權債務重整機制,集體行動條款,主權債務違約, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | sovereign debt restructuring,international investment agreement,Sovereign Debt Restructuring Mechanism,Collective Action Clauses,sovereign debt default, | en |
dc.relation.page | 147 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2014-07-30 | |
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-103-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.74 MB | 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。