請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6341
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 | Li-Kang Weng | en |
dc.contributor.author | 翁立岡 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-16T16:26:33Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2013-02-21 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-16T16:26:33Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-02-21 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-02-07 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文論著
1. 王淑芬著(2006),《企業評價》,台北:華泰文化。 2. 李貴英(2004),《國際投資法專論》,一版,台北:元照。 3. 邱琦(2011),純粹經濟上損失,台灣高等法院100年度研究發展報告。 4. 陳敏(2009),《行政法總論》,六版,台北:自刊。 5. 葉百修(2011),《損失補償法》,一版,台北:新學林。 6. 羅昌發(2010),《國際貿易法》,二版,台北:元照。 Books 1. Copeland, T., Koller, T. & Murrin, J. (2004). Valuation: Measuring and Managing the value of Companies. Wiley. 2. Dolzer, R. (2012). Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford, England: Oxford. 3. Kantor, M (2008). Valuation for Arbitration: Compensation Standards, Valuation Methods and Expert Evidence. Kluwer Law International. 4. Marboe, I. (2009). Calculation of compensation and damages in international investment law. Oxford, England: Oxford. 5. Montt, S. (2009). State Liability in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Global Constitutional and Administrative Law in the BIT Generation. Hart Publishing. 6. Posner, R. A. (2008). How Judges Think. Harvard, MA: Cambridge. 7. Ripinsky, S. & Williams, K. (2009). Damages in International Investment Law. British Ins’t of Int’l & Comparative. 8. Salacuse, Jeswald W. (2010). The Law of Investment Treaties. Oxford, England: Oxford. 9. Shaw, M. N. (2008). International Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10. Sornarajah, M. (2010). The International Law on Foreign Investment, Cambridge, England: Cambridge. Articles / Works in Collection 1. Ball, M. (2001). Assessing Damages in Claims by Investors Against States, 16 ICSID Review 408. 2. Bienvenu, P. & Valasek, M. J. (2009). Compensation for Unlawful Expropriation, and Other Recent Manfestations of the Principle of Full Reparation in International Investment Law. In Albert Jan van den Berg (Ed.), 50 Years of The New York Convention (pp. 231-237). 3. Brower, C.N. & Ottolenghi M. (2007). Damages in Investor State Arbitration, 4:6 Transnational Dispute Management 1. 4. Franck, S. D. (2007). Empirically Evaluating Claims About Investment Treaty Arbitration. 86 North Carolina Law Review 1. 5. Kantor, Mark (2007). Valuation for Arbitration: Uses and Limits of Income-Based Valuation Methods. 4:6 Transnational Dispute Management. 6. Khamsi, K. (2010). Compensation for non-expropriatory investment treaty breaches in the Argentine gas sector cases: issues and implications. In Michael Waibel (Eds.), The blacklash against investment arbitration: Perceptions and reality (pp. 165-185). Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. 7. Kinnear, M. (2007). Damages in Investment Treaty Arbitration. In Katia Yannaca-Small (Ed.), Arbitration Under Investment Agreements 551-598. 8. Marboe, Irmgard (2006). Compensation and Damages In International Law: The Limits of Fair Market Value. 7 Journal of World Investment and Trade 723. 9. Merrill, Thomas W. (2002). Incomplete Compensation for Takings. 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 110. 10. Simmons, J. B. (2012). Valuation in Investor-State Arbitration: Toward a More Exact Science. 30(1) Berkeley Journal of International Law 196. 11. Sloane, R. D. & Reisman, M. W. (2004). Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation. 75 British Yearbook of International Law 115. 12. Stauffer, T. R. (1996). Valuation of Assets in International Takings. 17 Energy Law Journal 459. 13. Tschanz, P-Y & Vinuales, J. E. (2009). Compensation for Non-expropriatory Breaches of International Investment Law. 26(5) Journal of International Arbitration 729. 14. Walde, T.W. & Sabahi, B (2007). Compensation, Damages and Valuation in International Investment Law. 4(6) Transnational Dispute Management 1. Cases 1. ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award, Oct. 2, 2006. 2. AGIP M.Congo AGIP S.p.A. v. People's Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/77/1, Award, Nov. 30, 1979. 3. Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award, Oct. 20, 2010. 4. American International Group, Inc., et al., v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Award No. 93-2-3, 4 IRAN-U.S. C.T.R. 96, December 19, 1983. 5. Amoco International Finance Corp v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 15 Iran—US CTR 189 (1987). 6. Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, Final Award, June 27, 1990. 7. Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, July 14, 2006. 8. BG Grp. PLC v. The Republic of Argentina, Final Award, UNCITRAL, Dec. 24, 2007. 9. Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, Jul 24, 2008. 10. Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow (Germany v Poland), PCIJ Judgment on the Merits, Ser A, No 17, Sept. 13, 1928. 11. CME Czech B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, March 14, 2003. 12. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, May 12, 2005. 13. Compania de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award, Aug. 3, 2007. 14. Compania del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, S.A. v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, Final Award, February 17, 2000. 15. Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Jurisdiction, January. 14, 2004. 16. Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, May 22, 2007. 17. Foremost Tehran Inc et al v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 10 Iran-US CTR 228 (1986). 18. INA Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 184-161-1, 8 IRAN-U.S. C.T.R. 373, 375 (August 13, 1985). 19. International Technical Products v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 9 Iran-US CTR 206 (1985). 20. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision of the Arbitral Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, April 30, 2004. 21. 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, October 3, 2006. 22. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Award, July 25, 2007. 23. Lusitania (United States v. Germany), 7 R.I.A.A. 32, 39 (1923). 24. Marvin Roy Feldman v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award, December 16, 2002. 25. Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, August 30, 2000. 26. Norwegian Shipowners’ Claim (Norway v. United States), Award of Oct. 13 1922, 1 RIAA, 307. 27. Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. The Republic of Latvia, SCC, Arbitral Award, December 16, 2003. 28. Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467, Final Award, July 1, 2004. 29. Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award, October 5, 2012. 30. Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, 21 EHRR 439, October 31, 1995. 31. Phillips Petroleum Company v. Iran, 21 Iran—US CTR 79 (1989). 32. Railroad Development Corporation v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23, Award, June 29, 2012. 33. Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon HizmetleriA.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award, July 21, 2008. 34. S.D. Myers, Inc v. Government of Canada (“SD Myers II”), UNCITRAL, Second Partial Award, October 21, 2002. 35. Sedco Inc v. NIOC, Second Interlocutory Award, Separate Opinion Brower, 10 Iran—US CTR 189 (1986). 36. Sempra Energy International v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, Sept. 18, 2007. 37. Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award, Feb. 6, 2007. 38. Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award, May 20, 1992. 39. Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, May 29, 2003. 40. United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (1943). 41. Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Award, June 1, 2009. 42. Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award, Dec. 8, 2000. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/6341 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 公平市場價值標準(Fair Market Value)是國際投資仲裁庭在認定地主國確有對投資人的投資進行徵收或其他條約違反等補償或賠償責任後,於酌定補償或損害賠償金階段,最常主張並引用的補償或賠償標準。本研究嘗試梳理FMV標準在國際投資法中涉及的法律問題;並以此出發,勾勒出補償與賠償兩體系之差異:補償(compensation)係針對外國投資人受有地主國合法徵收的損失;賠償(damages)則係針對受有地主國涉有國際法上不法責任所致之損害。對於前者,宜按投資保障條約提供即時、適當與有效之補償;對於後者,宜按Chorzow Factory或《國家對國際不法行為的責任條款草案》(Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts)所揭櫫之習慣國際法原則,給予相當於完全損害填補之賠償金。就徵收補償金之酌定,宜以條約所定,符合系爭投資或收益徵收時或前一刻之公平市場價值為標準;而就損害賠償金之酌定,則宜先判斷地主國所致損害程度就整個投資而言是否重要且長遠?若是,宜採徵收時或仲裁時系爭投資的公平市場價值孰高者為標準,計算賠償金;若否,則宜以實際投資(actual investment)或實際損害(actual loss)為標準計算賠償金。在評價方法擇定的問題上,財務及法律實務上通常採用的評價方法大致可歸類為資產基礎制、市場基礎制及收入基礎制三種。若採公平市場價值標準,因涉及整體投資或企業未來獲利的估算,評價方法宜以能充分評價企業未來獲利能力的現金流量折現法為主要評價方法;若採投資價值或實際損害標準,評價方法宜以資產基礎制為主,亦即更重視系爭措施與損害結果間因果關係的舉證。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The question of what standard and amount of compensation should be payable for an investment expropriated by State has enormous effect on whether or not the investors’ loss could be properly recovered. In most Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), the conditions and the standard of compensation for expropriations are usually explicitly specified. As for compensation standard, Fair Market Value (FMV) is widely adopted. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal used to apply the standard without distinguishing the lawfulness of taking. This, however, would not only be unable to evaluate State’s wrongful act sufficiently, but also underestimate the amount of loss Investor suffered when investment value increased after the expropriation. The study tried to clarify the difference between the concept of compensation and damages under international investment law; it further explained why and how to distinguish lawful and unlawful takings, and argued that the unlawful taking, which was beyond the scope of most BITs expropriation articles, should apply the more pro-investor standard in international customary law for compensation. Besides, after discussing and analyzing various valuation methods, the study suggested Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) should be the primary method to achieve FMV. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-16T16:26:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R98a41004-1.pdf: 2445093 bytes, checksum: 7b1122db485e22554e7d2cceb2541213 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究方法 6 第四節 研究範圍 7 第五節 研究架構 11 第二章 徵收補償與損害賠償的區分 13 第一節 國際投資的徵收類型 14 第一項 直接徵收 14 第二項 間接徵收 15 第二節 國際投資法中的合法徵收要件 16 第三節 補償與損害賠償之區辨 20 第四節 合法徵收與非法徵收區別基礎及與補償之關係 26 第一項 是否應區別合法徵收與非法徵收 26 第二項 合法徵收與非法徵收財務效果的差別 28 第五節 非法徵收案件採用習慣國際法救濟標準之指標案例 33 第一項 ADC v. Hungary (2006) 34 第二項 Siemens v. Argentina (2007) 36 第三項 Vivendi v. Argentina (2007) 38 第三章 徵收之補償標準:「公平市場價值」基礎之採用 40 第一節 徵收補償標準之爭論 40 第一項 公正/完整補償 (Just/Full Compensation) 41 第二項 適當補償 (Appropriate Compensation) 42 第二節 「公平市場價值」的定義與內涵 46 第三節 「公平市場價值」與「投資價值」之比較 49 第四節 「公平市場價值」與「市場價值」之比較 53 第五節 公平市場價值作為徵收補償標準的解釋適用 55 第一項 評價基準期日的問題 55 第二項 投保條約徵收補償條款之規定 56 第三項 CDSE v. Costa Rica (2000) 59 第四項 間接徵收評價時點之判斷 60 第四章 公平市場價值適用於損害賠償案件的判斷 62 第一節 非法徵收案件的適用 62 第一項 法源依據 62 第二項 解釋適用 64 第三項 期後事件應納入考量 65 第二節 非屬徵收案件的適用 67 第一項 法源依據 67 第二項 侵害結果尚不構成一投資重要且長遠的損失或剝奪 68 第三項 侵害累積結果構成一投資重要且長遠的損失或剝奪 71 第三節 三種不同類型案件的比較分析 76 第四節 國際投資法上徵收補償與損害賠償體系之建構 78 第五章 公平市場價值之評價方法 83 第一節 評價的意義 83 第二節 常見的企業評價方法 86 第一項 資產基礎制 86 第二項 市場基礎制 92 第三項 收入基礎制 94 第四項 法律上損害賠償範圍與財務上評價方法之整合 96 第三節 現金流量法作為估算公平市場價值標準的主要方法 98 第一項 採用之趨勢與影響 98 第二項 現金流量折現法評價公平市場價值之優越性 99 第三項 採用之基礎:投資具備永續經營價值 102 第四節 超額賠償之避免 103 第一項 徵收案件:扣除殘值或移轉資產 103 第二項 非屬徵收案件:條件測試(but-for test) 104 第五節 對實務上仲裁庭採用情況之評析 105 第六章 結論 107 附件1:重要投保條約徵收補償條款一覽 109 附件2:國際投資仲裁涉及補償及損害賠償案件一覽 115 附件3:仲裁庭採用或拒採現金流量折現法(DCF法)理由 119 參考文獻 123 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 國際投資法中補償與損害賠償之研究:以公平市場價值標準為核心 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Compensation and Damages under International Investment Law: With the Focus on Fair Market Value Standard | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳必然,陳在方 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 國際投資法,投資人-地主國仲裁,投資保障協定,徵收補償標準,非法徵收,損害賠償,損失補償,公平市場價值,實際投資價值,現金流量折現法, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | International investment law,Investor-State arbitration,international investment agreement,expropriation compensation,unlawful expropriation,damages,fair market value,investment value,discounted cash flow, | en |
dc.relation.page | 127 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-02-07 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 科際整合法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 科際整合法律學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf | 2.39 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。