国际投资法中的“相同情形”法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-07-12 20:16

本文选题：国民待遇 + 相同情形　；参考：《西南政法大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：新近签订的国际投资条约越来越多地规定投资的国民待遇，并明确指出国民待遇的适用条件即“相同情形（similar situations、like circumstances)”。而在世界贸易组织（WTO）体制下的国际贸易法领域中，国民待遇原则的适用则存在有“同类产品（like products）”的标准。国际投资仲裁中对国际投资国民待遇的“相同情形”的解释方法，与GATT/WTO体制下专家组对“同类产品”的解释方法具有一定的可比性。实践中，国际投资仲裁的一些案件运用GATT/WTO的争端解决机构对“同类产品”的解释来解释投资法中的“相同情形”，这尤其体现在北美自由贸易协议（NAFTA）背景下早期的一些案件中。但是，近年来出现的某些投资仲裁案件对此种方法提出了反对。为此，有必要在审查贸易问题与投资问题存在的区别基础上，对实际投资仲裁案例中的司法借鉴方法做出客观评价，以对我国应采取的立场做出指引。通过文献归纳总结、案例探讨和比较分析的方法，本文以国民待遇跨领域适用为核心，分析国民待遇规则在国际贸易法领域和国际投资法领域不同的适用方式和条件，探讨两种适用方式的共通和差异之处。从现有国际投资仲裁实践案例中洞察不同领域的规则适用路径及规则借鉴方式，并以理论分析方式探讨国际投资仲裁实践做法的合理性和正当性，对我国在外商投资待遇立法、双边投资协议签订和国际投资争端中应采取的立场提出建议。本论文拟通过以下四个部分展开论述：第一章介绍国际投资法中的国民待遇标准，指出目前国内研究存在的不足之处，通过考察现有国际投资协议和相关文件中频繁出现的国民待遇条款，说明在多数国际文件中“相同情形”是投资国民待遇原则适用的具体条件之一，由此指出对“相同情形”概念界定的重要性。第二章梳理目前涉及国际投资国民待遇条款的国际投资争端，剖析仲裁庭和法院解释投资国民待遇标准的方法，并进一步分析具体案件对作为国民待遇适用条件的“相同情形”术语的解释，指出对“相同情形”条件尚没有统一的解释方法。第三章从实践案例出发，指出投资争端中存在借鉴贸易法对“同类产品”概念解释方法解释投资法“相同情形”的普遍做法。为探讨此种跨领域适用国民待遇原则做法的合理性与否，该章首先回顾国际贸易法中国民待遇适用条件“同类产品”的解释方法；接着通过分析涉及贸易法和投资法规则借鉴的国际投资仲裁案件，洞察“同类产品”解释与“相同情形”解释存在的共通和差异之处；然后结合近些年反对两个领域规则借鉴的国际投资仲裁实践，以及国际贸易法和国际投资法的不同适用背景，对实践中存在的此种司法借鉴做法做出较为客观的评价。第四章审查我国给予外资国民待遇的总体状况，说明我国现有有关外资国民待遇的国内立法尚有不符合国民待遇之处，同时我国签订的双边投资协议给予外资的国民待遇有较多限制。结合投资法发展趋势和我国目前的经济形势，指出我国在国内投资立法、投资协议签订及国际投资争端中应采取的立场。
[Abstract]:The newly signed international investment treaties more and more stipulate the national treatment of investment, and clearly point out that the application condition of national treatment is "similar situations, like circumstances". In the field of International Trade Law under the World Trade Organization (WTO) system, the application of the principle of national treatment exists "similar products." The standard of "(like products)". The "same situation" in international investment arbitration in international investment arbitration has a certain comparability with the interpretation method of "similar products" by the expert group under the GATT/WTO system. In practice, some cases of international investment arbitration use the dispute settlement agency of GATT/WTO to "similar products." It explains the "same situation" in the investment law, especially in some early cases in the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, in recent years, some of the investment arbitration cases have been opposed to this method. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the differences between trade and investment issues on the basis of the differences. The judicial reference method in the actual investment arbitration case makes an objective evaluation in order to guide our country's position.
Through the literature summary, case study and comparative analysis, this paper takes the application of the national treatment as the core, analyzes the different applicable ways and conditions of the national treatment rules in the field of international trade law and the field of international investment law, and probes into the common and discrepancy of the two applicable ways. This paper probes into the applicable ways and rules for reference of rules in different fields, and discusses the rationality and legitimacy of the practice of international investment arbitration by means of theoretical analysis, and puts forward suggestions on China's legislative proposals on the treatment of foreign investment, the signing of bilateral investment agreements and the international investment dispute. This paper is intended to pass through the following four departments. The sub expansion is discussed.
The first chapter introduces the standard of national treatment in the international investment law, points out the shortcomings of the current domestic research, and shows that the "same situation" in most international documents is one of the specific conditions for the application of the principle of the treatment of the people and people in most international documents. It points out the importance of defining the concept of "the same situation".
The second chapter combs the international investment disputes which involves the national treatment provisions of international investment, analyzes the methods of the arbitration tribunal and the court to explain the standard of the national treatment of investment, and further analyzes the explanation of the "same situation" terms as the conditions applicable to the national treatment, pointing out that there is no unified solution to the conditions of the "same situation". Release the method.
The third chapter, starting from the practice case, points out that there is a general practice of explaining the "same situation" by the method of trade law to explain the "same situation" in the concept of "similar products" in the investment dispute. In order to discuss the rationality of the practice of applying the principle of national treatment in such a cross field, the chapter first takes back to the applicable conditions of the national treatment in the international trade law " By analyzing the international investment arbitration cases involving the rules of Trade Law and investment law, we can see the common and discrepancy between the interpretation of "similar products" and "the same situation", and then combine the international investment arbitration practice which is used in recent years against the rules of the two fields, and international The different applicable backgrounds of Trade Law and international investment law make a more objective evaluation of the practice of judicial reference in practice.
The fourth chapter examines the overall situation of the national treatment given to foreign capital in our country. It shows that the existing domestic legislation on the national treatment of foreign capital is not in accordance with the national treatment, while the national treatment of the bilateral investment agreements signed by our country has more restrictions. China's position in domestic investment legislation, investment agreement signing and international investment disputes should be taken.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.4

【参考文献】