论国际投资仲裁对国家主权的挑战--兼评美国的应对之策及其启示被引量：40

导出

摘要 20世纪90年代以来的一系列国际投资仲裁实践逐渐打破了《解决国家与他国国民间投资争议的公约》所确立的有节制的国际投资仲裁体制,形成了国际投资仲裁的多元化发展趋势。当前国际投资法保护投资者利益的规定,增加了东道国的义务和风险,从而对国家主权形成了挑战与冲击。为应对国际投资仲裁引发的主权危机,美国从程序法和实体法两个方面采取了一系列的改革措施,以期维护自身作为东道国的主权利益。中国作为吸收外资最多的发展中国家之一,也应正视国际投资仲裁可能带来的主权危机,重新认识国际投资条约在吸收外资中的作用,慎重考虑国际投资仲裁风险的防范问题。

作者刘笋

机构地区中南财经政法大学法学院教授、博士生导师

出处《法商研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2008年第3期3-13,共11页 Studies in Law and Business

基金国家社会科学基金(05BFX050) 教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题资助项目(04JZD0015)

关键词国际投资仲裁国家主权实体法程序法国际投资条约

分类号 D996.8 [政治法律—经济法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献27

1Paolo Di Rosa, The Recent Wave of Arbitrations Against Argentina Under Bilateral Investment Treaties: Background and Principal Legal Issues, University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, Vol. 36, 2004.
2David A. Gantz, The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAFTA to the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, American University International Law Review, Vol. 19, 2004.
3余劲松.外资的公平与公正待遇问题研究——由NAFTA的实践产生的几点思考[J].法商研究,2005,22(6):41-48. 被引量：40
4Susan D. Franck, The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Arbitrationz Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 73, 2005.
5Susan D. Franck, The Nature and Enforcement of Investor Rights under Investment Treaties: Does Investment Treaties have a Bright Future?, U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol. 12, 2005.
6Mondev Int'l Ltd. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2,Award(Oct. 11, 2002), para. 126.
7Loewen Group, Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award(June 26, 2003), para. 56-70.
8Benjamin Klafter, International Commercial Arbitration as Appellate Review: NAFTA's Chapter 11, Exhaustion of Local Remedies and Res Judicata, U. C. Davis Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 12, 2006.
9Azinian v. Mexico, ICSID Review Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 14, 1999.
10David A. Gantz, The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAFTA to the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, American University International Law Review, Vol. 19,2004.

二级参考文献13

1See Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. The Government of Canada, http://wol, international, gc. ca/minpub/Publication, asp? publication_id=37831 &Language= E.
2See S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, 40 I. L.M. 1408, 1437 (NAFTA Arb. Trib. Nov. 13, 2000).
3See Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, 40 I. L. M. 36 (2001).
4See NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions 2 (2001) clarifying that article 1105 embodies the customary international law standard for determining possible violations of "fair and equitable treatment" and "full protection and security", see httpt//WWW, naftaclaims, com/Papers/July%2031%202001%20NAFTA%20FTC%20Statement. pdf.
5See David A. Gantz, The Evolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAFTA to the United States - Chile Free Trade Agreement, 19 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 679, 715 (2004).
6A. Roth,The Minium Standard of International Law Applied to Aliens(1949),p. 99.
7See R. Lillich, Duties of States Regarding Civil Rights of Aliens, Recueil des Cours (1978) ,p. 350.
8See J. H. W. Verzvjl, International Law in Historical Perspective(1972) ,p. 438.
9See Mondev v. United States, 42 I. L. M. 85 (2003).
10See ADF Group, Inc. v. United States, paras. 44-45 (ICSID Jan. 9,2003), http://WWW, worldbank, org/iesid/eases/ADF-a-ward. pdf.