本文選題：用盡當地救濟　切入點：華盛頓公約　出處：《南京師范大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：用盡當地救濟原則是一項古老的國際習慣法規(guī)則。它的發(fā)展過程不是一帆風順的,而是一波三折的。如揭示客觀事物發(fā)展的規(guī)律性,往往表現在其萌發(fā)、產生、發(fā)展、興盛、衰微、替代、悄然重現的過程。在國際投資發(fā)展之初,國際實踐普遍遵循用盡當地救濟原則,廣大國際法學家也予以贊同。但隨著國際投資的蓬勃發(fā)展,以兩次歷史事件為分割線,用盡當地救濟原則受到了極大的挑戰(zhàn)。隨著1965年國際投資爭端解決中心的建立以及《華盛頓公約》的通過,用盡當地救濟原則作為可選擇項被大為削弱。雖然根據公約用盡當地救濟與國際仲裁可以并存且作為國際仲裁的前置條件,但是之后各國實踐表明,東道國和投資者很少選擇用盡當地救濟作為爭議解決方式。十九世紀八十年代雙邊投資條約的興起,國際投資爭端解決中心的管轄權不再源自東道國與投資者的合同約定,而是源自于東道國和投資者簽訂的雙邊投資條約。國際投資爭端解決中心管轄權的國際地位因雙邊投資條約的廣泛實踐而固定。用盡當地救濟原則被進一步裁汰。我國改革開放實踐三十年來,成功的由資本缺乏的貿易弱國轉型為資本過剩的貿易大國,從請進來到與國際接軌到走出去的無縫對接使得我國從資本輸入大國變?yōu)橘Y本輸出大國。走出去不只是國家的導向政策,從根本上說是以經濟發(fā)展規(guī)律為基礎的必然選擇。身兼資本輸入和資本輸出兩種身份,在引進來和走出去雙向縱深開放的新格局中,如何對待用盡當地救濟原則成為關鍵的新課題。在資本輸入環(huán)節(jié)中,來華的投資主體主要是發(fā)達國家。雖然我國正處于從貿易大國向貿易強國的轉換過程中,但本質上還是一個發(fā)展中國家。因此對于引進來我國仍須采取務實的態(tài)度堅持用盡當地救濟。在資本輸出的環(huán)節(jié)中,我國的對外投資流向地有發(fā)達國家也有發(fā)展中國家。隨著一帶一路的行穩(wěn)致遠地推進,將會有越來越多的發(fā)展中國家成為中國的合作對象。因此在對外投資的過程中,中國對用盡當地救濟原則應當有所取舍,一味堅持用盡當地救濟原則既不符合我國對外投資者的利益,也不利于走出的戰(zhàn)略。
[Abstract]:The principle of exhaustion of local remedies is an ancient rule of customary international law. Its development process is not smooth, but a series of twists and turns. If it reveals the regularity of the development of objective things, it is often manifested in its germination, production, development and prosperity. At the beginning of the development of international investment, international practice generally followed the principle of exhaustion of local remedies, and so did the vast number of international jurists. But with the vigorous development of international investment, The principle of exhaustion of local remedies was greatly challenged by the separation of two historical events. With the establishment of the International Centre for settlement of Investment disputes in 1965 and the adoption of the Washington Convention, The principle of exhaustion of local remedies as an optional item is considerably weakened... while exhaustion of local remedies and international arbitration may coexist and are pre-conditions for international arbitration under the Convention, subsequent State practice has shown that. Host countries and investors rarely choose to exhaust local remedies as a means of dispute settlement. With the emergence of bilateral investment treaties in the 1880s, the jurisdiction of the International Centre for settlement of Investment disputes (ICSID) no longer derives from contractual agreements between host countries and investors, The international status of the International Centre for settlement of Investment disputes (ICSID) is fixed by the extensive practice of bits. The principle of exhaustion of local remedies is further reduced. Over the past 30 years of reform and opening up, A successful transition from a weak, capital-starved trading country to a large trading country with excess capital, The seamless docking from invitation to international integration to the outside world has transformed our country from a large capital importing country to a large capital exporting country. Going out is not just a country's guiding policy. Fundamentally speaking, it is an inevitable choice based on the laws of economic development. How to deal with the principle of exhaustion of local remedies has become a key new issue. In the process of capital input, the main investors coming to China are mainly developed countries. Although China is in the process of transforming from a big trading country to a powerful trading country, But it is still a developing country in essence. Therefore, we still have to adopt a pragmatic attitude towards bringing in our country and insist on exhausting local remedies. China's foreign investment flows to both developed and developing countries. With Belt and Road's steady progress, more and more developing countries will become the object of China's cooperation. Therefore, in the process of outward investment, China should choose and choose from the principle of exhaustion of local remedies and blindly adhere to the principle of exhaustion of local remedies is neither in the interests of our foreign investors nor conducive to the strategy of going out.
【學位授予單位】：南京師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D996.4

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 徐樹;;國際投資條約“雙軌”執(zhí)行機制的沖突及協調[J];法商研究;2017年02期

2 陳正健;;投資者與國家爭端解決中的國家反訴[J];法商研究;2017年01期

3 王露陽;;ISDS中投資者與東道國權益平衡性探究——美國路徑轉變及對中國的啟示[J];河北法學;2016年12期

4 雋薪;;將人權納入投資規(guī)則:國際投資體制改革中的機遇與挑戰(zhàn)[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2016年05期

5 馬冉;;國際投資爭端中涉文化爭端的法律問題研究——以公平公正待遇與征收條款的適用為視角[J];上海對外經貿大學學報;2016年05期

6 黃世席;;歐盟國際投資仲裁法庭制度的緣起與因應[J];法商研究;2016年04期

7 曾華群;;論雙邊投資條約范本的演進與中國的對策[J];國際法研究;2016年04期

8 張慶麟;;歐盟投資者-國家爭端解決機制改革實踐評析[J];法商研究;2016年03期

9 安曉明;;我國“一帶一路”研究脈絡與進展[J];區(qū)域經濟評論;2016年02期

10 殷敏;;用盡當地救濟原則在區(qū)域貿易協定中的適用[J];上海對外經貿大學學報;2016年01期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 殷敏;外交保護法律制度及其發(fā)展勢態(tài)[D];華東政法大學;2007年

相關碩士學位論文 前3條

1 王帥;用盡當地救濟原則研究[D];華東政法大學;2011年

2 鄭佳;論用盡當地救濟原則[D];西南政法大學;2008年

3 唐伯軍;論歐洲人權司法機制下的用盡當地救濟規(guī)則[D];中國政法大學;2003年

，

本文編號：1662380