國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-05-29 09:40
【摘要】：保護(hù)國(guó)家根本安全利益的權(quán)利作為條約承諾的例外,已經(jīng)在條約實(shí)踐中建立起來(lái)。經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,簡(jiǎn)稱經(jīng)合組織OECD)投資協(xié)議、北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定(North American Free Trade Agreement,簡(jiǎn)稱NAFTA)投資協(xié)議、一些雙邊投資條約和國(guó)際協(xié)定中都列入了明確的例外或排除性條款,以確保國(guó)家為了根本安全利益而采取行動(dòng)。盡管國(guó)家加入了某一條約,但條約中的承諾不能阻止國(guó)家為了根本安全利益而采取措施。在國(guó)際投資立法中,關(guān)于根本安全利益例外的條款有多常見?他們的范圍是什么?是如何來(lái)處理根本安全利益例外條款的?國(guó)家是否有權(quán)自行適用這些根本安全利益例外條款,即國(guó)家是否可以自行判定?在根本安全利益例外條款問(wèn)題上是否有相應(yīng)的習(xí)慣國(guó)際法?國(guó)際仲裁庭是如何解讀根本安全利益例外條款的?中國(guó)對(duì)根本安全利益例外條款該如何把握?等等所有這些使得本文有了對(duì)國(guó)際投資法中根本安全利益例外條款進(jìn)行研究的必要。 根本安全利益例外條款是二戰(zhàn)后開始的美國(guó)友好、通商和航海條約的固定元素。在20世紀(jì)50年代后期,根本安全利益例外條款從早期的友好、通商和航海條約中移植到德國(guó)的雙邊條約中。第一個(gè)包括根本安全利益例外條款的投資條約是德國(guó)的第一個(gè)雙邊投資條約,即1959年的德國(guó)—巴基斯坦雙邊條約。根本安全利益例外條款幾乎可以在這之后的每一個(gè)德國(guó)雙邊投資條約中找到。同樣美國(guó)訂立的第一個(gè)雙邊投資條約,即1982年美國(guó)—巴拿馬雙邊投資條約也包含了根本安全利益例外條款。并且這之后美國(guó)的每一個(gè)雙邊投資條約都包含這個(gè)條款。 雖然雙邊投資條約成為學(xué)術(shù)界研究的熱點(diǎn),但雙邊投資條約中經(jīng)�？梢姷母景踩胬鈼l款并沒有得到非常多的關(guān)注。然而,根本安全利益例外條款在國(guó)際投資法中是相對(duì)比較廣泛傳播的。這類條款在諸如德國(guó)、印度、比利時(shí)—盧森堡聯(lián)盟、加拿大和美國(guó)的雙邊投資條約中頻繁出現(xiàn),在國(guó)際金融體系中起著重要的作用。這類條款在許多其他國(guó)家的特定的雙邊投資關(guān)系條約中也會(huì)偶爾出現(xiàn)。在目前發(fā)生效力的2000個(gè)左右的雙邊投資條約中,根本安全利益例外條款至少出現(xiàn)在其中的200個(gè)條約中。1 從更普遍的意義上來(lái)說(shuō),雙邊投資條約中根本安全利益例外條款的流行對(duì)國(guó)際投資法制度具有非常重要的影響。雙邊投資條約長(zhǎng)久以來(lái)被認(rèn)為是非常強(qiáng)有力的投資者保護(hù)的法律工具,它為跨界投資提供了深遠(yuǎn)的保護(hù)。例如,美國(guó)參議院對(duì)外關(guān)系委員會(huì)就斷言,雙邊投資條約的首要目的就是鼓勵(lì)和保護(hù)美國(guó)在發(fā)展中國(guó)家的投資。然而,根本安全利益例外條款的存在表明,那些保護(hù)不適用于處于極端風(fēng)險(xiǎn)中的國(guó)際投資例外或危機(jī)情況。 對(duì)雙邊投資條約的傳統(tǒng)理解是,東道國(guó)承諾通過(guò)此條約不傷害外國(guó)投資者,或至少要承擔(dān)費(fèi)用,如果東道國(guó)如此做的話。根本安全利益例外條款起著風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分配的作用。它將例外情形下?lián)p害投資者的費(fèi)用從東道國(guó)轉(zhuǎn)移給投資者。在包括根本安全利益例外的雙邊投資條約下,東道國(guó)必須對(duì)平常環(huán)境下違反條約對(duì)投資者的損害進(jìn)行賠償。但在特殊的例外情形,如阿根廷金融危機(jī)情形下,根本安全利益例外條款將風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移給了投資者,國(guó)家就有可能無(wú)須為違反雙邊投資條約所采取的措施負(fù)責(zé)。在一個(gè)比以往更全球化的世界中,各種例外情形都有可能包括進(jìn)根本安全利益例外條款中,如金融危機(jī)、恐怖威脅、公共健康緊急情況等,都非常普遍,根本安全利益例外條款根本上限制著對(duì)外國(guó)投資者的保護(hù)制度。根本安全利益例外條款的解釋和適用,對(duì)確定國(guó)家應(yīng)對(duì)例外情形下的自由和根據(jù)雙邊投資條約賦予投資保護(hù)的范圍有著非常關(guān)鍵性的作用。 本文將集中探討阿根廷應(yīng)對(duì)2000年至2002年經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)所涉及的提交給ICSID仲裁庭的第一波仲裁裁決浪潮中的四個(gè)案例。阿根廷的系列案件對(duì)于投資者與國(guó)家之間的未來(lái)仲裁的重要性很難再被夸大了。阿根廷為應(yīng)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)所采取的保護(hù)公共秩序和安全,保護(hù)國(guó)家根本安全利益的措施是否是根據(jù)美國(guó)—阿根廷之間的雙邊條約第11條中規(guī)定的必需的不可阻止的措施?四個(gè)案件的仲裁庭對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題給予了直接回答。其中二個(gè)仲裁庭接受了阿根廷援引根本安全利益例外條款措施的必需性的抗辯,而另外二個(gè)仲裁庭卻拒絕了阿根廷援引根本安全利益例外條款措施的必需性的抗辯。在基本相同的事實(shí)面前,其中的二個(gè)仲裁庭認(rèn)定根本安全利益例外條款不能適用,并且判定阿根廷要為違反雙邊投資條約給投資者造成的損失負(fù)責(zé)。但另外二個(gè)仲裁庭卻認(rèn)定阿根廷援引根本安全利益例外條款是合理的,從而判定阿根廷無(wú)須為在經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)情況下所必需的時(shí)期內(nèi)對(duì)投資者造成的損害負(fù)責(zé)。這些仲裁庭不同的判決對(duì)根本安全利益例外條款的解釋和適用提出了一個(gè)很重要的問(wèn)題。根本安全利益例外條款究竟給予國(guó)家在危機(jī)情形下采取措施而不違反雙邊投資條約多少自由?雙邊投資條約的確像被人們認(rèn)為的那樣是一種保護(hù)投資者的強(qiáng)有力形勢(shì)嗎?在什么樣的情形下,根本安全利益例外條款是可以被援引的?援引根本安全利益例外條款后,國(guó)家與投資者的責(zé)任與賠償?shù)暮蠊鞘裁?最終,是國(guó)家還是投資者來(lái)承擔(dān)國(guó)家應(yīng)對(duì)例外情形下采取措施的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與損失?這一系列的仲裁裁決值得關(guān)注。由于一系列的關(guān)于根本安全利益例外條款案件的出現(xiàn),根本安全利益例外條款并不是純粹的理論,而是具有重要的司法實(shí)踐意義。 而BIT等國(guó)際投資協(xié)議中有關(guān)根本安全利益例外條款的規(guī)定,無(wú)論是對(duì)吸收海外投資的東道國(guó),還是對(duì)投資者母國(guó)而言,它都是保護(hù)本國(guó)投資利益的重要內(nèi)容,如何妥善規(guī)定該條款內(nèi)容,是值得權(quán)衡的策略性選擇。在這方面,阿根廷的教訓(xùn)也給我國(guó)雙邊投資條約等國(guó)際投資立法的完善提供了有益的借鑒。 本文從結(jié)構(gòu)上來(lái)說(shuō),全文除了導(dǎo)言和結(jié)束語(yǔ)外,正文共分六章。 第一章國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款概述。該章分四節(jié),其中,第一節(jié)論述了國(guó)際投資立法的新發(fā)展,第二節(jié)論述了根本安全利益例外條款的概念,第三節(jié)論述了根本安全利益例外條款的法理基礎(chǔ),第四節(jié)論述了國(guó)際投資法中援引根本安全利益例外條款的條件,第五節(jié)論述了根本安全利益例外條款的解釋與應(yīng)用的系統(tǒng)性影響。 第二章美國(guó)國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款。該章分三節(jié)。其中,第一節(jié)美國(guó)國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款概述,第二節(jié)美國(guó)國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款內(nèi)容,第三節(jié)對(duì)美國(guó)國(guó)際投資法中根本安全利益例外條款的評(píng)價(jià)。 第三章NAFTA關(guān)于根本安全利益條款的理論與實(shí)踐。該章分三節(jié)。其中,第一節(jié)NAFTA關(guān)于根本安全利益例外條款的規(guī)定,第二節(jié)NAFTA關(guān)于根本安全利益例外條款的司法實(shí)踐,第三節(jié)對(duì)NAFTA根本安全利益例外條款的評(píng)價(jià)。 第四章歐盟國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款。該章分三節(jié)。其中,第一節(jié)歐盟國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款概述,第二節(jié)歐盟法院關(guān)于根本安全利益例外條款的司法實(shí)踐,第三節(jié)對(duì)歐盟根本安全利益例外條款的評(píng)析。 第五章ICSID中根本安全利益例外條款的司法實(shí)踐。該章分三節(jié)。其中,第一節(jié)ICSID關(guān)于根本安全利益例外條款案件類案不同判,第二節(jié)ICSID對(duì)四起案件類案不同判的理由,第三節(jié)ICSID根本安全利益例外條款案裁決的思考。 第六章中國(guó)國(guó)際投資法中的根本安全利益例外條款分析及中國(guó)對(duì)策建議。該章分三節(jié)。其中,第一節(jié)中國(guó)有關(guān)根本安全利益例外條款的締約實(shí)踐及價(jià)值,第二節(jié)中美雙邊投資協(xié)定(BIT)的談判,第三節(jié)中國(guó)完善根本安全利益例外條款的對(duì)策建議。
[Abstract]:The right to protect the fundamental interests of the State as an exception to the treaty commitments has been established in treaty practice. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) investment agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) investment agreement, a number of bilateral investment treaties and international agreements have included explicit exceptions or exclusionary clauses, In order to ensure that the State takes action for the fundamental security interests. Despite the fact that the State had acceded to a treaty, the commitments under the Treaty could not prevent States from taking measures for the sake of fundamental security interests. How often are the provisions on the exception of fundamental security interests in international investment legislation? What is their range? How do I deal with the basic safety benefit exception clause? Does the State have the right to apply these fundamental security exception clauses on its own, that is, whether the State can decide on its own? Is there a corresponding customary international law on the question of the fundamental safety benefit exception clause? How does the international arbitral tribunal interpret the exception clause of the fundamental security interest? How to hold that exception clause for fundamental security benefit in China? All of these make this article necessary to study the fundamental safety benefit exception clause in the international investment law. The fundamental security interest exception clause is the fixing of American friendship, trade and navigation treaties that began after World War II Elemental. In the late 1950s, the fundamental security exception clause was transplanted from the early friendly, trade and navigation treaties to Germany's bilateral The first investment treaty, including the fundamental security exception clause, is the first bilateral investment treaty in Germany, which is the first bilateral investment treaty in Germany in 1959 The fundamental security interest exception clause can be applied to almost every German bilateral investment treaty after that The first bilateral investment treaty in the United States, the United States and Panama's bilateral investment treaty in 1982, also included an exception to the fundamental security interests The terms. And then every bilateral investment treaty in the United States includes this. Article. Although bilateral investment treaties have become a hot spot in academic research, the fundamental safety benefit exception clause that is often visible in bilateral investment treaties is not available There are many concerns. However, the fundamental security exception clause is relatively comparable in the international investment law Such provisions are widely disseminated in bilateral investment treaties, such as Germany, India, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada and the United States, and play a role in the international financial system The important role of these provisions is also in the specific bilateral investment relationship treaties of many other countries It will occasionally appear. In the current 2000 bilateral investment treaties, the underlying security benefit exception clause is at least 200 in a treaty.1 from more In general, the prevalence of the fundamental security interests exception clause in the bilateral investment treaties is for the international investment law system There is a very important impact. Bilateral investment treaties have long been regarded as a very strong legal instrument for investor protection, which is a cross-border investment far-reaching protection is provided. For example, the United States Senate Foreign Relations Commission has asserted that the primary purpose of BITs is to encourage and protect the United States Investment in developing countries. However, the existence of the fundamental security exception clause indicates that those protections do not apply to international investment in extreme risk An exception or a crisis situation. The traditional understanding of BITs is that the host country is committed to not hurting foreign investors through this treaty, or at least at the expense of the host country If the host country does so, the fundamental security interest exception The terms play a role in the distribution of risks. It will, in exceptional circumstances, damage the cost of the investor Transfer from the host country to the investor. Under the bilateral investment treaties, including the fundamental security interests, the host country must be in breach of the treaty in the ordinary circumstances Compensation for damage to investors, but in exceptional exceptional circumstances, such as the Argentine financial crisis, the underlying security interest exception clause transfers the risk to the investor, and the State may not need to be in violation of bilateral investment The measures taken by the treaty are responsible. In a world that is more globalized than in the past, all exceptions may be included in the fundamental security exception clause, such as the financial crisis, the terrorist threat, the public health, The emergency and so on are very common, and the fundamental safety benefit exception clause is fundamentally limited The system of protection for foreign investors. The interpretation and application of the fundamental security interests exception clause is the case for determining the freedom of the State to deal with exceptional circumstances and the protection of investment in accordance with BITs. This paper will focus on the role of Argentina in the submission of the 2000-2002 economic crisis to the ICSID arbitral tribunal The four cases in the wave of a wave of arbitral awards. Argentina's series of cases are between the investor and the country The importance of the arbitration is very difficult to be overstated. Argentina's measures to protect public order and security for the economic crisis and to protect the fundamental interests of the State are based on article 11 of the bilateral treaties between the United States and Argentina The necessary and non-stoppable measures specified in the following: the secondary of the four cases The tribunal gave a direct answer to the question, in which the two arbitral tribunals had accepted the defence of the necessity of invoking the fundamental security interest exception clause in Argentina, while the other two arbitral tribunals had rejected Argentina's invocation of the fundamental safety interest A plea of the necessity of an exception clause. In the same facts, the two arbitral tribunals found that the fundamental security exception clause could not be applied and that Argentina would be in violation of bilateral investment The loss of a treaty to an investor is the responsibility of the investor, but the other two arbitral tribunals have found that Argentina's invocation of the fundamental security exception clause is reasonable in order to determine that Argentina need not be required to be in the context of the economic crisis In the period of time, the damage to the investors is the responsibility of the investors. The different decisions of these arbitral tribunals have an explanation of the exception of the fundamental security interests and the application of the basic safety benefit exception clause gives the State the measures to take measures in the context of the crisis And how much freedom is it not a violation of a bilateral investment treaty? The bilateral investment treaties do, as people think, Is it a strong situation to protect investors? Under what circumstances, it's essential A full-benefit exception clause can be invoked? After invoking the fundamental security benefit exception clause, the State and the vote What is the consequence of the liability and the compensation of the financier? In the end, it is the State or the investor to bear the national response Risk and loss of measures in the event of an out-of-case basis ? This series of arbitral awards is of great concern. The fundamental safety benefit exception clause is not a pure theory due to a series of occurrences of an exception clause on fundamental security interests It is not only the host country to absorb the overseas investment, but also the home country of the investor, it is the protection of the national investment benefit. What is the important content and how to properly set the rules The content of this article is a strategic choice that is worthy of trade-off. In this regard, the lessons of Argentina are also given to our bilateral investment treaties, etc. The improvement of international investment legislation provides a useful reference. This paper is from the structure In addition to the introduction and the concluding remarks, the text is divided into six chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of the exception clause of the fundamental security interests in the international investment law. The chapter is divided into four sections, in which section I discusses the new development of the international investment legislation, and the second section discusses the basic safety benefit exception clause. In the third section, the legal basis of the exception clause of the fundamental safety benefit is discussed in the third section, and the conditions for invoking the basic safety benefit exception clause in the international investment law are discussed in the fourth section. The explanation and the systemic effect of the basic safety benefit exception clause the second The fundamental security interest exception clause in the United States international investment law. This chapter is divided into three sections, in which the first section provides an overview of the fundamental security interest exception clause in the U.S. international investment law, section II, the basic safety benefit exception clause in the U.S. international investment law III. Comments on the exception of the fundamental security interests in the United States international investment law Price. 3. The theory and practice of NAFTA on the fundamental safety benefit clauses. The chapter is divided into three sections, in which, the first part of NAFTA is related to the provisions of the basic safety benefit exception clause, and the second section NAFTA is about the basic safety benefit exception. The judicial practice of the section, Section III, the fundamental safety benefit of NAFTA Evaluation of the external terms Chapter IV The fundamental security interest exception clause in the European Union's international investment law. This chapter is divided into three sections, in which section I of the European Union International Investment Law provides an overview of the fundamental security interest exception clause, section II of the European Union Court of Justice on the fundamental safety The judicial practice of the all-interest exception clause, and the third section is the fundamental security interest of the EU Comments on the exception clause Analysis. Chapter 5 Judicial practice of the exception clause of the fundamental safety benefit in ICSID. This chapter is divided into three sections, in which, the first ICSID is different from the case class case of the fundamental safety benefit exception clause, and the second ICSID is four The reason for the different judgment of the case case, and the case of the exception clause of the fundamental safety benefit of the ICSID in Section III Think about it. Chapter VI The Analysis of the Basic Security Interests and the Suggestions on China's Countermeasures in China's International Investment Law. This chapter is divided into three sections. In this section, the first section is the first section of China's practice and value of the exception clause of the fundamental security interests, and the second section
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D996.4
本文編號(hào)：2487838
[Abstract]:The right to protect the fundamental interests of the State as an exception to the treaty commitments has been established in treaty practice. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) investment agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) investment agreement, a number of bilateral investment treaties and international agreements have included explicit exceptions or exclusionary clauses, In order to ensure that the State takes action for the fundamental security interests. Despite the fact that the State had acceded to a treaty, the commitments under the Treaty could not prevent States from taking measures for the sake of fundamental security interests. How often are the provisions on the exception of fundamental security interests in international investment legislation? What is their range? How do I deal with the basic safety benefit exception clause? Does the State have the right to apply these fundamental security exception clauses on its own, that is, whether the State can decide on its own? Is there a corresponding customary international law on the question of the fundamental safety benefit exception clause? How does the international arbitral tribunal interpret the exception clause of the fundamental security interest? How to hold that exception clause for fundamental security benefit in China? All of these make this article necessary to study the fundamental safety benefit exception clause in the international investment law. The fundamental security interest exception clause is the fixing of American friendship, trade and navigation treaties that began after World War II Elemental. In the late 1950s, the fundamental security exception clause was transplanted from the early friendly, trade and navigation treaties to Germany's bilateral The first investment treaty, including the fundamental security exception clause, is the first bilateral investment treaty in Germany, which is the first bilateral investment treaty in Germany in 1959 The fundamental security interest exception clause can be applied to almost every German bilateral investment treaty after that The first bilateral investment treaty in the United States, the United States and Panama's bilateral investment treaty in 1982, also included an exception to the fundamental security interests The terms. And then every bilateral investment treaty in the United States includes this. Article. Although bilateral investment treaties have become a hot spot in academic research, the fundamental safety benefit exception clause that is often visible in bilateral investment treaties is not available There are many concerns. However, the fundamental security exception clause is relatively comparable in the international investment law Such provisions are widely disseminated in bilateral investment treaties, such as Germany, India, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada and the United States, and play a role in the international financial system The important role of these provisions is also in the specific bilateral investment relationship treaties of many other countries It will occasionally appear. In the current 2000 bilateral investment treaties, the underlying security benefit exception clause is at least 200 in a treaty.1 from more In general, the prevalence of the fundamental security interests exception clause in the bilateral investment treaties is for the international investment law system There is a very important impact. Bilateral investment treaties have long been regarded as a very strong legal instrument for investor protection, which is a cross-border investment far-reaching protection is provided. For example, the United States Senate Foreign Relations Commission has asserted that the primary purpose of BITs is to encourage and protect the United States Investment in developing countries. However, the existence of the fundamental security exception clause indicates that those protections do not apply to international investment in extreme risk An exception or a crisis situation. The traditional understanding of BITs is that the host country is committed to not hurting foreign investors through this treaty, or at least at the expense of the host country If the host country does so, the fundamental security interest exception The terms play a role in the distribution of risks. It will, in exceptional circumstances, damage the cost of the investor Transfer from the host country to the investor. Under the bilateral investment treaties, including the fundamental security interests, the host country must be in breach of the treaty in the ordinary circumstances Compensation for damage to investors, but in exceptional exceptional circumstances, such as the Argentine financial crisis, the underlying security interest exception clause transfers the risk to the investor, and the State may not need to be in violation of bilateral investment The measures taken by the treaty are responsible. In a world that is more globalized than in the past, all exceptions may be included in the fundamental security exception clause, such as the financial crisis, the terrorist threat, the public health, The emergency and so on are very common, and the fundamental safety benefit exception clause is fundamentally limited The system of protection for foreign investors. The interpretation and application of the fundamental security interests exception clause is the case for determining the freedom of the State to deal with exceptional circumstances and the protection of investment in accordance with BITs. This paper will focus on the role of Argentina in the submission of the 2000-2002 economic crisis to the ICSID arbitral tribunal The four cases in the wave of a wave of arbitral awards. Argentina's series of cases are between the investor and the country The importance of the arbitration is very difficult to be overstated. Argentina's measures to protect public order and security for the economic crisis and to protect the fundamental interests of the State are based on article 11 of the bilateral treaties between the United States and Argentina The necessary and non-stoppable measures specified in the following: the secondary of the four cases The tribunal gave a direct answer to the question, in which the two arbitral tribunals had accepted the defence of the necessity of invoking the fundamental security interest exception clause in Argentina, while the other two arbitral tribunals had rejected Argentina's invocation of the fundamental safety interest A plea of the necessity of an exception clause. In the same facts, the two arbitral tribunals found that the fundamental security exception clause could not be applied and that Argentina would be in violation of bilateral investment The loss of a treaty to an investor is the responsibility of the investor, but the other two arbitral tribunals have found that Argentina's invocation of the fundamental security exception clause is reasonable in order to determine that Argentina need not be required to be in the context of the economic crisis In the period of time, the damage to the investors is the responsibility of the investors. The different decisions of these arbitral tribunals have an explanation of the exception of the fundamental security interests and the application of the basic safety benefit exception clause gives the State the measures to take measures in the context of the crisis And how much freedom is it not a violation of a bilateral investment treaty? The bilateral investment treaties do, as people think, Is it a strong situation to protect investors? Under what circumstances, it's essential A full-benefit exception clause can be invoked? After invoking the fundamental security benefit exception clause, the State and the vote What is the consequence of the liability and the compensation of the financier? In the end, it is the State or the investor to bear the national response Risk and loss of measures in the event of an out-of-case basis ? This series of arbitral awards is of great concern. The fundamental safety benefit exception clause is not a pure theory due to a series of occurrences of an exception clause on fundamental security interests It is not only the host country to absorb the overseas investment, but also the home country of the investor, it is the protection of the national investment benefit. What is the important content and how to properly set the rules The content of this article is a strategic choice that is worthy of trade-off. In this regard, the lessons of Argentina are also given to our bilateral investment treaties, etc. The improvement of international investment legislation provides a useful reference. This paper is from the structure In addition to the introduction and the concluding remarks, the text is divided into six chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of the exception clause of the fundamental security interests in the international investment law. The chapter is divided into four sections, in which section I discusses the new development of the international investment legislation, and the second section discusses the basic safety benefit exception clause. In the third section, the legal basis of the exception clause of the fundamental safety benefit is discussed in the third section, and the conditions for invoking the basic safety benefit exception clause in the international investment law are discussed in the fourth section. The explanation and the systemic effect of the basic safety benefit exception clause the second The fundamental security interest exception clause in the United States international investment law. This chapter is divided into three sections, in which the first section provides an overview of the fundamental security interest exception clause in the U.S. international investment law, section II, the basic safety benefit exception clause in the U.S. international investment law III. Comments on the exception of the fundamental security interests in the United States international investment law Price. 3. The theory and practice of NAFTA on the fundamental safety benefit clauses. The chapter is divided into three sections, in which, the first part of NAFTA is related to the provisions of the basic safety benefit exception clause, and the second section NAFTA is about the basic safety benefit exception. The judicial practice of the section, Section III, the fundamental safety benefit of NAFTA Evaluation of the external terms Chapter IV The fundamental security interest exception clause in the European Union's international investment law. This chapter is divided into three sections, in which section I of the European Union International Investment Law provides an overview of the fundamental security interest exception clause, section II of the European Union Court of Justice on the fundamental safety The judicial practice of the all-interest exception clause, and the third section is the fundamental security interest of the EU Comments on the exception clause Analysis. Chapter 5 Judicial practice of the exception clause of the fundamental safety benefit in ICSID. This chapter is divided into three sections, in which, the first ICSID is different from the case class case of the fundamental safety benefit exception clause, and the second ICSID is four The reason for the different judgment of the case case, and the case of the exception clause of the fundamental safety benefit of the ICSID in Section III Think about it. Chapter VI The Analysis of the Basic Security Interests and the Suggestions on China's Countermeasures in China's International Investment Law. This chapter is divided into three sections. In this section, the first section is the first section of China's practice and value of the exception clause of the fundamental security interests, and the second section
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D996.4
【引證文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條
1 宿培;;國(guó)際投資爭(zhēng)端中的公共利益抗辯——以環(huán)境保護(hù)為視角[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年08期
2 郝荻;;BITs中的基本安全利益例外與國(guó)際習(xí)慣法中的危急情況之比較[J];中國(guó)外資;2013年14期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 陳安妮;中外BITs中的NPM條款研究[D];南京大學(xué);2012年
2 劉先軍;國(guó)際投資協(xié)定中的“根本安全利益”條款研究[D];廣東商學(xué)院;2012年
，本文編號(hào)：2487838
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2487838.html
最近更新
教材專著
