【作者】 王小林；

【导师】 刘亚军；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 国际法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪90年代以来,无论在NAFTA还是在ICSID体制内,投资者都频频对东道国基于维护环境、公共健康、经济调整等而采取的措施提出间接征收指控,严重威胁东道国维护公共利益的能力,促使人们认真对待投资者的私人权益与东道国的主权权力间的明显失衡问题。然而,国际投资协定的相关规定存在严重不足,有关仲裁实践也存在许多问题。因此,人们寻求对间接征收规则进行改革,间接征收成为国际投资法理论与实践的新热点。本文第一章分析了间接征收的定义以及间接征收纠纷增多的原因。长期以来,《保护私人海外投资公约草案》等条约草案、国际投资协定和国际投资争端解决实践都试图界定间接征收。但由于间接征收的复杂性,以及投资者和东道国之间、发达国家和发展中国家之间复杂的利益冲突,使得间接征收难以有统一、精确的定义。当然,人们还是一定程度上取得了共识,即间接征收是指政府措施没有直接转移或剥夺投资者的财产权,但其效果等同于直接征收的情况。间接征收问题日益凸显主要是因为下列原因:(1)各国积极利用外国直接投资,几乎不再直接征收;(2)各国调整经济结构、转变发展方式,使间接征收增多;(3)国家为履行国家职能,需要管制外国投资,并且这种管制日益复杂化;(4)国家加强保护环境、人类健康和安全等公共利益;(5)“投资”定义宽泛、间接征收定义模糊等国际投资法本身存在的缺陷,加剧了间接征收问题。本文第二章阐述了间接征收的形式和对象。间接征收的形式很多,典型的有如下几类:强制转让财产、骚扰投资经营、取消许可或批准、过度或任意征税、违法驱逐外国投资者、完全禁止转让或支配财产、实质干预企业的管理控制权。间接征收的对象是指可被间接征收的财产。根据国际投资协定的规定和间接征收仲裁实践,有形财产和无形财产都是间接征收的对象,但不是所有的无形财产都属于间接征收的对象。在确定间接征收的对象时,有的案例采用了“概念分割法”,将“随财产权而拥有的一组权利”中受到政府措施直接影响的部分予以分割、并解释为“单独的完整的权利”。这种做法可能将各种“财产权利”和“财产利益”都认定为“投资”,不适当地扩大间接征收的范围,因此应该采用“权利整体论”确定间接征收的对象,将其严格限定在国际投资协定规定的“投资”范围内。本文第三章阐释了认定政府措施是否构成间接征收的标准和方法。如何认定政府措施是否构成间接征收是有关仲裁实践和理论研究中争议最大的问题。这一问题的争议非常深刻和生动地体现了投资者利益与国家利益、发展中国家利益与发达国家利益、经济价值与非经济价值之间的冲突。基于对有关仲裁实践的总结和归纳,一般认为认定间接征收的标准有三个:(1)政府措施对投资的影响;(2)政府措施的背景、性质和目的;(3)政府措施对投资者合理期待的干预。第三个标准是仲裁实践普遍采用的。但对于前两个标准,有的案例仅适用第一个标准(此种做法称作“唯一效果方法”),有的二者都适用(此种做法称作“效果兼性质方法”)。“唯一效果方法”聚焦于投资者的利益得失,容易忽视东道国利益,严重影响政府的管制权力,应予摒弃。适当的做法是综合采用三个标准。当然,间接征收的认定标准和方法需要在立法中进一步完善。本文第四章研究了政府不应承担补偿责任的情形,即“治安权例外”。由于间接征收的认定是一个客观基础上的主观过程,即使严格按“效果兼性质方法”认定间接征收,也不能完全排除政府为保护公共健康、安全等公共利益而采取的必要的管制措施被认定为间接征收从而承担补偿责任的可能。因此,为了保证政府的管制权力,根据国家主权原则,对于国家为保护环境、人权以及追求重要的社会和经济目标而采取的管制措施,即使构成间接征收,国家也不应承担补偿责任。这就是“治安权例外”。当然,“治安权例外”只有在符合一定条件的情况下,才是合法有效的。“治安权例外”的前提应该是在合法的“治安权”范围内,并且还应符合善意、非歧视、正当程序和最小损害要求。本文第五章分析了间接征收和强制许可的关系。知识产权长久以来就被认为是一种投资而受到国际投资协定的保护,也是间接征收的对象。通过强制许可,政府可以授权政府部门或其他第三方使用知识产权,从而直接干预私人拥有的知识产权。在间接征收视域下,如果该知识产权是外国投资者的投资,则强制许可的授予是一种对包含知识产权的外国投资产生直接影响的政府行为。根据认定间接征收的标准和方法,从理论上分析,强制许可可能构成间接征收。假若一强制许可构成间接征收,对比TRIPS协定规定的强制许可条件,国际投资协定中合法征收的要求有较大不同,尤其是在正当程序和补偿方面。国际投资协定提供的保护要高于TRIPS协定提供的保护。因此,外国投资者可能依据征收规定、通过投资者-国家投资争端解决程序索赔。这将不利于强制许可制度价值的实现,违背了设立强制许可制度的初衷。因此,应该明确将强制许可排除在间接征收之外,即间接征收规定不适用于符合TRIPS协定的强制许可。当然,“治安权例外”也可适用于强制许可。本文第六章考察了中国有关间接征收的条约规定,并提出改进建议。在“投资”定义上,中国的投资协定采用了广义的以资产为基础的定义方式,这大大增加了国家管制措施引发间接征收纠纷的可能。在间接征收规定上,绝大多数投资协定没有明确间接征收的定义和认定标准,也没有规定“治安权例外”和强制许可例外。可以说,在应对间接征收问题上,中国的投资协定存在严重的法律缺陷。作为处于转型发展期、同为资本输入国和输出国的发展中大国,中国面临间接征收问题。因此,中国应该以可持续发展理念为指导,明确国际投资协定政策定位,平衡考虑经济发展、社会进步、环境保护和人权保障等不同价值,完善国际投资协定有关规定,即调整和充实条约序言、改进投资协定中的“投资”定义、明确间接征收的定义、完善间接征收的认定标准和方法、合理利用间接征收的例外。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the 1990s, under the NAFTA and ICSID investment dispute settlement mechanisms, foreign investors frequently claim against host states for the governments’measurs for the protection of the environment, public health, economic adjustment,which is a serious threat to the host states’ability to safeguard the public interest. These governments’measurs are alleged to constitute indirect expropriation by foreign investors.That makes people take seriously the significant imbalance between the investors private rights and host states’sovereign authority.However, the relevant provisions of international investment agreements are grossly inadequate, and the indirect expropriation arbitration practice has many problems. Therefore, people seek to reform and improve the rules of indirect expropriation, the issue of indirect expropriation has become the new hot spot of the theory and practice of international investment law.The first chapter of the thesis analyses the definition of indirect expropriation and the reasons for the increase in disputes about indirect expropriation.Treaty drafts,such as The Proposed Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment,international investment agreements(IIAs)and the practices for international investment dispute settlement have been long on the trial of definition and connotation of indirect expropriation. However, the complexity of indirect expropriation and the complicated conflicts of interests between the investors and host countries as well as the developed and developing countries make it difficult to produce a unified and accurate definition. Definitely, certain common perspective has been reached to some point, that is, indirect expropriation refers to the government measures with the effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure. The reasons for the indirect expropriation to be the hot spot are categorized as follows:(1)States make comprehensive use of direct foreign investments actively and seldom expropriate directly;(2) States adjust their economic structure and transform their development modes, which lead to the increase in indirect expropriation;(3) States need to regulate foreign investment in order to exercise national functions and make the regulation more complicated.(4) States enhance the protection for the public interests such as the environment, human health and security;(5)The weaknesses of international investment laws,such as the broad definition of investment, the ambiguous definition of indirect expropriation, aggravates the issue of indirect expropriation.The second chapter of the thesis expounds the form and object of indirect expropriation. It is necessary to understand the form and object of indirect expropriation in order to gain the more thorough and full-scale comprehension. The issues of indirect expropriation are presented in many forms with the typical examples classified as follows: involuntary alienation of property, interference with investment and business operation, cancel license or permission, overtaxation or arbitrary taxation, illegal deportation of foreign investors, complete prohibition of the transfer or control of property, substantial interference with the management and control of enterprise,. The object of indirect expropriation refers to what property can be indirectly expropriated, which includs tangible property and intangible property in accordance with the provisions of IIAs and indirect expropriation arbitration practices. Nevertheless,not all of intangible property can be indirectly expropriated.Indirect expropriation not only contains the expropriation on ownership control, but on the management and control of foreign enterprise. In certain cases,the technique of“conceptual severance”, whereby a part of the“bundle of property rights”that is directly affected by a measure is severed and construed to be separate whole right,has been adopted on the decision of expropriation object. The tribunal’s approach may consider every kind of“property right”and“property interest”a kind of“investment, which could result in the improper magnification of indirect expropriation scope. Consequently, we should adopt“parcel as a whole”theory to determine the object of indirect expropriation, and strictly limit it in the scope of“investment”of IIAs.The third chapter of the thesis illuminates the criteria and method to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation. How to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation is the most controversial issue in relevant arbitration practices and theoretical disputes, which has thoroughly and vividly represented the conflicts of interests between investors and the state, the developing countries and developed countries as well as the economic value and non-economic value. In accordance with the summaries and categorization of the arbitration practices, the criteria for determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation are generally confirmed as follows:(1)the influence of government measure on investment;(2)the context, characteristics and purpose of government measure;(3) the extent to which the government measure interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations. The third criterion is generally adopted by the arbitration practice. In the case of the first two criteria, some cases adopted the former, which was“sole effect method”, while certain adopted both standards, which was called“effect and nature method”.“Sole effect method”focuses upon the interests of and the harm done to the investor. Adopting the method may make it easy to ignore the host state’s interests. So,“Sole effect method”may greatly impact on the government regulatory power, which therefore should be abandoned. Hence, the comprehensive utilization of the three criteria is the acceptable. Furthermore, the criteria and method should be improve in the IIAs.The forth chapter of the thesis studies the issues where government should not bear compensation obligation. Due to the subjective in the process of determing indirect expropriation, strict implementation of“effect and nature method”can not completely exclude the possibility of compensation responsibility of government’s necessary regulatory measures for the sake of public interests such as public health and security. Therefore, according to the principle of state sovereignty, if the measures taken for the sake of environmental protection, human rights and pursuance of important social and economic objectives constituted indirect expropriation, the state should be exempt from the compensation obligation. This is called“police powers exceptions”, which is legal in accordance with certain specific circumstances. The premise for police powers exceptions should be in the legal area of police powers, and the exceptions should be in conformance with the requirements of“bona fide”, nondiscrimination, due process and slightest harm.The fifth chapter of the thesis analyses the relationship between indirect expropriation and compulsory license. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have long been recognized as a form of“investment”entitled to protection under IIAs. IPRs are also one part of the object of indirect expropriation. Through the compulsory license, a government authority interferes directly with a privately owned IPRs, to authorize its use by the government or by one or more third parties. From the view of indirect expropriation, if the IPRs is a foreign investor’s investment, the authorization of a compulsory license is a government action which could create a direct impact on FDI involving intellectual property. According to the criteria and method to determine whether a government measure constitutes indirect expropriation, the authorization of a compulsory license may constitute indirect expropriation in terms of the jurisprudence analysis. If a compulsory license constituted indirect expropriation, comparing with the provisions concerning compulsory license in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement),there are rather differences between the requirements on lawful expropriation in IIAs and the requirements for compulsory license in TRIPS Agreement, especialy in the aspects of due process and compensation. Accordingly, the level of protection in IIAs is higher than in TRIPS Agreement. Consequently, foreign investor may claim against host states by investor-state dispute settlement process based on the provisions of expropriation. If so,it is not good to realize the value of compulsory license institution,and this departes from the tenets of creating the institution. Thus compulsory license should definitely be excluded from the application of indirect expropriation provisions.Of course,the“Police Power exceptions”should also be applied to compulsory license.The sixth chapter of the thesis investigates related provisions on indirect expropriation in the IIAs of China, and puts forwards some advice for improving these provisions.As for the definition of investment, the IIAs of China adopt a broad assets-based formulation,which greatly increase the possibility of indirect expropriation resulting from regulatory measures of state.So far,there are’t provisions concerning the definition of indirect expropriation and the criteria for determining whether a indirect expropriation has in fact taken place in the majority of the IIAs. The majority of the IIAs don’t provide the exceptions of“police powers”and compulsory license. As to dealing with the issues of indirect expropriation,it may be said that there are severe law faults in the IIAs of China. As a big developing country which is exerting itself to transform the development mode,and a capital importing and exporting country,China is confronted with the problem of indirect expropriation. Therefore, under the guidance of the notion of sustainable development,China should definitely establish its IIAs policy and position,think over how to balance different values,such as the economic development,social progress, protection of environment and human rights,and amend related provisions in IIAs.It is necessary to amend and enrich the preliminary remarks of IIAs, definitely define the definition of indirect expropriation, ameliorate the definition of investment in international investment agreements,improve the criteria and approach to determining whether indirect expropriation has occurred, properly make use of the exceptions of indirect expropriation.更多还原