【作者】 石俭平；

【导师】 丁伟；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 征收条款是投资条约中最为核心的实体条款之一,从国际投资法的发展历程来看,保护投资者的最初含义就是保护投资者不受东道国非法征收行为的影响。开始于20世纪90年代的投资自由化态势是以大量双边投资协定和一些重要的区域投资协定的生效为标志和结果的,其中几乎“模板化”的征收条款的存在已经确立了东道国征收外国人财产必须支付补偿的原则,而一度被视为最敏感、最富争议的补偿标准问题也已经有了明确和一致的答案。一直以来,外资征收的构成及其在国际法上的认定始终是一个比较明确的问题,然而近年来伴随着征收概念的激进扩张,这个问题的答案再度变得模糊起来。现代投资条约在征收条款中将征收界定为三种形式,即“直接征收”、“间接征收”以及“任何与征收等同或类似的行为”,尽管在理论与实践中都有观点认为这所谓“等同与类似征收行为”的措词并没有真正创造出第三种形式的征收,然而“间接征收”和“类似征收”的存在有效扩张了“征收”这一用语的含义,成为外国投资者借以向东道国提起补偿之诉的首选依据。当前国际法中有关间接征收的申诉越来越被视为是对东道国政府对外资实施管制权力的一种威胁,而实践中对这些争议并不一致的处理方法对外国投资者和东道国而言都意味着相当的不确定性,如若不能真正解决投资者财产权利和东道国管制权力之间的平衡,将无疑会对征收条款在未来的适用和发展造成危机。本文首先对征收以及外资征收的含义及其法律依据进行了分析,结合国际投资条约及其他国际法文件中征收条款的规定,对征收条款的内容、历史发展、要件以及投资仲裁机构和司法机构有关征收的争议解决实践进行了梳理;之后文章重点对间接征收的含义、分类以及在理论和实践中的认定规则进行了分析,在此基础之上,文章对当前征收条款在国际条约中适用所存在的问题进行了总结和评述,并对其未来可能的发展趋势进行了预测;文章最后对我国签订条约中的征收条款及其未来适用应当注意的问题提出了相应的建议。全文分为七章,共计约20万字。第一章对外资征收的基本概念进行了分析。作为政府获取或改变私人财产权利的公权力,征收的概念同征用以及国有化的概念在内涵与外延方面存在着一定程度的差异,本文更倾向于适用具有“中性”色彩的征收一词。征收的概念最早来源于格老秀斯提出的“国家征收权(eminent domain)”的概念,尽管有关征收的理论依据存在多种学说,但其中“财产权社会化”的理念最为恰当地解释了征收的原因,从而在财产权制度相对完备的几个国家开始建立国内法的征收制度。当征收财产涉及到外国人的投资时,征收制度开始同国际法有所交叉,征收条款在国际条约中确立的过程也是东道国保护外国投资者责任形成的过程。国际条约并未对外资征收下一个明确的定义,但普遍规定了征收的四个要件,而投资的定义虽不属于征收条款中的内容,但却是征收条款适用的基础,因此本文对投资的定义、范围及其日渐扩张的趋势也作了相应的分析和解释。第二章对当前国际条约及其他法律文件中规定的征收条款进行了总结和梳理。基于征收制度的重要性以及对发展中国家外资征收权力的确认,征收条款出现在包括联大决议和宣言在内的国际法文件当中,这些法律文件就补偿的标准问题在发达国家和发展中国家之间进行了成功的妥协,坚持适当的补偿原则,但最终发展中国家因为引资的现实考虑逐渐退出了统一的阵营。而发达国家亦从未放弃制定给予外国投资者更高标准的多边投资条约的努力,却最终因为无法平衡东道国和投资者的利益而以失败告终。以NAFTA为代表的区域协定的成功运作以及BITs、RTAs的迅速推广,令绝大多数的东道国接受了“赫尔公式”和“间接征收”的存在。而依据这些投资条约和法律文件所建立的投资仲裁和司法机构在实践中也形成了有关征收认定的数量众多的案例群,本文也对此进行了综述和梳理,包括伊美求偿仲裁庭、ICSID、NAFTA、ECT、ECHR等机构对外资征收的认定实践。第三章对国际条约中征收条款的要件进行了解读。尽管征收四要件的存在已经为大部分的投资条约所确认,但却鲜有对每一个要件的具体释义以及在实践中理解和适用的相关论述。公共利益是外资征收的目的要件,也是一个不易界定的弹性术语,针对该项要件所提出的质疑在国际投资仲裁的实践中鲜有成功,在认定时往往需要同歧视性等要件结合起来考量;遵循正当程序是征收的程序要件,这一原本属于国内法中的行政原则,其含义在国际法上并没有统一的规定,内容也并不确定,因此征收所必须遵循的所谓正当程序还应当是实行征收的国家的国内法规定的法律程序;非歧视原则是征收的实施要件,其在整个四要件当中的重要性正日益突显出来,不但已经成为判断公共利益要件的辅助标准,且因为内容相对确定已经成为投资者和仲裁庭在提起和认定征收时首选的“突破口”;“赫尔原则”已经成为国际条约中泛化的征收补偿标准,但对于何为“充分”、“及时”、“有效”,特别是如何适用“公平市场价值”来计算征收补偿的数额却并没有明确的规定和实践,本文对此进行了较为深入的探讨。第四章着重探讨的是间接征收在国际条约中的规定及其实践。间接征收认定的核心在于东道国所采取的措施是否在效果上剥夺了投资者对其投资的使用和利益,但几乎所有的投资条约都没有对间接征收的定义和认定规则有细化的界定,直到以美国2004年BIT范本为代表的法律文件确立了对间接征收“依据事实、逐案分析”的处理规则。围绕间接征收的认定,在理论和实践中形成了“单一效果标准”,“单一目的标准”以及“兼采效果与目的的标准”之争,后者在实践中虽然获得了主导性的支持,但其具体适用的国际法标准尚未成型。“蚕食性征收”和“管制性征收”经常被视为间接征收的同义词,然而两者定义的侧重点是不同的,前者强调政府征收不易被辨认和缓慢榨取投资者利益的特征,后者则特指原属东道国警察权范围内的特定措施亦可能会产生相当于征收的效果;“蚕食性征收”的认定需要在事后采取追溯的办法才能确定,而“管制性征收”的认定和补偿最终还是公共利益所造成的经济负担的分担问题,仲裁庭在逐案分析的基础上应当遵循效率和公平的原则,寻求私人投资者和东道国利益之间的平衡。第五章就需要补偿的间接征收与无须补偿的政府合理管制行为之间进行了区分,两者之间的界限划分不但决定了不同的补偿结果,亦决定了东道国政府可以在多大程度上管理经济或社会事务以及投资者应当在多大程度上承担自身的投资风险。对私人财产权保护的程度是对两者进行区分的核心理念,而实施的“合理性”和“非歧视性”以及“对投资的干涉程度”则是区分两者的具体认定标准。新缔结的BITs和FTAs对间接征收采取了“排除式”的规定,指明除非在极特殊的情况下,东道国为了保护合法的公共福利目标所制定或实施的非歧视的管制性行为不构成间接征收,而这些被排除的措施普遍应包括维护公共秩序和道德、环境和健康以及东道国征税的权力,东道国对这些措施的合理实施本应远离间接征收申诉的烦扰,但是对投资者保护过于激进的NAFTA仲裁实践却一度成为东道国的梦魇,也对投资者执行管制政策的意愿和能力造成了“寒蝉效应”。对于东道国环境管制和征收行为之间的区分需要结合环境权的特征以及环境法中特有的原则来进行考量,而不能一概以管制的结果论处;而东道国的征税只有带有歧视性、任意性或报复性,从而构成“没收性征税”的情况下才有可能会转变为征收行为,但现代投资条约显然意在维护视为政府“生命线”的征税权力,在实践中获得成功的申诉案例几乎没有。第六章对当前征收条款在国际条约中的适用现状进行了总结和评析,并对该条款的未来发展趋势做出了一定的预测。历经了上个世纪80、90年代的沉寂,伴随新世纪拉美能源国有化的实践和08年金融危机背景下的“新型国有化”的实施,对直接征收条款的适用再度复苏和启动;而针对间接征收的争议日益突显,则说明无论是发达国家还是发展中国家都开始对一贯奉行的单纯追求经济增长率的做法进行反思,如何实现经济的可持续性发展和社会的整体协调发展已成为它们引导和利用外资的新价值观。因此近几年有关间接征收的条约规定日渐明确,而仲裁庭在实践中过于激进的做法也逐渐呈现出回归的态势。当前对征收条款的理解和适用过于依赖投资仲裁庭在实践中的解释,它们不但没有形成明确而一致的观点和结论,并且本身也不具有“先例”的作用,对解决征收条款规定模糊化的问题作用不大。可以预见的是如何平衡私人财产权利和社会公共利益仍将是征收条款适用的核心问题,而维护社会福利最大化的理念将在未来逐渐影响各国和仲裁庭对间接征收认定的态度;鉴于征收条款规定的模糊性以及敏感性,仲裁庭将更倾向于适用“公平公正待遇”等条款来替代征收条款;征收条款的适用,特别是管制性征收的存在可能会加剧东道国所负有的保护外国投资的义务同保护环境、人类资源和自然遗产以及保护人权等方面的条约义务之间的冲突,将这些与投资相关的实体规则逐渐融入投资条约的规定当中或许将是一种有益的尝试。第七章着重对我国签订的投资条约中的征收条款进行了专题研究。首先,文章对我国目前已经签订的多达130个双边投资协定和其他国际条约中出现的征收条款进行了梳理,并且分析了这些条款所存在的问题;其次,考虑到我国已经兼具资本输入国和资本输出国的双重身份,文章分别就我国可能遭遇的征收申诉风险和我国的海外投资者可能遇到的征收风险,结合实践进行了分析,特别是对实践中已经出现的我国作为东道国被申诉以及我国投资者利用双边投资协定针对外国东道国提起申诉的相关案例进行了详细的分析。最后,文章对完善我国签订条约中的征收条款的规定及其适用提出了建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 Expropriation Clause is one of the most fundamental substantive clauses in investment treaties. During the development process of international investment law, the initial meaning of protecting foreign investors equals to protecting them from illegal expropriation by the host countries. The trend of investment liberalization is marked with and resulted from the conclusion of most BITs and some important regional investment treaties since nineties of the 20th Century, the existing of all the stereotype expropriation clauses have confirmed the principle that host countries must compensate the foreign investors due to expropriation. The problem concerning compensation standard, which is once sensitive and disputable, has also led to a specific and unanimous answer. The composition and finding of expropriation are much clear for a long period of time. However the answer becomes unclear again with the rapid expansion of expropriation concept. The modern investment treaties define the expropriation clause in three forms, direct expropriation, indirect expropriation and any measure equivalent to or similar to expropriation. Although it is held that the so called“equivalent to or similar to”do not create the third form of expropriation, the expression of indirect or similar expropriation will continue to be widely used and will expand the concept of expropriation in an effective way. The expropriation clause has become the first choice for the investors to claim the host country for compensation. The claims of indirect expropriation have been regarded as a threat to the regulation power of host country in the current international law. And the inconsistent findings of disputes mean uncertainties both to the foreign investors and the host countries. If the balance between the protection over investor property and the regulation power of the host country cannot resolved thoroughly, it will undoubtedly endanger the application and development of expropriation clause in the future.Firstly, the dissertation will analyze the concept and legal basis of expropriation and expropriation on foreign investment. Combined with the provisions of international investment treaties and other international files on expropriation clauses, the dissertation summarizes the content, history, requirements as well as the disputes settlement practice of investment arbitration or judicial organs based on international treaties. Secondly, the dissertation emphasizes on the analysis of the concept, classification and finding rules of indirect expropriation both in the theory and practice. On this basis, the dissertation will summarize and comment on the problems of expropriation clauses existing in the international treaties and will make some prospects on its possible development trends in the future. In the last, the dissertation will put forward corresponding advices to China for signing the investment treaties with expropriation clauses as well as its application of this clause in the future. The dissertation divides into seven chapters, consisting of 200.000 words. In the First Chapter, the dissertation analyzes the basic concept of expropriation on foreign investment. As the sovereign power for the government to acquire or change private property rights, the concept of expropriation differs slightly with that of requisition and nationalization both in the intension or extension. The dissertation prefers to use the word of expropriation with some neutral features. The earliest concept of expropriation originated from the concept of eminent domain put forward by Grotius, there exist a lot of theories on the legal basis of expropriation, however, the notion of socialization of property rights illustrates the reason of expropriation properly. As a result, the domestic expropriation legal system had begun to be established in some countries with relatively complete property legal system. When the expropriation involved the investment of foreign investors, the expropriation system began to intersect with international law. The process for the expropriation clause to take into form in the international treaties is just that of the duties for the host countries to protect the foreign investors. The international treaties failed to provide a specific definition for expropriation but generally provide four requirements. Although the concept of investment does not belong to the extent of expropriation clause, it is the application foundation of this clause. The dissertation, therefore, makes some analysis and explanation on the concept, scope as well as its expansion trend of investment.The Second Chapter summarizes each provision on expropriation clause appeared in the current international treaties and other legal documents. Considering the importance of expropriation system and the confirmation of expropriation power of the developing countries, expropriation clauses are provided in the international documents including the Resolution and Declaration of UN. These documents made great compromise between the developed and developing countries in terms of the compensation standard. That is the Appropriate Compensation Standard. However, the developing countries quitted from the unified interests group gradually due to their endeavors to attract more FDI. And also the developed countries had never given up their endeavors to conclude a multilateral investment treaty with much higher protection standard for their investors, which had finally ended with failure due to the imbalance between the host countries and the investors. With the success of NAFTA and the rapid increase of BITs as well as RTAs, most host counties have accepted the existence of Hull Formula and indirect expropriation. The investment arbitration and judicial organs have developed precedents on the expropriation findings. The dissertation will summarize and illustrate their practice of Iran-US Claims Tribunal, ICSID, NAFTA, ECT and ECHR.The Third Chapter will analyze the four requirements included in the expropriation clauses. Although the existence of these requirements has confirmed by most of the investment treaties, the specific explanation of each requirement as well as its understanding and application in the practice are insufficient. Public interest is the purpose requirement of expropriation, which is a flexible and difficult term to define. It is not an easy job to challenge it successfully in the practice. It must be determined combined with the non-discrimination requirement. Due Process is the procedure requirement of expropriation, which is the administrative principle in the domestic law, and there is no unified provision or definite content in the international law. Therefore, the due process for the expropriation to follow shall be the legal procedure provided by the domestic law. Non-discrimination principle is the application requirement of expropriation, which shows much more importance among the four requirements. It has become the complementary standard when deciding the public interest. As a result, it has become the first choice preferred by the investors and the tribunals with its definite content. Hull Formula has become the compensation standard generally used in the international treaties, whereas there is no definite provision and practice to define the so-called“Full, Timely and Effective”, especially the application of Fair Market Value to calculate the compensation. The dissertation will illustrate more on this issue.The Fourth Chapter will emphasize on the provision and practice of indirect expropriation in the international treaties. The core of the finding on expropriation lies in that whether the measures taken by the host countries have deprived the use or benefit of the investors over their investment. But almost all the investment treaties failed to define expropriation or its finding rules until the legal documents represented by 2004 Model BIT of the US set up the rule of“facts inquiry and case by case analysis”. In terms of the finding on expropriation, it gives rise to the disputes among the Sole Effects Doctrine, Police Power Doctrine and the Combined Doctrine. Although the latter has gained the most support, its specific application rules have not come into being. The Creeping Expropriation and Regulatory Expropriation are often deemed as the synonyms with the Indirect Expropriation. But the emphasis of each concept is different. The former emphasizes its feature as hard-to-define and depriving the investor gradually and slowly, while the latter refers to that the police power of the host country will also produce the effects equivalent to the expropriation. The finding of creeping expropriation should be ascertained with the method of retrospect; while the finding and compensation of regulatory expropriation are the share of economic burden resulted by the public interests. The tribunal should follow the principle of efficiency and fairness on the basis of case-by-case analysis to resort to the balance between the investors and host countries.The Fifth Chapter will differentiate between the compensable indirect expropriation and incompensable regulatory measures of the government. The boundary of them will lead to different compensation results and will also decide the extent for the government to regulate its economic or social affairs or that for the investors to assume their investment risks. The investor property protection level is the fundamental notion for differentiating these two concepts, and reasonableness, non-discrimination as well as the interference of investment is the specific determination standards. The newly concluded BITs and FTAs have adopted the exclusion provision on indirect expropriation and refers to that apart from the rare circumstances, the regulatory measures adopted or enforced by the host countries in order to protect legitimate public interests, in a non-discrimination manner, will not be deemed as indirect expropriation. It is generally held that the excluded measures shall include the measures for protecting public order, moral, environment, health and taxation. These legitimate measures ought to be away from the indirect expropriation claims, but the radical practice of protecting NAFTA has become the nightmare of the host countries, which has also led to the chilling effects to the willing and ability for the host countries to enforce the regulations. To differentiate between the environment protection and expropriation, it cannot be decided in light of the regulation results only but need to examine and weigh combing with the characteristic of environment right as well as the unique principles in the environment law. Only the discriminatory, arbitrary or retaliatory taxation would be deemed as the confiscatory taxation. With the modern investment treaties’aiming to defend the taxation power, which is regarded as the lifeline of the government, there’s almost no successful claim challenging that power of the government.The Sixth Chapter will summarize and analyze the current application status of expropriation clause in international treaties, and will provide some prospects on its development in the future. Going through the silence featured in the Eighties and Nineties in last Century, the nationalization to the energy industry in Latin America has been carried out since the 20th Century. The new-style nationalizations have been carried out in the background of financial crisis since 2008. All these facts prove that the indirect expropriation clause has been activated and recovered. Whereas the increasing arguments concerning indirect expropriation illustrate that no matter the developed countries or the developing ones are undergoing the introspect toward their behavior of pursuing solely on the economic growth in the past. The way of realizing the sustainable development, integral and harmonious social development has become the new values for the governments to utilize or guide the foreign investment. Therefore, the provision on indirect expropriation tends to be much clear all these years, the radical practice of the tribunals, however, has also been back to the normal as a result. The current understanding and application of the expropriation clause have relied too much on the explanations of the tribunal in the practice. There are no definite and unified opinions or conclusions on some issues. At the same time, these cases do not function as the precedents, which will provide little help in resolving the vagueness of this clause. It can be predicted that how to balance the private property rights and social public interests will still be the core in the application of expropriation clause. And notion of maintaining the maximization of social benefits will affect the altitudes of governments or tribunal gradually. In the light of its vagueness and sensitivity, the tribunals tend to use Fair and Equitable Clause to replace the expropriation clause. The application of regulatory expropriation will aggravate the conflicts between the duties for the host countries to protect foreign investment and other treaty duties, including protecting the environment, human resources, natural heritage and human rights. To integrate theses investment-related issues into the investment treaties might be a nice attempt.The Seventh Chapter will emphasize on the sdudy of expropriation clauses in the international treaties that China has signed. Firsly, the dissertation summarizes all the expropriation clauses provided in more than 130 BITs and point out their weakness and potential problems. Secondly, China has become both the investment input and output country. In light of this status, the dissertation analyzes all the risks both the government and our investors will face in terms of indirect expropriation. Specific analysis on the real case in the practice will be provided. In the last, the dissertation will provide some advices on perfecting the provision and application of expropriation clauses in the treaties that China has signed.更多还原