【摘要】 德国投资者海乐公司在中国法院已作出二审判决的情况下,将其与中国政府机关之间的投资争议提交ICSID仲裁,违反了《中德投资协定》及其议定书的相关规定。海乐公司求助于最惠国待遇条款并不现实。对于东道国当地法院诉讼程序与国际仲裁程序之间的竞合问题,我国已订立的双边投资协定可以分为三种模式,三种模式都无法彻底解决竞合现象。竞合现象的产生本质上是商业化的仲裁方式与国家利益之间的矛盾所造成。要解决竞合现象,只有改变中外投资协定中过于倾向于投资者的争议解决模式,采用投资者利益和东道国利益兼顾的政策导向。在"一带一路"争议解决机制中,可以推广中国与伊朗投资协定中的做法。更多还原

【Abstract】 On June 21, 2017, a German-owned investor Hela Schwarz GmbH initiated a third known claim against China under the China–Germany BIT. In the event that the Chinese court has made a second-instance judgment, the ICSID should not exercise jurisdiction to this dispute,because it will violate the relevant provisions of the Sino-German Investment Agreement and its protocol. It is unrealistic for Hela Schwarz to turn to the MFN clause. As for the issue of the concurrency between domestic court proceedings and international arbitral proceedings, the bilateral investment agreement that China has already concluded can be divided into three modes.The three modes cannot completely solve the phenomenon of concurrency. The concurrency is essentially caused by the contradiction between commercial arbitration and national interests. To resolve the concurrency, it is only necessary to change the dispute resolution model in the Chinese-foreign BIT which is too prone to investors, and to take into more account the interests of investors and the interests of the host country. In the "One Belt One Road" dispute resolution mechanism, we can learn from the practices in the China-Iran Investment Agreement.更多还原