【作者】 后其洁；

【导师】 司平平；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 随着国际经济的发展，跨国投资也成为经常和普遍的行为。一国投资者前往东道国设立公司是投资的重要形式之一。如果投资者即公司的股东个人权利受到不法侵害，在当地救济用尽的前提下，股东的母国可以对股东行使外交保护，追究不法侵害国的责任，保护本国国民的义务，这是基于国际习惯法的合法行为。如果公司的权利受到侵害，依据国际习惯法，应有公司的国籍国行使外交保护权。但是由于股东和公司的紧密联系，在特殊情况下，也可以由公司股东的国籍国对股东行使外交保护权，即保护本国国民的投资的权益。本文从国际法院所做出的经典案例入手，结合联合国国际法委员会的最新外交保护的草案，分析公司股东外交保护的一般原则，同时通过探讨部分投资母国和东道国的先进立法与实践，对我国的立法提出一些意见和建议。本文具体的内容分为五大部分：第一部分介绍了公司股东外交保护的法律依据。首先介绍了外交保护的含义，其次探讨了股东外交保护的法律依据，并且明确在当今时代讨论公司股东外交保护的意义。第二部分分析了国际法院的两个关于公司股东外交保护的判例。巴塞罗那电车案确立了股东外交保护的基本原则，即公司的权利和股东的权利可以相互区别，股东的个人权利受侵害，股东的国籍国可以实行外交保护；公司的权利受侵害，应由公司的国籍国实行外交保护；但是在公司按东道国法律已不存在的情况下，由股东的国籍国实行外交保护。而后的西西里电子公司案在肯定这一原则的基础上进行了进一步的补充，在有双边条约的基础上，不必遵循上述的国际习惯法，可以直接根据双边条约做出判断。公司和股东的权利一定不同，但是如何具体区分，则要根据各国的国内法的具体规定。第三部分介绍了国际法委员会的最新外交保护的草案。国际法委员会通过十年的时间形成了外交保护的草案并提交联合国大会的审议。其中第十一条，十二条专门规定了公司股东的外交保护问题。国际法委员会肯定了国际法院的两个经典判决，并在判决的基础上总结了公司股东外交保护的条文，第一：在公司受到损害的情况下，公司股东的国籍国无权为这些股东行使外交保护，除非：由于与损害无关的原因，按照成立地国的法律该公司已不存在；或在受到损害之时，公司具有所指对其造成损害负有责任的国家的国籍，并且按照该国法律成立公司是在该国开展经营活动的前提条件。第二：如果是对一国的国际不法行为对股东本人的权利，而非公司的权利，造成直接损害的情况下，这些股东的国籍国有权为其国民行使外交保护。第十七条则规定该草案与国际特别规则的适用问题。各国对于草案的热烈讨论表现出各国对于股东外交保护的关注。第四部分介绍了一些国家在股东外交保护上的先进立法和经验。以美国、英国、法国等为代表的东道国通过国内立法，双边投资保护协定等等方式尽力扩大对于投资者的保护，尽可能的实行对于股东的外交保护权。而东道国一般作为公司的国籍国，希望捍卫其对公司外交保护的权力。第五部分讨论了对于我国的立法建议。分析我国的吸引外资和对外投资的经济形式以及相应的法律空白，我国在公司股东外交保护的问题上还需要更多的研究和法律完善。通过以上国际法发展的分析，我国可以明确在此问题上的原则，通过国内法和双边投资保护条约的细化和完善，可以更好的吸引外资和鼓励对外投资，促进我国经济和法治的发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the rapid development of international economy, transnational investments has been booming. It is common for an investor to set up a company as his investment. If there is an injury to the personal right of an investor, the investor is legally right to ask diplomatic protection from the country of his nationality after the exhaustion of local remedies. However, if a company’s right is infringed, under international customary law, the state of nationality of company is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection. Since the close economic relationship between shareholders and the company, under specific circumstances, the state of nationality of shareholder is also entitled such a right. This thesis is based on the two cases of International Court of Justice, and introduces the draft on diplomatic protection by International Law Commission. By analyzing laws and regulations of different countries, the thesis outlines some relevant suggestions to Chinese law since Chinese local law is under maturity in this issue.The thesis consists five chapters,Chapter One introduces the legal basis of diplomatic protection of stockholders. Firstly this article talks about the intention of diplomatic protection and then the detailed legal basis of diplomatic protection of shareholders. Finally it emphasizes the value of this issue.Chapter Two analyzes the two classic case of International Court of Justice. Barcenola Traction Case launches a principle on this issue, there is a distinction between the right of company and shareholders. The state of nationality of shareholders is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in case of an injury to the shareholder. The state of nationality of company has the right to the company unless the specific circumstances. ELSI case is kind of supplement to the principle set by Barcelona Traction Case. ELSI case emphasizes the priority of the bilateral investment diplomatic treaties. Besides, it reaffirms the distinction between the right of company and shareholders and put the definition of right of shareholders to the local law of different states.Chapter Three introduces the draft of diplomatic protection by International Law Commission. The Commission spent ten years on this draft. Article 11, 12 and 17 talks of the protection of shareholders. Article 11 states that the State of nationality of shareholders in a corporation shall not be entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in respect of such shareholders in the case of an injury to the corporation unless:(a) The corporation has ceased to exist according to the law of the State of incorporation for a reason unrelated to the injury; or(b) The corporation had, at the date of injury, the nationality of the State alleged to be responsible for causing the injury, and incorporation in that State was required by it as a precondition for doing business there.Article 12 says that to the extent that an internationally wrongful act of a State causes direct injury to the rights of shareholders as such, as distinct from those of the corporation itself, the State of nationality of any such shareholders is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in respect of its nationals.Article 17 Draft makes it clear that the present draft articles do not apply to the alternative special regime for the protection of foreign investors provided for in bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.Chapter Four introduces local laws and practice of different countries. The state like United States, Britain or France is willing to expand the right of diplomatic protection over its nationals while the host counties to the foreign investment insists the entitlement of protection of the company.Chapter Five states the current economic and legal background of China on foreign investment, our country needs to place more importance on this issue. China needs to make clear our principle on diplomatic protection of shareholders. By understanding the draft provision of diplomatic protection and learning from other countries, China needs to perfect its local law and regulations and detail the articles concerning the right of shareholders in bilateral investment protection treaties.更多还原