论间接征收的界定——东道国经济管理权的边界

On the Boundary of Indirect Expropriation——The Jurisdiction of Economic Management of the Host Country

由于国际法中对东道国采取的何种措施构成间接征收鲜有规定,东道国政府可以采取的管理措施的边界模糊不清,学者和国际仲裁庭都赞成逐案界定。但是,仲裁庭的界定标准并不一致,多数仲裁庭采用单一的效果原则来界定,但即使对于效果标准构成要素的取舍,各个仲裁庭也没有统一的做法,这让该标准的适用结果充满了不确定性。也有兼采效果和目的原则的案例,这种标准认可东道国实行管理的权利,认为外国投资者应该在合理限度内承担措施造成的负面代价。但值得注意的是,这种标准并没有成为一种习惯国际法。针对间接征收界定标准不清以及仲裁庭适用标准不一的问题,提出在条约中明确界定间接征收以及将界定间接征收的权利转移给东道国的建议。

Considering the deficiency of the relevant provisions of indirect expropriation and the various existing standards that International Courts of Arbitration hold which have blurred the jurisdiction of economic management of the host country. Both scholars and international tribunal agree the way of defining the indirect expropriation case by case, but the defining standard that the arbitration tribunal adopted is not consistent. Single effect principle is adopted in the majority of the arbitration tribunal. However, even for standard components of trade-offs, arbitration tribunals have no unified approach, which makes the result fraught with uncertainty. Besides, there are also some cases that both adopt the effective and objective principles, which recognize the host country＇s right of management and argue that foreign investors should assume the negative cost in a reasonable range. But it is worth noting that this principle has not yet become a customary international law. This dissertation advances an opinion of clearly defining the name of ＂indirect expropriation＂ in the treaty and at the same time transferring the right of defining to the host country, so as to solve the pending issues well.