期刊文献+

投资条约保护和安全标准的适用及其启示 被引量:5

原文传递
导出
摘要 晚近以来,投资条约中普遍存在的保护和安全标准的适用问题逐渐受到人们的关注。在实践中,其适用范围是仅限于实体安全还是应该扩展到实体安全之外的法律、商业环境等以及在适用过程中其与公平公正待遇标准和习惯国际法最低待遇标准的关系等问题存在争议。针对我国现行投资条约中保护和安全标准普遍存在的不足和漏洞,我国应采取将其适用范围扩展于实体安全之外并将其与习惯国际法最低待遇标准相等同以及充分利用非排除措施条款加以应对。
作者 陈正健
出处 《法商研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第5期112-118,共7页 Studies in Law and Business
基金 中央高校基本科研业务费资助项目(13XNH039)
  • 相关文献

参考文献38

  • 1Andrew Newcombe and Lluis Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties. Standards of Treatment, Kluwer Law Inter- national, 2009, p. 308, p. 308.
  • 2Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, Final Award, June 27, 1990.
  • 3Susan D. Franck, The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Privatizing Public International Law Through Incon- sistent Decisions, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 1521(2005).
  • 4Kenneth J. Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties= History, Policy, and Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 244.
  • 5American Manufacturing & Trading, INC. (AMT) v. Republic of Zaire, ICSID Case No. ARB/93/1, Award, Feb. 10, 1997.
  • 6Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. Czech Republic, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Partial Award, 2006.
  • 7BG Grp. Plc. v. Republic of Arg. , UNCITRAL Arb. Trib. , Final Award, Dec. 24, 2007.
  • 8Eastern Sugar v. Czech Republic, Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Partial Award, March 27, 2007.
  • 9CME Czech Republic BV v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Arb. Trib. , Partial Award, 2001.
  • 10National Grid Public Limited Company v. Argentina, UNCITRAL Arb. Trib. , Case 1.09-cv-00248-RBW, Award, Novem- ber 3, 2008.

二级参考文献46

  • 1余劲松.外资的公平与公正待遇问题研究——由NAFTA的实践产生的几点思考[J].法商研究,2005,22(6):41-48. 被引量:39
  • 2LG&E Energy Corp. et al. v The Republic of Argentina. ICSID ease no. ARB/02/1 (2006) ;Continental Casualty Company v The Argentine Republic. ICSID case no. ARB/O3/gA, award of 5 September 2008.
  • 3See Anthea Roberts, Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Role of States, 104 Am. J. Int' l. L. 179 (2010).
  • 4See William W. Burke -White & Andreas yon Stadan, Investment Protection in Extraordinary Time: The Interpretation and Application of Nort - Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties, 48 Va. J. Int' l L. (2008) 307, 376 - 81.
  • 5Id., 320-324,.
  • 6CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic, ICSID case no. ARB/01/08, 12) (annulment proceeding). Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 25 September 2007, para. 128 - 136.
  • 7Sempra Energy International v The Argentine Republic. ICSID case no. ARB/02/16 ( Annulment Proceeding), Decision on the Argentine Re- public' s Request for Annulment of the Award, 29 June 2010.
  • 8See Anne van Aakenand Jurgen Kurtz, Prudence or Discrimination? Emergency Measures, The Global Financial Crisis and International Economic Law, 12 J. Int' l Econ. L. 859 (2009).
  • 9SGS v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction( August 6 2003 ) [ EB/OL]. Para. 166.
  • 10Id. , Para. 168.

共引文献195

同被引文献51

引证文献5

二级引证文献5

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部