期刊文献+

国际最低待遇标准的新发展:表现、效果及应对 被引量:3

The New Development of International Minimum Standard of Treatment: Expression,Effect and Response
原文传递
导出
摘要 国际最低待遇标准自诞生以来就始终与国民待遇交织在一起,并以限制国民待遇为目的。进入21世纪后,国际最低待遇标准出现了新发展,除了继续限制国民待遇外,其开始在国际投资法领域发挥限制高水平投资保护标准的作用。然而这一新发展并没有得到国际投资仲裁实践的肯定,从而实际上并没有发挥应有的限制效果。针对这一问题,我国可以借鉴美国经验在投资仲裁实践中主张国际最低待遇标准并没有向前演进,而是冻结在尼尔案确定的标准上;同时在对外签订的国际投资条约中明确国际最低待遇标准的内容或指向。 International Minimum Standard of Treatment( "MST") has a close relationship with National Treatment since its emergence. The purpose of this treatment is to limit the application of the National Treatment. Apart from continuously limiting the application of the National Treatment,the MST has experienced new development in the 21 st century,which began to limit the high level of investment protection standard in the field of international investment law. However,such kind of development was not affirmed by international investment arbitration. And because of this,the MST did not have good effects in limitation of the National Treatment practically as it should be. Concerning this issue,China can take America'experience as lessons,and advocate that the MST has not evolved in the practice of international investment arbitration at all. That is to say the treatment should be frozen in the Neer Standard. And at the same time,China should make a clear statement about the content and the direction of the MST,when signing international investment treaties.
作者 陈正健
出处 《法学论坛》 CSSCI 北大核心 2015年第6期53-61,共9页 Legal Forum
基金 对外经济贸易大学中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助科研课题<国际投资法制的新发展及中国缔结投资条约的对策研究>(14QD06)的部分成果
关键词 国际最低待遇标准 北美自由贸易协定 公平与公正待遇 保护与安全标准 尼尔案 international minimum standard of treatment NAFTA fair and equitable treatment protection and security standard Neer case
  • 相关文献

参考文献28

  • 1Martins Paparinskis, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 11.
  • 2[意]卡塞斯.《国际法》,蔡从燕等译,法律出版社2009年版,第161-164页.
  • 3【英】马尔科姆·N·肖:《国际法》,白桂梅等译,北京大学出版社2011年版,第729页.
  • 4Roland Klager, "Fair and Equitable Treatment" in International Investment Law, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 49.
  • 5Alexandra Diehl, The Core Standard of International Investment Protection. Fair and Equitable Treatment, Kluwer Law International, 2012, p. 145.
  • 6Sebasti6n L6pez Escarcena,The Elements of Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law, http .//ghum. kuleuven, be/ggs/pub- lications/policy_briefs/pbl4, pdf, p. 2, 2015 -05 - 19.
  • 7陈正健.投资条约保护和安全标准的适用及其启示[J].法商研究,2013,30(5):112-118. 被引量:5
  • 8陈正健.国际投资条约中不排除措施条款的解释[J].法学论坛,2013,28(6):141-149. 被引量:10
  • 9Pope v. Canada, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Award in Respect of Damages, May 31, 2002, paras. 57 - 66.
  • 10Mondev International LTD. V. United States of America, Award, Case No. ARB( AF)/99/2, October ll, 2002, paras. 94 - 125.

二级参考文献103

  • 1季卫东.法律程序的意义——对中国法制建设的另一种思考[J].中国社会科学,1993(1):83-103. 被引量:745
  • 2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
  • 3LG&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.
  • 4See Anthea Roberts, Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Role of States, 104 Am. J. Int' l. L. 179 (2010).
  • 5See 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.
  • 6Id., 320-324,.
  • 7CMS 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.
  • 8Sempra 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.
  • 9See 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).
  • 10SGS v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction( August 6 2003 ) [ EB/OL]. Para. 166.

共引文献220

引证文献3

二级引证文献2

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