期刊文献+

新型多边合作背景下的亚投行豁免:适用与挑战

AIIB Immunity in the Context of New Multilateral Cooperation:Application and Challenges
原文传递
导出
摘要 亚投行是中国探索新型多边合作的有力尝试,其承担了重要的金融与公益职能。亚投行豁免主要由《亚洲基础设施投资银行协定》规定,包括亚投行的管辖豁免、财产执行豁免和职员豁免,均以“职能必要”为限。亚投行结合时代背景进行豁免制度创新,扩大自身与职员不享有豁免的范围,鼓励和平解决争端,相关措辞严谨完善。限制豁免等司法观点给亚投行豁免带来了新的挑战,亚投行可以通过监察与争议解决机制及时干预投融资项目,适时放弃豁免、接受公众监督并主动承担社会责任。中国亦应完善相关立法以应对将来可能出现的争议。 The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank(AIIB)is a powerful attempt by China to explore a new type of multilateral cooperation,assuming important financial and public interest functions.The immunity regime of AIIB is mainly regulated by the AIIB Agreement,including the jurisdictional immunity,property execution immunity and staff immunity,all to the extent necessary for its functions.The AIIB's immunity is innovative for the times,expanding the scope of immunity not available to itself and its staff,encouraging the peaceful settlement of disputes,and the strict wording of the treaty.Judicial opinions such as the limitation of immunity pose new challenges to AIIB immunity,and AIIB can intervene in a timely manner through monitoring and dispute resolution mechanisms for investment and financing projects,waiving immunity when appropriate,accepting public scrutiny and taking social responsibility.China also needs to improve the relevant legislation to deal with possible disputes in the future.
作者 黄译莹 HUANG Yiying
出处 《国际法学刊》 2022年第2期98-116,156,157,共21页 Journal of International Law
基金 中国人民大学科学研究基金(中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助)项目成果(项目编号:21XNH023)
关键词 亚投行豁免 国际组织豁免 司法豁免 职能必要 AIIB’s immunity Immunity for International Organizations Judicial Immunity Functional Necessity
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献47

  • 1涂永红,王家庆.亚投行:中国向全球提供公共物品的里程碑[J].理论视野,2015,0(4):62-64. 被引量:8
  • 2沃尔夫冈·格拉夫·魏智通主编《国际法》[M]北京,法律出版社 2002,第208页.
  • 3August Reinisch: International Organization before National Courts, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p157.
  • 4Michael Singer ,Jurisdictional Immunity of International Organizations: Human Rights and Functional Necessity Concerns, 36 Vir- ginia Journal of International Law 53, Fall, 1995, p162.
  • 5Stecen Herz, < International Organizations in U. S. Courts: Reconsidering the Anachronism of Absolute Immunity >, 31 Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 2008, p532.
  • 6Kevin M. Whiteley, Holding International Organizations Accountable Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act : Civil Actions Against the United Nations for Non - Commercial Torts, 7 Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 619, p638.
  • 7Stecen Herz, < International Organizations in U.S. Courts : Reconsidering the Anachronism of Absolute Immunity >, 31 Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 2008, p532.
  • 8August Reinisch : International Organization before National Courts, Cambridge University Press, 2000, P189.
  • 9Austrian Supreme Court, 11 June 1992.
  • 10668 F. 2d 547 (D. C. Cir. , November 13,1981.

共引文献15

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