《2012年美国双边投资协定范本》透明度条款研究

发布时间：2018-07-13 11:52

【摘要】：《2012年美国双边投资协定范本》（以下简称“《2012年范本》”）是美国继《2004年美国双边投资协定范本》后推出的最新范本。该新范本对多处做了重点修订，其中透明度条款是修订的重点条文之一，修订后的范本扩充了透明度条款的内容，对透明度要求进一步提高。这主要是因为提升透明度，以公开、透明和非歧视性的方式对待私人投资是美国BITs计划的目标之一。联合国国际贸易法委员会围绕投资领域的透明度问题也展开了广泛讨论。作为重点修订的条文，，《2012年范本》透明度条款必将引起美国BITs潜在缔约方的关注。尽管《2012年范本》透明度条款在用语上非常严谨，但仍然可能存在语义不明之处，这可能使其面临潜在的解释困境。再者由于对透明度要求进一步提高，其可能给谈判带来障碍。我国BITs中包含透明度条款的屈指可数，在解决投资争端国际中心的实践经验匮乏，而我国当前正与美国从新开启了BIT谈判，对《2012年范本》透明度条款深入研究迫在眉睫。由于在国际经济法领域对有关“透明度”的概念并不统一，为使本文有一个清晰的脉络，本文第一部分先从易混淆的具体概念入手。该部分简要介绍透明度、透明度条款等有关概念的定义，透明度条款在国际投资法中的作用。以期对透明度条款有一个更清晰的认识，为下文的论述打下基础。本文第二部分以文本分析的方法，对《2012年范本》透明度条款的具体内容进行全面梳理。本文第三部分通过与其他条约透明度条款的对比，总结《2012年范本》的一些鲜明特点。例如该范本体现WTO透明度原则的渗透，代表了BITs的最高水平，体现了“社会化”趋势。本文第四部分在以上分析的基础上，指出透明度条款将面临的潜在困境，即该范本仍然存在语义模糊之处。在当前的国际投资法体系下，对透明度条款中的语义模糊之处进行解释可能面临诸多困境。并且由于《2012年范本》对透明度的要求进一步提高，这种高要求很可能给BIT谈判带来障碍。为应对以上困境，笔者提出发挥判例法的作用，发挥缔约国在条约解释中的作用这两种路径以供探讨。文章最后一部分在前述分所论证的基础上，结合我国BITs透明度条款的相关实践，论述中美BIT谈判中我国对《2012年范本》透明度条款应该坚持的立场。即总体接受透明度条款，但在具体内容上应区别对待。为使谈判顺利进行，我国还应提高立法过程的透明度。
[Abstract]:The 2012 US Model bilateral Investment Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "2012 Model") is the latest model that the United States has introduced after the 2004 Model bilateral Investment Agreement. The transparency clause is one of the key provisions of the revised model. The revised model expands the content of the transparency clause and further improves the transparency requirement. This is mainly because promoting transparency and treating private investment in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory manner is one of the goals of the BITs program. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law has also held extensive discussions on transparency in the field of investment. As a key revision of the provisions, the 2012 Model 2012 transparency clause is bound to cause concern to potential parties to the BITs in the United States. Although the Model 2012 transparency clause is very precise in terms, there may still be semantic ambiguities, which may make it face a potential interpretation dilemma. Moreover, because of the further increase in transparency requirements, it may be an obstacle to negotiations. Only a handful of transparency clauses are included in our bits, and the practical experience in the International Center for the settlement of Investment disputes is scarce. At present, our country is starting the bit negotiation with the United States again, so it is urgent to study the transparency clause in Model 2012. Because the concept of "transparency" is not unified in the field of international economic law, in order to make this paper have a clear context, the first part of this paper begins with the concrete concept which is easy to be confused. This section briefly introduces the definition of transparency, transparency clause, and the role of transparency clauses in international investment law. In order to have a clearer understanding of the transparency clause, lay the foundation for the discussion below. In the second part, the text analysis method is used to analyze the transparency provisions of Model 2012. The third part summarizes some distinctive features of Model 2012 by comparing with other treaty transparency provisions. For example, the model embodies the penetration of WTO transparency principle, represents the highest level of bits, and reflects the trend of socialization. On the basis of the above analysis, the fourth part of this paper points out the potential dilemma that the transparency clause will face, that is, the model still has semantic ambiguity. In the current system of international investment law, it may be difficult to explain the semantic ambiguity of transparency clause. And because the Model 2012 demands for transparency are further enhanced, such high demands are likely to create obstacles to bit negotiations. In order to deal with the above dilemma, the author puts forward the two ways of giving play to the role of case law and the role of States parties in the interpretation of treaties. In the last part of the article, on the basis of the above argument and combining with the relevant practice of our country's bits transparency clause, this paper discusses the position that our country should adhere to in the bit negotiation between China and the United States on the transparency clause of "Model 2012". That is, the general acceptance of transparency provisions, but in the specific content should be treated differently. In order to make the negotiations smooth, our country should also improve the transparency of the legislative process.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D996

【参考文献】