论国际投资条约仲裁的性质
发布时间：2018-11-06 13:18
【摘要】：在各领域的国际交往日益频繁的今天,全球的治理和国内的治理虽然在政治上和运作上保持着分离,但是,在许多规制和行政事项中两个领域已经紧密地交织在一起,私法可能引起很多与公法相关的纠纷,国际公法也在影响国家规制,其相互渗透与影响无论对国内治理主体还是全球治理主体的规范决策与运行都提出了越来越高的要求。国内规制者已经是作为全球机制的参与者而非单纯的国内规制者,与此同时,国际规制者在有些场合享有一定的独立性和裁量权,但现在也要受很多因素的制约了。 国际投资仲裁庭用一种新的权力来复审和规范国家在涉及国际投资中的行为,保护投资者利益不受东道国国家行为的损害。近年来,国际投资条约仲裁的案件在逐年增多的同时暴露出越来越多的“正当性危机”,例如:仲裁裁决之间的不一致、公共利益照顾不周、过度保护投资者利益、对东道国主权构成干扰等。有关人士也提出了完善建议,例如建立投资条约仲裁上诉机制,引导和限制仲裁庭的解释权,引入“法庭之友”、提高裁判的透明度等建议。在这种情况下,这种机制怎么才能发挥一个恰到好处的作用为国际投资的发展提供法律帮助?这种权力的来源在哪?效力如何?该如何正确行使这一裁判权?这都取决于一个问题,国际投资条约仲裁的性质是什么?与其他的裁判有何不同?因为性质问题是解决“正当性危机”问题的出发点和根本,所以本文试图研究国际投资条约仲裁的定性问题,为完善这一机制提供理论上的指导,避免“正当性危机”的频频出现和蔓延。关于国际投资条约仲裁性质的现有学说有商事仲裁理论、国内公法理论和全球治理理论,本文使用比较的方法对现有理论进行论述,揭示其不同程度的不足之处并逐步论证国际投资条约仲裁是一种公法裁判、行政法裁判、全球行政法裁判。 文章从国际投资条约仲裁的概念和现状入手,论述在当前的状况下,研究国际投资条约仲裁性质对于完善国际投资条约仲裁机制有着重要的意义。关于国际投资条约仲裁性质的现有理论,本文通过比较国际商事仲裁与国际投资条约仲裁的不同点,分析指出商事仲裁理论的不足之处并对国内公法理论和全球治理理论进行阐述和评价,指出其定性方面的不妥。文章根据国际投资条约仲裁的特点、公私法划分逐步论证国际投资条约仲裁的性质首先是公法裁判;在公法裁判之下,又根据行政法的含义、国际投资条约仲裁的裁判对象和公共利益的含义得出国际投资条约仲裁的性质是行政法裁判的结论;依据国际投资条约仲裁的裁判依据、仲裁员和裁判标准进一步得出国际投资条约仲裁属于全球行政法裁判的结论,并指出在理论上的合理性和实践中解决现存问题的有效性。总而言之,国际投资条约仲裁的性质是全球行政法裁判。 性质研究的目的是为了解决现存问题,为了完善国际投资条约仲裁机制。所以从全球行政法裁判的定性下可以提出完善当前国际投资条约仲裁的具体措施,以期为缓解现存的“正当性危机”抛砖引玉。本文主要集中在公开性和一致性两方面。公开性方面,建立信息查询系统和公共利益代表的参与机制;一致性方面,建立长期任职的仲裁员管理制度和统一的解释标准以及上诉机制。
[Abstract]:Today, global governance and domestic governance, while maintaining separation politically and in operation, have been closely intertwined in many regulatory and administrative matters, The private law may cause a lot of disputes related to public law, and public international law also influences the regulation of the state, and the mutual penetration and influence of the private law put forward more and more demands on both the domestic governance subject and the standard decision-making and operation of the global governance body. The domestic regulator has been a participant of the global mechanism rather than a simple domestic regulator. At the same time, the international regulator has certain independence and discretion in some cases, but it is subject to many factors. The International Investment Tribunal used a new power to review and regulate the conduct of the State in relation to international investment and to protect the interests of investors from the conduct of the host country Damage. In recent years, the case of international investment treaty arbitration has exposed more and more 鈥渓egitimacy crisis鈥，
本文编号：2314389
[Abstract]:Today, global governance and domestic governance, while maintaining separation politically and in operation, have been closely intertwined in many regulatory and administrative matters, The private law may cause a lot of disputes related to public law, and public international law also influences the regulation of the state, and the mutual penetration and influence of the private law put forward more and more demands on both the domestic governance subject and the standard decision-making and operation of the global governance body. The domestic regulator has been a participant of the global mechanism rather than a simple domestic regulator. At the same time, the international regulator has certain independence and discretion in some cases, but it is subject to many factors. The International Investment Tribunal used a new power to review and regulate the conduct of the State in relation to international investment and to protect the interests of investors from the conduct of the host country Damage. In recent years, the case of international investment treaty arbitration has exposed more and more 鈥渓egitimacy crisis鈥，
本文编号：2314389
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2314389.html
