论我国对外资国有化及其补偿的态度变化

发布时间：2018-06-07 22:11

本文选题：国有化 + 征收补偿　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：海外投资不仅是全球化经济结构中重要的组成部分,也是推动全球化整体发展的重要力量,国际投资在各国经济体系中的地位不言而喻。然而,有投资必然有风险,跨国投资在运行过程中涉及到不止一个主权管理者、不止一个法域、不止一套制度体系,较之于国内的投资更有可能遭遇各种投资风险。在所有投资风险当中,国有化是对于经营干预和造成财产损失最为严重的形式,尤其在主要资本输出国看来,没有“及时充分有效”的补偿而对投资横加剥夺,不仅会使投资者的所有预期毁于一旦,而且是影响全球经济健康发展的严重障碍。本文中重点讨论政治风险中,最为激烈、最为极端的对外资国有化问题,而对于其他类型的海外投资风险来说,本质上与国有化问题并无不同,只是程度有所不及、量变尚未达到质变而已,故而对于国有化问题的研究,对于所有的海外投资风险问题都有普遍的意义。国有化问题最值得讨论的有两个,其一是国有化的合法性,再者是征收后的补偿。对于合法性问题来讲,四个合法性要素(公共目的、非歧视、正当程序、给予补偿)中前三个的争议不大,征收补偿问题才是核心。而对于征收后的补偿问题来说,补偿数额如何确定以及补偿依据国内法还是国际法,是发达国家和发展中国家,话句话说是投资国与东道国之间主要的分歧所在。而上世纪九十年代以来的国际法实践表明,投资国在主权问题上承认了东道国完全的管辖权,东道国则在补偿数额问题上基本满足了投资国的诉求。对于中国来说,快速的经济发展使得中国经历了由东道国到投资国的转变,这样的经济地位的转变也带来了政治立场的变化,而这样的政治立场的变化又最终表达在了中国近年来与其他国家签订的双边投资协定中对于征收补偿的态度——中国事实上已经和主要西方发达国家一道,在征收补偿的实际运作上遵循了“赫尔原则”的要求——充分、及时、有效地补偿投资国因国有化而受到的损失。中国在征收补偿问题上态度的变化,印证了一个国际上心照不宣的事实:一成不变地固守某些精神理念或者意识形态显然是不合时宜并且与维护国家利益相悖的,在国家利益面前,没有永恒的立场,有的只是从利益的不同点出发做出的依仗国家实力做出的政治决定。现在的国际社会以及国际法的发展状况虽然已经不再是“真理只存在于大炮的射程之内”的状态了,但是国家的政治需求是国际法的发展方向和动力不会改变,国际法作为国家政治需求寻求合理性解释的工具的地位也不会改变。
[Abstract]:Overseas investment is not only an important part of the economic structure of globalization, but also an important force to promote the overall development of globalization. However, there must be risks in investment. Transnational investment involves more than one sovereign manager, more than one jurisdiction, more than a set of institutional systems, which is more likely to encounter various investment risks than domestic investment. Of all the investment risks, nationalization is the most serious form of business intervention and property losses, especially in the view of major capital-exporting countries, which are deprived of investment without "timely, full and effective" compensation. Not only would it destroy all investors' expectations, it would also be a serious obstacle to the healthy development of the global economy. This paper focuses on the most intense and extreme issue of nationalization of foreign investment in the political risks. However, for other types of overseas investment risks, it is not different from the issue of nationalization in nature, but to a lesser extent. Quantitative change has not yet reached qualitative change, so the study of nationalization is of universal significance to all overseas investment risk problems. There are two issues worth discussing most, one is the legitimacy of nationalization, and the other is compensation after expropriation. For legality, the first three elements of legality (public purpose, non-discrimination, due process, compensation) are not controversial, and the issue of expropriation and compensation is the core. For the compensation after expropriation, how to determine the amount of compensation and whether the compensation is based on domestic law or international law is a developed country and a developing country. In other words, it is the main difference between the investment country and the host country. The practice of international law since the 1990s shows that the host country has recognized the full jurisdiction of the host country on the issue of sovereignty, and the host country has basically satisfied the demand of the investing country on the question of compensation amount. For China, rapid economic development has made China experience a transition from host country to investor country. Such a change in economic status has also brought about a change in political stance. And this change in political stance has finally been expressed in China's recent bilateral investment agreements with other countries regarding the imposition of compensation-China has in fact joined the major Western developed countries. In the practical operation of expropriation compensation, the requirement of Hull principle is followed: sufficient, timely and effective compensation for the loss caused by nationalization. The change in China's attitude on the issue of expropriation and compensation confirms an international tacit fact: it is clearly out of date and contrary to safeguarding the interests of the country to stick to certain spiritual concepts or ideologies. In the face of national interests, there is no eternal stand, but only political decisions based on national strength. Although the current state of development of the international community and international law is no longer a state of "truth only within the range of artillery", the political needs of countries are that the direction and impetus of the development of international law will not change. The status of international law as a tool for seeking rational interpretation of national political needs will not change.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.295

【参考文献】