我国高速公路PPP融资模式的法律问题及其应对

发布时间：2018-06-30 09:00

  本文选题：中国 + 高速公路　； 参考：《湖南大学》2016年博士论文

【摘要】：高速公路发展作为衡量一个国家国民经济现代化的重要标志之一,拥有稳定、可持续的建设资金来源十分重要。高速公路PPP融资模式,通过将高速公路产品的公益性和盈利性合理结合,同时满足高速公路产品的公共属性和社会资本逐利性的要求,可实现经济效益和社会效益的双丰收。在我国高速公路融资过程中,除了预期合理的经济效益对投资者的吸引外,投资者更看重的是明确的法律规范,公正的法律适用,使其对投资前景具有可预判性。高速公路PPP融资模式,采用招投标方式选择理想合作伙伴存在灵活性不足的局限。根据我国现有法律规范,高速公路PPP项目合作伙伴选择只能采用公开招标方式,招标人要想在招标程序开始之初就将其对PPP项目的具体要求和标准形成最优方案的最终招标文件,是很难的；同时,一次性要求投标人按照招标人要求,完成无须修改的最终投标文件,也很难。招标人与投标人没有足够的时间与空间等条件就寻求解决复杂事项的办法进行商讨,以整体性创新方案解决复杂事项的需求基本没有得到满足。将高速公路PPP融资模式中特许经营协议认定为公法契约的行政合同。高速公路特许经营协议与私法范畴的民事合同主要存在主体区别、目的区别、法律地位区别、内容区别、程序区别等五个方面的不同特征。高速公路作为国家重要的基础设施,本应是国家和地方财政投资来建设,之所以国家考虑公私合作方式来建设高速公路,是因为高速公路建设投资额巨大且建设周期长,光靠国家和地方财政投资已经满足不了社会对高速公路产品的需求；当供需矛盾加大时,为提供更多高速公路产品,改善公众出行条件,政府与社会资本合作被提上日程。高速公路PPP融资模式特许经营协议中“政府保证”有别于担保法等法律规定的保证。首先,法律上所言的保证,是指债权债务关系之外的第三人与债权人约定,当债务人不履行债务时,该第三人按照约定履行债务或者承担责任的行为。其次,即使在特许经营协议中,作为政府方代表的是其组成部门或其授权的机构,该特许经营协议中的“政府保证”仍然不是法律意义上的保证。最后,高速公路PPP融资模式特许经营协议中的“政府保证”不是从合同。其实,政府方在高速公路PPP特许经营协议中的保证,本质是作为合同权利义务当事人而签订的合同条款,是其在特许经营协议中约定需要履行的义务,并非法律意义上的保证责任。高速公路PPP融资模式中,受签约主体政府方的特殊性和现有专门针对PPP模式法律位阶较低的影响,特许经营协议纠纷解决方式尚存在争议。为强调发生法律纠纷后,司法公正的重要性；选择美国加州91号快速路特许经营协议纠纷解决经验作为案例来进行研究。从美国加州91号快速路的法院调解结果来看,尊重合同原意是非常之重要；法院并没有因合同一方当事人是政府方而有所偏袒,而是依据合同原意和法律规范,依法公正裁判。这种司法适用结果,既体现了合同内容受法律保护的契约精神,也使社会资本投资者对履行合同而发生法律纠纷时有一定预判性,极大地增强了投资者投资的兴趣和信心。另外,从法律视角将高速公路采用PPP融资模式与资产证券化融资模式进行比较研究。通过对两者从是否涉及政府方特许、是否涉及政府方承诺、纠纷解决机制是否存在争议、政府方在融资过程中承担法律责任大小、投资者对融资项目控制程度等方面的法律分析,发现：第一,对关系国计民生和国家安全的高速公路项目是不适合采用PPP融资模式的；第二,由于社会资本的逐利性,在高速公路PPP融资模式中将会产生一定负面影响；第三,因政府方的承诺,也会有负面效应的产生,如非竞争性承诺,会在一定程度上以损害公共利益为代价。最后,针对高速公路开展PPP融资模式的特殊性,面对其不足之处,从法律角度提出有关建议。经前述对我国高速公路PPP融资模式一系列法律分析和研究,明确法律视角中这种融资模式的优劣势及影响,这将促使高速公路融资过程变得更加通畅,对我国高速公路建设而言具有非常重要的理论和实践意义。
[Abstract]:The development of expressway is one of the important symbols to measure the national economic modernization of a country. It is very important to have a stable and sustainable source of capital. The PPP financing mode of the expressway is a reasonable combination of the public welfare and profitability of the expressway products, and at the same time, it satisfies the public property of the expressway products and the profit of the social capital. In the process of highway financing in China, in addition to the expectation of reasonable economic benefits to attract investors, the investors pay more attention to the clear legal norms, the fair application of the law and the prejudgement of the investment front. The PPP financing model of the expressway is adopted. According to the existing legal norms of China, the choice of PPP project partners can only adopt public bidding, and the tenderers want to form the final bidding documents on the specific requirements and standards of the PPP project at the beginning of the bidding process. It is very difficult; at the same time, it is difficult for the bidder to complete the final bid documents which need not be modified in accordance with the requirements of the tenderer. The tenderer and the bidder have not enough time and space to discuss the solution to the complex matters, and the demand for solving complex matters with a holistic innovation scheme is basically not full. The concession agreement in the PPP financing mode of the expressway is recognized as the administrative contract of the public law contract. The civil contracts of the freeway franchise agreement and the private law category mainly exist the difference between the main body, the difference of the purpose, the difference of the legal status, the difference of the content, the difference of the procedure and so on. The expressway is the important state of the state. The infrastructure, should be the national and local financial investment to build, the reason why the state considers the way of public and private cooperation to build the expressway is because the investment of the highway construction is huge and the construction period is long. It can not meet the demand of the high-speed highway products by the state and local financial investment. To provide more highway products, improve the public travel conditions, the government and social capital cooperation is put on the agenda. The "government guarantee" in the PPP financing mode of the expressway is different from the guarantee law. First, the legal guarantee refers to the third people outside the creditor's debt relationship with the creditor. When the debtor fails to perform the debt, the third party performs the obligation or assumes the responsibility in accordance with the agreement. Secondly, the "government guarantee" in the franchise agreement is still not a guarantee of the legal meaning even in the franchise agreement, which is represented by the government as a government or its authorized institution. The "government guarantee" in the concession agreement of the road PPP financing mode is not a contract. In fact, the government's guarantee in the PPP franchise agreement on the expressway is essentially a contract clause as a party to the contract rights and obligations. It is the obligation to be performed in the franchise agreement and is not a guarantee in the legal sense. In the PPP financing mode of the expressway, the dispute settlement mode of the concession agreement is still controversial. The importance of judicial justice after the legal dispute is emphasized, and the dispute solution of the 91 express way concession agreement in California is selected. From the court mediation results of the 91 express road in California, US, it is very important to respect the original meaning of the contract; the court is not partial to the party as a party to the government, but is based on the original meaning of the contract and the legal norms. The contract spirit of the same content is protected by law, which also makes the social capital investors have a certain prejudgement when the legal dispute occurs in the performance of the contract, which greatly enhances the interest and confidence of the investor's investment. In addition, a comparative study is made between the PPP financing model and the asset certificate financing model from the legal perspective. Whether it involves the government's concession, whether it involves the government's commitment, the dispute settlement mechanism is controversial, the government assumes the legal responsibility in the process of financing, and the investor's legal analysis on the degree of financing project control. Using PPP financing mode; second, due to the benefit of social capital, it will have a certain negative impact on the PPP financing mode of the expressway. Third, there will be a negative effect due to the commitment of the government, such as non competitive commitment, to a certain extent, at the expense of the public interests. Finally, the PPP melting of the expressway is carried out. The particularity of the capital model, facing its shortcomings, put forward some suggestions from the legal point of view. After a series of legal analysis and Research on the PPP financing model of China's expressway, the advantages and disadvantages of this financing mode in the legal perspective will be clearly defined, which will make the financing process of the expressway become more smooth and the highway construction in China. It is of great theoretical and practical significance.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D922.297;D922.296
，

本文编号：2085743