烟草管制与国际投资法中的间接征收问题研究

发布时间：2018-07-23 15:29

【摘要】：伴随着全球经济一体化的时代到来,烟草制品的流行进一步扩大。自由贸易规则的蓬勃发展与国际条约中减少关税与非贸易壁垒的要求让跨国烟草企业开始在全球范围内再一次扩充自己的经营版图。而更加多样化的宣传方式的出现与产品包装上大面积的商标与图案,促使更多的人加入到吸烟者的队伍中。烟草管制措施的出现主要就是国家基于对公共利益的考虑,为了避免烟草制品销售量的进一步增加,通过对烟草制品宣传与包装进行限制等手段来减少烟草产品供应与需求的措施。但烟草企业在进行跨国贸易时通常都是以投资者身份进行的,在面对东道国对自身海外投资的种种限制时,烟草企业认为东道国实施的行为构成了对自身财产的侵害是一种违法的征收行为。本文主要讨论的就是通过条约实践和仲裁实践,以菲利普·莫里斯公司诉乌拉圭及澳大利亚两国的典型案例为指引分析烟草管制行为在国际投资法上的合法性问题,共分为四个部分。第一部分主要阐述世界卫生组织《烟草控制框架公约》(FCTC)的相关内容,以及澳大利亚,乌拉圭和中国国内法有关烟草管制措施的具体规定。2003年5月,世界卫生组织的《烟草控制框架公约》于日内瓦被批准。公约认为应当优先维护缔约国保护本国公共健康的权利,知悉烟草产品在世界范围内的广泛流行对公共健康问题而言是十分严峻的全球性问题,公约提倡所有的国家都应积极有效的进行国际合作,对烟草制品实行管制措施。具体可分为两类“减少烟草需求的措施”以及“减少烟草供应的措施”。澳大利亚和乌拉圭两国积极响应《烟草控制框架公约》的号召,针对烟草管制措施出台了一系列的国内立法。而中国由于实施烟草专卖制,并没有对烟草管制内容进行过多的规定。第二部分从间接征收的定义入手分析有关间接征收的条约实践同仲裁实践。征收可分为两种直接征收与间接征收。间接征收的定义与认定标准一直有所争议,许多学者提出了不同的观点与看法。在有关间接征收的条约实践中,早期的双边条约的内容中对于间接征收的规定往往较为简洁概括,在事实判定上更愿意倾向投资者的利益。到了近期,德国、美国以及加拿大的双边条约中有关间接征收的条款规定的更为明确,也愈加重视东道国的管制权。在仲裁实践中对同间接征收有关的纷争也并未形成统一的做法与标准。第三部分,通过对与烟草管制有关的具体案例来判断烟草管制能否构成间接征收,以菲利普·莫里斯诉澳大利亚和乌拉圭两国为例来分析烟草管制中商标权能否成为间接征收的对象,单一外观与要求烟草制品包装上警示图形面积不得少于80%的要求应认定成是政府实施的合法的管制行为还是国家以维护公共健康为名实施的违法的征收行为。第四部分,结合之前的内容阐明烟草管制与间接征收的认定问题所带来的启示,尽管东道国有权正当合理的行使管制权以保障公共健康,但东道国应当遵守投资条约义务,不得违反条约义务,滥用权利违法征收投资者财产。
[Abstract]:With the arrival of the era of global economic integration, the popularity of tobacco products has expanded further. The vigorous development of free trade rules and the requirement of reducing tariffs and non trade barriers in international treaties have made transnational tobacco enterprises expand their own business charts again in the world. The emergence of tobacco control measures is mainly based on the consideration of the public interest, in order to avoid the further increase in the sales of tobacco products, and to reduce tobacco production through restrictions on the dissemination and packaging of tobacco products. While the tobacco enterprises are usually engaged in international trade, they are usually carried out in the identity of the investors. In the face of the host country's restrictions on their own overseas investment, the tobacco enterprises believe that the behavior of the host country constitutes an illegal expropriation of their own property. This article is mainly discussed in this article. Through treaty practice and arbitration practice, the legitimacy of tobacco control behavior in international investment law is analyzed with the typical cases of Philip Morris Companies Uruguay and Australia, which are divided into four parts. The first part mainly expounds the relevant contents of the WHO Framework Convention on tobacco control (FCTC). The specific provisions relating to tobacco control measures in Australia, Uruguay and China's domestic law were approved in May.2003. The WHO Framework Convention on tobacco control was approved in Geneva. The Convention believes that priority should be given to safeguarding the rights of States parties to protect their public health and to know the widespread prevalence of tobacco products to the public in the world. The health problem is a very serious global problem. The Convention advocates international cooperation and control of tobacco products by all countries actively and effectively. It can be divided into two categories, "measures to reduce tobacco demand" and "measures to reduce tobacco supply". Australia and Uruguay have actively responded to "tobacco control". A series of domestic legislation on tobacco control measures has been introduced in the call of the Framework Convention on tobacco control. China has not made too much provisions on tobacco control content due to the implementation of the tobacco monopoly system. The second part begins with the definition of indirect expropriation to analyze the practice of the Treaty on indirect expropriation and the practice of arbitration. The collection can be divided into two direct methods. The definition and criteria of indirect expropriation have always been controversial, and many scholars have put forward different views and views. In the practice of indirect expropriation, the provisions of the early bilateral treaties tend to be more concise and concise in the provisions of the indirect expropriation, and are more willing to tend to the interests of investors in the fact judgment. In the near future, the provisions of the indirect expropriation provisions in the bilateral treaties of Germany, the United States and Canada are more clearly defined, and the control rights of the host country are paid more and more attention. In the practice of arbitration, there is no unified practice and standard for the disputes related to indirect expropriation. The third part, through specific cases related to tobacco control, Whether or not tobacco control can be collected indirectly, Philip Maurice v. Australia and Uruguay have been used as an example to analyze whether the commercial standard in tobacco control can be a target of indirect expropriation. The requirement of a single appearance and the requirement of a warning graphic area on the packaging of tobacco products should not be less than 80%, which should be regarded as the legal management of the government. The fourth part, in combination with the previous content, clarifies the implications of the identification of tobacco control and indirect expropriation, although the host country has the right to exercise the right to safeguard public health properly and reasonably, but the host country should comply with the obligations of the investment treaty, Violation of treaty obligations, abuse of rights, illegal collection of investors' property.
【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】：D996.4;D912.29

【共引文献】