中美双边投资协定谈判中的冲突与趋同

发布时间：2018-01-24 12:03

本文关键词： 中国美国 BIT 谈判冲突趋同　出处：《东北亚论坛》2017年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：本文认为,历时八年的中美双边投资协定谈判(BIT)之所以未能在奥巴马总统任期内完成,主要是因为双方在核心利益诉求上存在的冲突。这种冲突主要集中在国有企业、投资者和东道国争端解决机制、知识产权保护及劳工和环保等四个条款。这种冲突体现了两国在规则制定上的分歧。而导致这种冲突的主要原因,则包括不同的制度性因素、对国家安全因素的考量、全球经济格局中的大国竞争以及国际经济规则重塑中的规则之争。基于目前中美两国之间紧密的经济相互依赖关系,特别是中美双边投资拥有巨大的增长空间,中美BIT谈判具备了从冲突走向趋同的基础。在走向趋同的过程中,中国应该重视对美方的要价及其政策决策过程的分析、双方都应该妥善对待"国家安全审查"这一问题、坚持以"共同但有区别"这一理念制定BIT规则以及积极推进中美"新型大国关系"的构建。
[Abstract]:This paper argues that, after eight years of Sino US bilateral investment agreement negotiations (BIT) failed to complete the Obama presidency, mainly because of the conflict between the two sides in the core interests. This conflict is mainly concentrated in state-owned enterprises, investors and the host country dispute settlement mechanism, the protection of intellectual property rights and labor and environmental protection and other four terms. This conflict reflects the two countries in different rules making. The reasons of the conflict, including different institutional factors, on the issue of national security, big country competition and international economic rules to reshape the global economic pattern in the rules in the dispute between the two countries. At present, close economic interdependence based on the relationship, especially the Sino US bilateral investment has a huge growth space, the Sino US BIT negotiations with the foundation from conflict to convergence in the process towards convergence in, China should attach importance to the analysis of the US's asking price and its policy decision process. Both sides should properly treat the problem of "National Security Review", adhere to the concept of "common but differentiated", formulate the BIT rules and actively promote the construction of the new great power relationship between China and the US.

【作者单位】：吉林大学经济学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目(13YJA790126)
【分类号】：F740.41
【正文快照】： 一、问题的提出中美两国不仅是全球最大的两个经济体,而且也是在贸易、投资以及金融等诸多领域存在最大差异的经济体。虽然中美两国分别是新兴市场国家中最大的对外直接投资国家和全球最大的对外直接投资国家,但是目前中美双边直接投资的规模却远远低于这两个全球最大的经济体

【相似文献】