《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制研究

Study on the State-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement On Investment

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

国际法学院

作者:

杨淇

摘要:

在以往的国际投资实践中,由于双边和多边投资协定中的实体条款以及国际投资仲裁机制对投资者的保护倾向,严重影响了东道国的利益,因此如何平衡投资者保护与东道国利益成为了国际投资领域的重要议题。同时,近年来逆全球化势力抬头,国际经济环境变得越来越复杂,投资仲裁面临着合法性危机,发生在缔约国双方间的争端逐渐进入了人们的视野,国家已然开始回归国际投资法体系。正是在这样的背景下,《中欧全面投资协定》于2013年正式启动,经长达7年的谈判后,《中欧全面投资协定》用专章规定了国家间争端解决机制,并放缓了投资者-国家争端解决机制的谈判,向世界展示了两大主要经济体—中国与欧盟对于投资者和东道国利益平衡及重构的立场。相比于传统的国家间争端解决机制条款,《中欧全面投资协定》的国家间争端解决机制呈现出大刀阔斧的变革,通过这一机制的建立,期望能够促进双方在一个更加平等和高效的投资环境中对话,进而加强中欧间的经济关系。 本文除引言和结论外,一共包含五个部分:第一部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制概述。该部分首先辨析了国家间争端解决机制的概念及内涵,然后分别介绍了国家间争端解决机制的三个历史发展时期,以及《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制的产生背景。第二部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制的框架体系分析。该部分深入剖析了此项机制的具体规则,包括磋商调解、专家组等程序设计,以及各程序的时限要求。通过对这些具体规则进行研究,可以更好地理解《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制的运作方式。第三部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制与其他争端解决机制的比较分析。该部分在第二部分对《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制文本进行分析的基础上,从争端解决方式、争端解决程序与时限等方面与WTO、RCEP的争端解决机制进行比较,归纳总结出《中欧全面投资协定》中国家间争端解决机制的具体特点。第四部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制中存在的问题。第四部分在前两部分详细介绍了该机制的内容与特点的基础之上,从法律角度分析了该机制存在哪些不足之处。第五部分—中国对CAI国家间争端解决机制的优化建议与应对策略。该部分首先回应了第四章,针对《中欧全面投资协定》存在的不足给出了中国在未来推动《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制上的优化建议。同时,由于协定还未正式生效,因此在后两节分析了《中欧全面投资协定》生效后,其国家间争端解决机制将给中国带来的潜在影响以及后续中国推动该机制时的应对措施。

语种:

中文

提交日期

2024-06-16

引用参考

杨淇. 《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2024.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制研究
  • dc.title
  • Study on the State-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement On Investment
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20210351011524
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 杨淇
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士专业学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2024
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 国际法
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 岳树梅,屈三才
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 国际法学院,上海锦天城(重庆)律师事务所
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 《中欧全面投资协定》,国家间争端解决机制,国际投资
  • dc.subject
  • China-Eu Comprehensive Agreement on Investment; State-State dispute settlement mechanism; International investment
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 在以往的国际投资实践中,由于双边和多边投资协定中的实体条款以及国际投资仲裁机制对投资者的保护倾向,严重影响了东道国的利益,因此如何平衡投资者保护与东道国利益成为了国际投资领域的重要议题。同时,近年来逆全球化势力抬头,国际经济环境变得越来越复杂,投资仲裁面临着合法性危机,发生在缔约国双方间的争端逐渐进入了人们的视野,国家已然开始回归国际投资法体系。正是在这样的背景下,《中欧全面投资协定》于2013年正式启动,经长达7年的谈判后,《中欧全面投资协定》用专章规定了国家间争端解决机制,并放缓了投资者-国家争端解决机制的谈判,向世界展示了两大主要经济体—中国与欧盟对于投资者和东道国利益平衡及重构的立场。相比于传统的国家间争端解决机制条款,《中欧全面投资协定》的国家间争端解决机制呈现出大刀阔斧的变革,通过这一机制的建立,期望能够促进双方在一个更加平等和高效的投资环境中对话,进而加强中欧间的经济关系。 本文除引言和结论外,一共包含五个部分:第一部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制概述。该部分首先辨析了国家间争端解决机制的概念及内涵,然后分别介绍了国家间争端解决机制的三个历史发展时期,以及《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制的产生背景。第二部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制的框架体系分析。该部分深入剖析了此项机制的具体规则,包括磋商调解、专家组等程序设计,以及各程序的时限要求。通过对这些具体规则进行研究,可以更好地理解《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制的运作方式。第三部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制与其他争端解决机制的比较分析。该部分在第二部分对《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制文本进行分析的基础上,从争端解决方式、争端解决程序与时限等方面与WTO、RCEP的争端解决机制进行比较,归纳总结出《中欧全面投资协定》中国家间争端解决机制的具体特点。第四部分—CAI国家间争端解决机制中存在的问题。第四部分在前两部分详细介绍了该机制的内容与特点的基础之上,从法律角度分析了该机制存在哪些不足之处。第五部分—中国对CAI国家间争端解决机制的优化建议与应对策略。该部分首先回应了第四章,针对《中欧全面投资协定》存在的不足给出了中国在未来推动《中欧全面投资协定》国家间争端解决机制上的优化建议。同时,由于协定还未正式生效,因此在后两节分析了《中欧全面投资协定》生效后,其国家间争端解决机制将给中国带来的潜在影响以及后续中国推动该机制时的应对措施。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In the past international investment practice, due to the substantive clauses in bilateral and multilateral investment agreements and the tendency of international investment arbitration mechanism to protect investors, the interests of the host country have been seriously affected, so how to balance the interests of investor protection and the interests of the host country has become an important issue in the field of international investment. Meanwhile, with the rise of anti-globalization forces in recent years and the increasingly complex international economic environment, investment arbitration is facing legitimacy crisis. Disputes between contracting parties have gradually come into public view, and countries have begun to return to the international investment law system. It is in this context that the China-EU Comprehensive Agreement on Investment(CAI) was officially launched in 2013, and after seven years of negotiations, CAI provides for the State-State dispute settlement mechanism with a special chapter, and slows down the negotiation of the Investor-State dispute settlement mechanism. It shows the world the position of the two major economies, China and the European, on the balance and reconstruction of the interests of investors and host countries. Compared with the traditional provisions of the State-State dispute settlement mechanism, the establishment of CAI represents a radical change in the State-State dispute settlement mechanism, which is expected to promote dialogue between the two sides in a more equal and efficient investment environment, thereby strengthening the economic relations between China and the European.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper consists of five parts:The first part distinguishes the concept and connotation of the State-State dispute settlement mechanism, and then introduces the three historical development periods of the State-State dispute settlement mechanism, as well as the background of the emergence of the State-State dispute settlement mechanism under the CAI.The second part provides an in-depth analysis of the specific rules of this mechanism, including the design of procedures such as consultation and mediation, expert groups, and the time limit requirements of each procedure. By studying these specific rules, it is possible to better understand how the State-State dispute settlement mechanism in the CAI works.Based on the analysis of the text of the State-State dispute settlement mechanism in CAI in the second part, the third part compares the dispute settlement methods, procedures and time limits with those of WTO and RCEP, and summarizes the specific characteristics of the State-State dispute settlement in CAI.Part Ⅳ introduces the content and characteristics of the mechanism in detail in the first two parts, and analyzes the shortcomings of the mechanism from the legal point of view.Part Ⅴ responds to part Ⅳ and provides China's suggestions for optimizing the State-State dispute settlement mechanism in the CAI. At the same time, since the agreement has not yet come into effect, the last two sections analyze the potential impact of the State-State dispute settlement mechanism on China after the entry into force of the CAI and the response measures taken by China when China promotes the mechanism in the future.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2024-06-16
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2024-06-01
回到顶部