蔡从燕;

• 1:厦门大学法学院 福建 厦门 361005

摘要(Abstract)：

近年来,间接征收问题日益引起许多政府及国际法学者的广泛关注。认定间接征收实际上就是如何判断特定政府措施的“效果”与“目的”以及如何处理二者之间的关系。从法律学说、法律规范及投资仲裁三个层面可以发现间接征收认定标准的若干新发展。在认定间接征收过程中引入比例原则有其积极作用,但潜在风险也不客忽视。

关键词(KeyWords)： 间接征收;效果标准;目的标准;比例原则

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 蔡从燕;

Email:

DOI:

参考文献(References)：

• ①See Forward:Introduction to Regulatory Expropriation in International Law and Case Summaries[J]. New York University Environmental Law Journal,Vol.11(2002).
• ②See L. Yves Fortier & Stephen L. Drymer, Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment:I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor[J].ICSID Review, Vol. 19 (2004),p300.
• ①“治安权”概念并未规定于美国宪法,而是理论界与司法界根据联邦宪法第5、14修改案提出的,最早针对人民基本权利之“有害的行使”(noxious use),其后扩及环境生态保护、促进竞争与保护消费等诸多领域,旨在保护或促进公共利益。根据司法实践,政府行使“治安权”给人民造成损害的,可以不予赔偿,因而事实上修正了《联邦宪法》第15修正案。(参见陈新民．德国公法学基础理论[M]．济南:山东人民出版社,2001．436-441．)
• ②多而泽在BIT解释问题上所持的见解。See Rudolf Dolzer, Indirect Expropriation:New Development?[J]．New York University Enviromental Law Journal,Vol.11(2002),pp.73-74．
• ①《中国—阿根廷双边投资协定》第4条第1款。
• ②《美国—阿根廷双边投资协定》第4条第1款。
• ①《美国—乌拉圭双边投资协定》附件B第4条第1款。
• ②CMS Gas Transmission Cormpany v．The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No．ARB／01／8,Award of 12,2005,paras．224,286．
• [1] Michael G. Parisi, Moving Toward Transparency? An Examination of Regulatory Taking [J]. Emory International Law Review, Vol. 19(2005),p. 388.
• [2] W. Michael Reisman & Robert D. Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and Its Valuation in the BIT Generation [J]. The British Year Book of International Law, 2003,p.116.
• [3] Rainer Geiger, Regulatory Expropriations in International Law:Lessons from the Multilateral Agreement on Investment [J]. New York University Environmental Law Journal, Vol.11(2002) , p. 107.
• [4][14]Bjorn Kunoy, Developments in Indirect Expropriation Case Law in ICSID Transnational Arbitration [J]. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 6(2005), p.472.
• [5][7][30][31]陈新民．德国公法学基础理论[M]．济南:山东人民出版社,2001．445;445;426;368-370．
• [6][23][26] L. Yves Fortier & Stephen L. Drymer, Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment:I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor[J]. ICSID Review, Vol. 19(2004),p.313;314;315.
• [8][11] Rudolf Dolzer, Indirect Expropriation of Alien Property[J] , ICSID Review, Vol. 1(1986) , p. 55 ;56.
• [9][10][13][21] Rudolf Dolzer, Indirect Expropriation:New Development? [J]. New York University Environmental Law Journal, Vol. 11(2002) , p.79; 80;90;78 -79.
• [12] Richard Hecklinger, Opening Remark at "Making the Most of Investment Agreements" (coorganized by OECE, ICSID and UNCTAD[R]. 12 December 2005 , Paris.
• [15] Tecnicas Medioambienales TECMED S. A. v. The U- nited Mexican States, Case No. ARB(AF)00//2, Award of May 29, 2003, para. 118.
• [16] Ronald S. Lauder v. the Czech Republic, Award of September 3 , 2000, para. 200.
• [18] http://www. appletonlaw. com/cases/P&T-INTERIM %20AWARD. PDF[DB/OL] , paras. 96; 102, 2006 -03 -10.
• [19] Ethan Shenkman, Could Principles of Fifth Amendment Taking Jurisprudence Be Helpful in Analyzing Regulatory Expropriation Claims under International Law? [J]. New York University Environmental Law Journal, Vol.11(2002) , pp. 190 -192.
• [20] Metalclad Corporation v. the United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award of August 30, 2000, para. 103.
• [22] CMS Gas Transmission Cormpany v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of 12, 2005, para. 107.
• [24] Eudoro A. Olguin v. Republic of Paraguay,ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5 , Award of July 26, 2001, para. 84.
• [25] Ronald S. Lauder v. the Czech Republic, Award of September 3 , 2000, para. 203.
• [27] S. D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, Partial Award of Nov. 13, 2001,paras. 164 - 195.
• [28][29]Tecnieas Medioambienales TECMED S. A. v. The United Mexican States, Case No. ARB(AF)00//2, Award of May 29,2003,para.121;122.