论国际投资仲裁正当性危机

当前,国际投资仲裁裁决不一致、国际投资仲裁程序损害东道国主权的现象时有发生,使得人们对国际投资仲裁的正当性产生了质疑。造成国际投资仲裁裁决不一致的主要原因在于BIT特定条款规定较模糊、国际投资仲裁实践仍不够丰富。造成国际投资仲裁裁决损害东道国主权的主要原因在于缔约国签订了高度自由的BIT,让渡了过多的主权。各缔约国签订BIT时可尝试就一些重要条款的含义与适用标准做出更明确的规定,并用好＂四大安全阀＂,维护自身主权免受不合理的侵犯。同时国际投资仲裁制度也应通过增强透明度、设立合并仲裁等方式弥补程序本身的不足。     

The Last Bite of the BITs—Supremacy of EU Law versus Investment Treaty Arbitration

According to Article 267 TFEU, national courts of the EU Member States can (and sometimes must) ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation and application of Community law, including international treaties and recommendations, and on the validity of Community secondary legislation. In this way, it is ensured that EU citizens are treated equally throughout the Union. However, this is not applicable when it comes to arbitral proceedings, be they commercial or investment arbitrations. The Court does not accept references for preliminary rulings from arbitral tribunals. For this reason, respondent states in international arbitral proceedings have argued that arbitration and EU law are utterly incompatible. In their submissions as respondents in arbitral proceedings, EU Member States have argued that, as a result of EU accession, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been automatically terminated. In subsidiary, they sometimes claim that, due to their incompatibility with EU law, BITs cannot apply. But if BITs are not applicable anymore, there are few remedies left for investors within the EU.     

Julien Fouret (Consulting Editor): Enforcement of Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards: A Global Guide

Liverpool Law Review -     

论国际投资条约仲裁的正当性缺失及其矫正

随着投资条约仲裁案件不断攀升,国际投资法以及投资条约仲裁凸显其重要性。但由于投资争议的特殊性、有关实体法的模糊或缺失、程序法的缺陷,出现了投资条约仲裁的正当性危机。实际上危机一说有夸张之嫌。经过制度化的改良,如通过增强仲裁程序透明度、允许法庭之友参与仲裁程序、合并审理、遵循先例、加强投资条约仲裁的公共功能等,投资条约仲裁制度的正当性缺失可在相当程度上得以矫正。同时,在国际投资实践中还应该细化投资条约的核心内容、限制管理国家风险、推动ADR和DPPs,以有效地防止争议发生和降低争议解决成本。     

The Pluralism of Global Administrative Law

As public power is increasingly exercised in structures of globalgovernance, principles of domestic law and politics are extendedto the global level, with serious repercussions for the structureof international law. Yet, as this article seeks to show forthe emerging global administrative law, this extension is oftenproblematic. Using administrative law mechanisms to enhancethe accountability of global regulation faces the problem offundamental contestation over the question of to whom globalgovernance should be accountable. National, international andcosmopolitan constituencies are competing for primacy, and thisresults in an often disorderly interplay of accountability mechanismsat different levels and in different regimes. This pluraliststructure, based on pragmatic accommodation rather than cleardecisions, strongly contrasts with the ideals of coherence andunity in modern constitutionalism and domestic administrativelaw. However, given the structure of global society, it is likelyto endure and it is also normatively preferable to alternative,constitutionalist approaches. It helps avoid the friction thatmay result from a federal-type distribution of powers and thepractical problems of a consociational order, and by denyingall constituencies primacy it reflects the legitimacy deficitsof each of them. Mirroring divergent views on the right scopeof the political order, it also respects everybody’s equalright to political participation. A pluralist global administrativelaw thus presents an alternative to problematic domestic modelsfor ensuring accountability in the circumstances of global governance.     

J. Baumgartner,Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law

Netherlands International Law Review -     

论ICSID对涉中国投资条约仲裁的管辖权

ICSID对涉中国投资条约仲裁管辖涉及投资种类、主体、地域三方面。中国根据《华盛顿公约》第25（4）条所做声明构成ICSID对涉中国管辖权的条件限制。在没有明确排除的前提下,香港和澳门居民中具有中国国籍的自然人可以援引中外BITs。但基于＂一国两制＂,中外BITs不适用于香港和澳门地区,也不适用于在香港和澳门地区设立的法人。     

Global Administrative Law: The View from Basel

International law-making by sub-national actors and regulatorynetworks of bureaucrats has come under attack as lacking inaccountability and legitimacy. Global administrative law isemerging as an approach to understanding what internationalorganizations and national governments do, or ought to do, torespond to the perceived democracy deficit in internationallaw-making. This article examines the Basel Committee on BankingSupervision, a club of central bankers who meet to develop internationalbanking capital standards and to develop supervisory guidance.The Basel Committee embodies many of the attributes that criticsof international law-making lament. A closer examination, however,reveals a structure of global administrative law inherent inthe Basel process that could be a model for international law-makingwith greater accountability and legitimacy.     

Investment Treaty Law and the Fear for Sovereignty: Transnational Challenges and Solutions

This article addresses the vagueness, and the interpretative challenges associated with, international investment agreements (IIAs) and develops a new normative framework for interpreting these treaties. It focuses on the historical embedding of investment protection as a means of facilitating economic development as well as upon its synthetic public law nature. The analysis shows that a teleological approach to interpretation imposes boundaries on the meaning of substantive IIA provisions. The article then elaborates how the transnational dimension of IIAs provides a benchmark, which is the level of protection offered to economic actors against interference by the state in countries with the highest rule of law standards. The article then shows how the resulting challenges of comparative public law could be addressed through the methodology of re‐ and pre‐statement of transnational uniform ‘principles’: sophisticated and detailed rules striking the proper balance between private economic interests and the public regulatory interest, so as to provide more legal certainty for both investors and host states.     

《全球化时代的行政法》

书名 :ＡｄｍｉｎｉｓｔｒａｔｉｖｅＬａｗｉｎａＧｌｏｂａｌＥｒａ 作者 :[美 ]ＡｌｆｒｅｄＣ .Ａｍａｎ ,Ｊｒ.出版 :ＣｏｒｎｅｌｌＵｎｉｖｅｒｃｉｔｙＰｒｅｓｓ,1 992《全球化时代的行政法》@于安~~~~     

全球行政法的产生(上)

一引言:被忽视的全球行政法的兴起 尽管很少得到关注,但是重要并处于发展中的全球行政法正在塑造着全球治理的新模式.的确,这个法律体系目前尚不统一,也还不是一个有序的学术或实践领域.纽约大学法学院的全球行政法研究项目<'[1]>就是将各种国内、跨国和国际框架中与全球治理中的行政法相关的研究系统化的一项努力.借助该项目第一阶段形成的理念,在本文中我们首先从这些多样化的实践中确定一些充分深刻和影响深远、从而构成全球行政法雏形的共性和关联模式.我们指出一些促进共同路径发展的因素和增进该领域一体化程度的学习、借鉴和参照机制.     

行政规章的民事法源地位及问题

行政规章的民事法源地位与行政法对民法的规范效应,是一个问题的两个侧面。“涉民性”与“民事性”行政规章的出现,强烈地改变了民事行为传统的法律渊源结构,形成了新的民事行为生态环境。中国民事行为的路径依赖背景主要是传统的政治体制和文化哲学,但是,诸多客观社会事实也需要行政权力对传统民事关系介入。     

作为利害调整法的行政法

从功能上而言,传统行政法通过依法律行政原理和行政救济的保障机制来防止行政权侵犯个人的自由,可谓自由防御型行政法。但随着社会变迁和国家任务的变化,行政机关越来越多地与行政相对人、利害关系人形成三方乃至多方行政法关系,就其间的个人利益、集体利益和公共利益依法展开调整。与此相伴而生的行政法可谓利害调整型行政法。这种新型功能下的行政法以公益私益共存论为基础,通过对传统行政实体法、程序法、救济法等制度的深刻变革,在复杂的利害关系中实现对第三人公权利的保护。这种行政法可以充分整合行政信息,优化行政的决策与执行,实现秩序性和持续性的调整,可以提前解决纠纷,同时也能将行政法与行政现实、政策需要、行政法各论有效地衔接起来,增强行政法的灵活性、动态性、广域性和实效性。如此复合型的行政法方可谓现代化了的行政法。     

Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values

There is currently much interest in the question whether a globaladministrative law is coming into being and, if so, whetherthis is desirable or otherwise. This paper addresses the questionof principles for a global administrative law. It considersfour potential sources and their suitability as a foundationfor a global administrative law system: first, the largely proceduralprinciples that have emerged in national administrative lawsystems, notably the principle of legality and due process principles(Section 3); second, the set of rule of law values, promotedby proponents of free trade and economic liberalism (Section4); third, the good governance values, and more particularlytransparency, participation and accountability, promoted bythe World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Section 5);and finally, human rights values (Section 6). The paper endson a sceptical note, concluding that a universal set of administrativelaw principles is difficult to identify and not especially desirable.First, administrative law is primarily a Western construct,protective of Western interests. It may impact unfavourablyon developing economies. Secondly, the evolution of global administrativelaw in adjudicative forums is leading to an undesirable ‘juridificationof the political process’. The paper concludes that diversityand pluralism are preferable.     

The Administrative Law of Global Private-Public Regulation: the Case of Forestry

An important ensemble of transnational, transgovernmental regulatoryinstitutions has emerged in the forestry sector over the pastdecade. These ‘forest certification’ programmesset global standards for proper forest management and applythem through institutionalized licensing and inspection programmes.Similar programmes are appearing in other sectors. Developedlargely by environmental NGOs and industry associations ratherthan governments, forest certification programmes are nominallyvoluntary, but are becoming increasingly mandatory in practice.They are also gradually linking with government regulatory andmanagement programmes in various ways, while remaining in tensionboth with each other and with government programmes. The overallregulatory system is thus highly dynamic, as the programmescompete with each other for business and also with governmentregulatory programmes for public acceptance. This paper describesand assesses the administrative law – i.e., the requirementsfor rule-making and rule application – of the emergingglobal forest regulatory system. It finds that while the certificationprogrammes are becoming increasingly transparent and participatory,often comparing favourably with government programmes, someof them still need considerable improvement and all of themface serious challenges. It concludes with a discussion of theproblem of accountability, outlining the possibility that theprogrammes exemplify an emerging new kind of ‘learningaccountability’.     

论国际商事仲裁中瑕疵仲裁协议的法律适用

有效的仲裁协议是进行国际商事仲裁的基础,实践中瑕疵仲裁协议的出现是不可避免的。瑕疵仲裁协议的有效性取决于瑕疵仲裁协议所适用的法律。从瑕疵仲裁协议特点出发,瑕疵仲裁协议法律适用的方法具有特殊性。必须从其法律适用的角度一方面确定瑕疵仲裁协议的有效性,另一方面寻求完善和解决瑕疵仲裁协议问题的方法,最终减小因仲裁协议存在瑕疵给国际商事仲裁造成的阻碍。