Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/114281
|
| Title: | 論國際投資協定國籍安排之爭議 ——台新彰銀案之管轄權初探
Disputes of Nationality Planning under International Investment Agreement——Preliminary Study on Taishin Financial Holdings and Chang Hwa Bank Arbitration |
| Authors: | 黃意涵 |
| Contributors: | 楊培侃
黃意涵 |
| Keywords: | 國籍安排
國籍規劃
國際投資仲裁
管轄權
台新彰銀仲裁案
Nationality planning
International investment arbitration
Jurisdiction
Taishin Financial Holdings |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-11-01 14:18:17 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 台新彰銀仲裁案是台灣首次成為國際投資仲裁案之被告，本案之事實背景自十餘年前即受到高度關注，仲裁庭成立後，此爭端將由國內法院延燒至國際舞台，也使國人開始注意到國際投資仲裁之重要性。隨著國際經貿環境之開放，海外投資逐漸頻繁，跨國企業針對公司需求為國籍安排儼然已成為一種趨勢，地主國面對透過國際投資協定直接或間接與其建構關係之外國投資人，應如何在真正獲得海外投資利益之前提下，維護本身權益；投資人又應如何安排，以避免遭仲裁庭認定為權利濫用而喪失仲裁案件管轄權，為值得研究之議題。
為了解仲裁庭審理管轄權時可能適用之標準與考量之因素，本文利用歸納整理之方式，藉助前案了解仲裁庭之審查標準，嘗試定位仲裁庭之審判角度。結果顯示，相較於投資、投資人等明文規範，仲裁庭認定案件不具管轄權之關鍵普遍為「時間問題」，例如投資人投資當下爭端早已發生、投資人可預見爭端即將發生而決定轉換公司國籍之情況，同時，「欠缺實質營業內容」之投資也容易促使仲裁庭認定投資為空殼公司，進而判定投資人所為屬於權利濫用。
接續以本文統整之結果分析，台新彰銀仲裁案中，因原告投資台新金之時間明顯晚於爭端發生時間，且無持續性爭端、不可預見性等要素可作為抗辯，故應難以通過仲裁管轄權之審查。此也再次呼應時序問題於國籍安排之重要性，故無論是外國投資人或地主國在藉用國際投資協定時，皆須謹慎為之。
Taishin Financial Holdings and Chang Hwa Bank Arbitration is the first case Taiwan participates in as a respondent under international investment arbitration. This dispute has been extended from the domestic court to the international stage since the tribunal established. With the opening of the international trade environment and the gradual increase in overseas investment, nationality planning seems to have become a trend. As Host states and investors’ concerned, how should both sides make profit through the investment but also protect their rights simultaneously is an issue to be discussed here.
To understand the criteria and considerations that may be applicable to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, this article collectes several pervious international investment arbitration cases which are related to nationality planning. The results show that, ratione temporis and the timing issue are the main issue that precluded tribunal from exercising jurisdiction. At the same time, investments in lack of "substantial business activities" are also easy to urge the tribunal to consider investing as a shell company, leading to the notion of abuse of rights.
Then, based on the analysis of the results above, we find that, because the time of the investment made by claimant is later than the time of the dispute, nor can claimant invoke “the dispute is an continuous act" or " the dispute is unforeseeable" as defenses, the tribunal may decide that it lacks jurisdiction in Taishin Financial Holdings and Chang Hwa Bank Arbitration. |
| Reference: | 壹、中文
一、書籍
1. 方嘉麟、樓永堅審定，企業併購個案研究.一，元照出版社，2008 年。
2. 李貴英，國際投資法專論國際投資爭端之解決，元照出版社，2014 年1月。
二、期刊論文
1. 賴寧寧，「台新金天價奪標，展開「第一金控」佈局」，財訊月刊，281期。
三、研究計畫
1. 經濟部、吳必然，國際投資協定-應用篇，2013 年7 月。
2. 黃景沂、莊晋祥，台灣銀行業在兩次金融改革期間的競爭與存、貸戶福利的變化，經濟論文叢刊，(2012)，421-460，國立台灣大學經濟學系。
四、博碩士學位論文
3. 李潔，「論『揭穿公司面紗原則』功能之擴張及其於國際投資仲裁之適用」，國立台灣大學碩士論文，2015 年8 月。
五、網路資料
1. 王孟倫，「星法人擬提國際仲裁，台新金拿彰銀添助力」，自由時報，2016年7 月19 日。（最後瀏覽日：2017 年9 月20 日）。
2. 王孟倫，外資提彰銀案國際仲裁海牙法院受理，自由時報，2017 年1 月25 日。
3. 台南東南亞國家協會研究中心，網址：
http://www.aseancenter.org.tw/ASEAN_Document_ACIA.aspx。
4. 許家誠，從彰銀經營權爭奪看國際投資仲裁之虛實，蘋果即時，2016 年8月26 日，網址：
http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20160826/936817/（最後瀏覽日：2017 年9 月19 日）。
5. 林喬慧、劉曉霞，【彰銀案生變？】新加坡商跨國告財政部 吳東亮併彰銀現轉機，鏡週刊，2016 年11 月9 日，網址：
https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20161108fin004/（最後瀏覽日：2017 年10 月20 日）。
6. 彰化銀行公會，「請再一次對台新金投下反對票」，苦勞網，2017 年5 月16日，網址：http://www.coolloud.org.tw/node/88344（最後瀏覽日：2017 年9月19 日）。
六、法院判決
1. 台灣台北地方法院103 年度金字第104 號判決。
2. 台灣高等法院民事判決105 年度重上字第621 號判決
貳、英文
一、書籍
1. Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 105, Cambridge University Press, 121, 127 (1994).
2. Richard Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation, Oxford University Press (2008).
二、期刊
1. Alex Grabowski, The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Convention: A Defense of Salini, CHICAGO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 15, No. 9.
2. Barton Legum, Defining Investment and Investor: Who Is Entitled to Claim?, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Dec. 12, 2015.
3. Christoph Schreuer, Nationality Planning, in Arthur W. Rovine, Contemporary Issue in International Arbitration and Mediation: the Fordham Papers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers (2014).
4. Daniela P aez-Salgado, Settlements in Investor–State Arbitration: Are Minority Shareholders Precluded from Having its Treaty Claims Adjudicated?, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENt, Jan, 20, 2016.
5. David J. Bederman, The Spirit of International Law 31, Athens: University of Georgia Press (2002).
6. Débora Carvalho Pinto, Is the retrospective exercise of the ‘denial of benefits’ clause contrary to the investor’s legitimate expectations under the Energy
Charter Treaty?, Maastricht University Faculty of Law LLM in Globalisation 121 and Law, March, 2016.
7. Eric De Brabandere, “Good Faith”, “Abuse of Process” and the Initiation of Investment Treaty Claims, 609, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol.
3, No. 3, Nov. 2012.
8. Joseph D’Angostino, Rescuing International Investment Arbitration: Introducing Derivative Actions, Class Actions and Compulsory Joinder, 98(1) Virginia L Rev
177, 188 (2012).
9. Lindsay Gastrell & Paul-Jean Le Cannu, Procedural Requirements of ‘Denial-of- Benefits’ Clauses in Investment Treaties: A Review of Arbitral Decisions, ICSID Review (2015) 30 (1), Jan. 30, 2015.
10. Michael Byers, ‘Abuse of Rights: An Old, Principle, A New Age’, 47 McGill L. J. 389 (2002).
11. Sebastian Perry, Taiwan faces first investor-state claim, Global Arbitration Review, June 05, 2017.
12. Emmanuel Gaillard, Abuse of Process in International Arbitration, ICSID Review, Jan. 16, 2017
三、 碩博士論文
1. Ksenia Polonskaya, Abuse of Rights: Should the Investor-State Tribunals Extend the Application of the Doctrine?, Master Degree Thesis, Laws Faculty of Law
University of Toronto (2014).
三、國際投資協定
1. Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ukraine for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Feb, 10, 1993.
2. Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Kenya for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, March, 2000.
3. United States Bilateral Investment Treaties: Egypt and Panama, Jan., 11,1982.
4. 2. France and Argentina Agreement on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments, July, 3, 1991,
四、仲裁判決
1. Arbitral Award, International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. The United Mexican States, Jan, 26, 2006.
2. Award, Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, June 26, 2003.
3. Award on Jurisdiction, Joy Mining Machinery, Ltd. v. Egypt, ICSID Case, No. ARB/03/11, Aug. 6, 2004
4. Award, Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I.- DIPENTA v. République algérienne démocratique et populaire, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/08, Jan. 10, 2005.
5. Award, Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Aug. 27, 2008.
6. Award, Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Apr. 15, 2009.
7. Award, Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, B.V., Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Venezolana De Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., And Mobil Venezolana De Petróleos, Inc. V, ARB/07/27, June 10, 2010.
8. Award, Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, July, 14, 2010.
9. Award, Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case, No. ARB/09/2, Oct. 31, 2012.
10. Award on Jurisdiction an Admissibility, Philip Morris Asia Limited vs. The Commonwealth of Australia, Dec. 17, 2015.
11. Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, Fedaxn. v. Claimant and The Republic of Venezuela Respondent, Case No. ARB/96/3, July 11, 1997.
12. Decision on Jurisdiction, Lanco International Inc v The Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case, No ARB/97/6, Dec. 8, 1998.
13. Decision On Jurisdiction, Salini Costruttori S.P.A. And Italstrade S.P.A. Claimants V. Kingdom Of Morocco Respondent, Case No. Arb/Oo/4, July 23, 2001.
14. Decision On Jurisdiction, Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, Case No. ARB/02/18, July, 1, 2003.
15. Decision on The Application For Annulment of The Award, Mr. Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Feb. 9, 2004.
16. Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Oct, 21, 2005.
17. Decision on The Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections, Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case, No. ARB/09/12, June 1, 2012.
18. Decision on Jurisdiction, Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case, No. ARB/06/2, Sep.
27, 2012.
19. Decision on Jurisdiction and The Merits, Conocophillips Petrozuata B.V. Conocophillips Hamaca B.V. Conocophillips Gulf of Paria B.V. And Conocophillips Company V. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. Arb/07/30, Sep. 3, 2013.
20. Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway), ICJ 3, 1951; Case of Certain Norwegian
21. Final Award, Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case no. AA 227, July 18, 2014.
22. Interim Award On Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Yukos Universal v. Russia, ¶ 63-64, PCA Case no. AA 227 , Nov. 30, 2009.
23. Partial Award, Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Mar. 17, 2006.
24. Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009.
25. Project (Hungary v Slovakia), ICJ Rep 7, 1997.
五、網路資料
1. Antony D’Amato, “Good Faith in Encyclopedia of Public International Law”,1992, from: anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/encyclopedia/good125
faith.pdf.
2. Munir Maniruzzaman, The Concept of Good Faith in International Investment Disputes – The Arbitrator’s Dilemma, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, Apr. 30, 2012,
from: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2012/04/30/the-concept-of-good-faith-ininternational- investment-disputes-the-arbitrators-dilemma-2/.
3. OECD, Definition of Investor and Investment in International Investment Agreements, 18, (2008), from:
https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/40471468.pdf. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
104351041 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104351041 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 104101.pdf | | 2351Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 320 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
