政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/125873

政大典藏 > College of International Affairs > Department of Diplomacy > Theses > Item 140.119/125873

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125873

Title:	投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之改革：歐盟投資法庭體系之倡議 Reforming the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: the EU Proposal of an Investment Court System
Authors:	李奕威 Lee, Yih-Wei
Contributors:	陳貞如 Chen, Chen-Ju 李奕威 Lee, Yih-Wei
Keywords:	投資人與地主國爭端解決機制國際投資爭端解決中心投資法庭體系歐盟—加拿大全面經貿夥伴協議歐盟—越南投資保護協議歐盟—新加坡投資保護協議 ISDS ICSID Investment Court System CETA EU-Vietnam IPA EU-Singapore IPA
Date:	2019
Issue Date:	2019-09-05 17:21:33 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	投資人與地主國爭端解決機制 (ISDS) 是今日解決投資爭端相當重要且常用的途徑。然而，傳統投資仲裁的ISDS機制產生許多問題，並為多國所不滿。批評者指出現有機制過於昂貴、程序冗長、且缺乏透明性。仲裁員的選任也缺乏獨立性和公正性。類似案件作出的裁判對於國際投資法的解釋甚至有不一致的現象。許多國際組織跟國際社會已逐漸形成共識，認為ISDS機制的改革必須且迫切，包括「聯合國貿易與發展委員會」(UNCTAD)跟「聯合國國際貿易法第三工作組」(UNCITRAL WG3)都有提出對於ISDS改革的方案與討論。本論文啟發自前述國際組織的改革，以「問題解決模式」為觀點，將多種ISDS改革途徑分為四種類型：（一）改革現有的投資仲裁、（二）新增上訴機構的投資仲裁、（三）多邊投資法庭、（四）以國與國爭端解決或內國法院取代國際投資仲裁。並逐一討論不同的改革類型，多大程度上能夠解決國際社會對ISDS的各項批評。國際社會對於不同的改革模式仍處於討論階段之時，歐盟(EU)為第一個改革的實際行動者，在其共同政策文件提出「投資法庭體系」(Investment Court System)之倡議，並將此爭端解決模式用於未來歐盟所有的經貿、投資協議談判之中。投資法庭體系的概念目前已落實在歐盟—加拿大全面經貿夥伴協議、歐盟—越南投資保護協議、和歐盟—新加坡投資保護協議。承繼本文對於不同ISDS改革模式的探討，歐盟投資法庭體系之倡議可視為ISDS改革的實例，本論文檢視歐盟的投資法庭在制度上和程序上的設計，以問題解決的觀點探討其能否改革現有ISDS機制的弊病，並成為下一代國際投資爭端解決模式的典範。 Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) is one of the important and frequently used mechanism to solve investment disputes. However, recently the traditional ISDS system of investment arbitration is problematic and not being satisfying for many states. The system is being criticized as excessive costly, lengthy and not transparent. Arbitrator’s impartiality and independence are being doubted. Similar cases even resulted in inconsistent interpretation in the concept of international investment law. The international societies have reached a consensus that the ISDS system need to be reformed. Inspired by UNCTAD’s IIA Reform and UNCITRAL’s Working Group on ISDS, this thesis tries to analysis these reform models in a problem-solving perspective and examine whether how and to what extent those ISDS concerns could be solved under the following four reform scenarios: (1) Improvement of current investor-State arbitration (2) Investment arbitration with an appellate mechanism (3) A multilateral investment court (4) Replacing ISDS with domestic court or State-to-State arbitration. However, in the meanwhile the discussion is at the stage of theoretical exploration, the EU is the first mover to reform. The EU proposed the “Investment Court System (ICS)”, which would be applied in their bilateral trade and investment agreement. Currently the idea of ICS has been embedded in the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, and EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement. Based on the discussion on the different ISDS reform scenarios, this thesis would explore the idea and design of the ICS and see in problem-solving perspective to evaluate whether the institutional and procedural design of the EU reflect the concerns of the current ISDS system to be suitable for the next-generation international investment dispute settlement.
Reference:	Books Yannaca-Small, Katia. 2010 “Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: a Guide to the Key Issues”, New York: Oxford University Press Treaties Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement between Canada and the European Union (signed 30 October 2016) Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Opinion of the CJEU of 16 May 2017, C-2/15, EU:C:2017:376 pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU on the competence of the European Union to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore. Journal Articles Andelić, Kristina. 2015 ‘Why ICSID Doesn’t Need an Appellate Procedure, and What to Do Instead’ in Jean E Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, Brill Behn, Daniel. 2015 ‘Legitimacy, Evolution, and Growth in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Empirically Evaluating the State-of-the-Art’ Georgetown Journal of International Law 46: 363 Bottini, Gabriel. 2015 ‘Reform of the Investor-State Arbitration Regime: The Appeal Proposal’ in Jean E Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, Brill Butler, Nicolette. 2017 ‘The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World Investment Organisation?’ Netherlands International Law Review 64: 43 Brown, Colin M. 2017 ‘A Multilateral Mechanism for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Some Preliminary Sketches’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 32: 673 Calamita, Jansen. 2017 ‘The Challenge of Establishing a Multilateral Investment Tribunal at ICSID’ (2017) ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 32: 611 Dimitropoulos, Georgios. 2018 ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform and Theory of Institutional Design’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement Feldman, Mark. 2017 ‘Investment Arbitration Appellate Mechanism Options: Consistency, Accuracy, and Balance of Power’ ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 32: 528 García-Bolivar, Omar E. 2015 ‘Permanent Investment Tribunals: The Momentum is Building Up’ in Jean E Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, Brill García, Luis González. 2015 ‘Making Impossible Investor-State Reform Possible’ in Jean E Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, Brill Hodgson, Matthew. 2015 ‘Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Case for Reform’ in Jean E Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, 2015 Howse, Rob. 2017 ‘Designing a Multilateral Investment Court: Issues and Options’ Yearbook of European Law 36: 209 IBA Subcommittee on Investment Treaty Arbitration, 2018 ‘Report on Consistency, Efficiency and Transparency in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ Jeffery Commission, 2016 ‘The duration and costs of ICSID and UNCITRAL investment treaty arbitrations’, in Vannin Capital eds. Funding in Focus Report Three Legum, Barton. 2015 ‘Appellate Mechanisms for Investment Arbitration: Worth a Second Look for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Proposed EU-US FTA?’ in Jean E Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, Brill Schill, Stephan. 2017 ‘Reforming Investor–State Dispute Settlement: A (Comparative and International) Constitutional Law Framework’ Journal of International Economic Law 20: 649 Voon, Tania. 2017 ‘Consolidating International Investment Law: The Mega-Regionals as a Pathway towards Multilateral Rules’, World Trade Review 17(1) Zuleta, Eduardo. 2015 ‘The Challenges of Creating a Standing International Investment Court’ in Jean E Kalicki and Anna Joubin-Bret (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century, Brill Official Documents European Commission, 2010 ‘Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy.’ http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tra- doc_146307.pdf European Commission, 2015 ‘Online Public Consultation on Investment protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement` European Commission, 2015 ‘Concept Paper: Investment in TTIP and beyond – the path for reform. Enhancing the right to regulate and moving from current ad hoc arbitration towards an Investment Court’ European Commission, 2016 ‘Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court for investment dispute resolution’ European Commission, 2017 ‘Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment on Multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution’ European Commission, 2017 ‘The identification and consideration of concerns as regards investor to state dispute settlement’ European Council, 2018 ‘Negotiating directives for a Convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes’ ICSIDSecretariat, 2004 ‘Possible Improvements and the Framework for ICSID Arbitration’ ICSID Secretariat, 2019 ‘ICSID Caseload Statistics’, Issue of 2019-1 UNCITRAL, ‘Possible future work in the field of dispute settlement: Reforms of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), Note by the Secretariat’, April 2017, A/CN.9/917 UNCITRAL 51st Session, ‘Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-fifth session’, May 2018, A/CN.9/935 UNCITRAL WG3, ‘Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Submission from the European Union’, December 2017, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.145 UNCITRAL WG3, Possible Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement - Cost and Duration - Note by the Secretariat, Doc. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.153 UNCTAD, 2015. ‘World Investment Report 2015: Reforming International Investment Governance’ Geneva, Switzerland: UNCTAD UNCTAD, 2017 ‘IIA Issue Note’, Issue 4 UNCTAD, 2018 ‘World Investment Report 2018: Investment and New Industrial Policies. Geneva’ Switzerland: UNCTAD UNCTAD, 2018 ‘UNCTAD Reform Package for the International Investment Regime’ UNCTAD, 2018 “International Investment Agreements Navigator.” http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/IiasByCountry#footnote (July 1, 2019).
Description:	碩士國立政治大學外交學系 1052530171
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1052530171
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU201900616
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Diplomacy] Theses

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

社群 sharing

Loading...