資料載入中.....
|
請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159058
|
| 題名: | 論國際投資仲裁判斷與公司法制之衝突
On the Conflict Between International Investment Arbitration Decisions and Corporate Law Regimes |
| 作者: | 張書芳
Chang, Shu-Fang |
| 貢獻者: | 薛景文
Hsueh, Ching-Wen
張書芳
Chang, Shu-Fang |
| 關鍵詞: | 國際投資仲裁判斷
國際投資協定
反射性損失
法制間的差異
International investment arbitration
Shareholder Reflective Loss
Differences between legal frameworks
Investment Treaty |
| 日期: | 2025 |
| 上傳時間: | 2025-09-01 14:54:39 (UTC+8) |
| 摘要: | 英美法系或大陸法系原則上皆禁止股東就反射性損失為主張，惟國際投資法卻允許股東就公司所受之損害提出索賠，採取與內國法下之相異見解。地主國會以該權利屬於公司而非股東，主張仲裁庭對此類案件欠缺管轄權，但仲裁庭皆以股東持有股份符合投資協定所定義之「投資」，便具備「投資人」之地位，股東有權於投資仲裁下尋求救濟，惟仲裁庭如此解釋會造成兩法制間之衝突，與內國公司法下之原理原則有違。
本文透過探詢內國公司法下之原理原則及公司法規範，並透過國際投資法下之投資協定、仲裁判斷，分別建構兩個法制下之股東權益範圍，釐清法制之間的具體衝突，且同時探討聯合國國際貿易法委員會第三工作小組於2023年提出之修正草案是否為一合適的解決方案。
Both common law and civil law systems generally prohibit shareholders from claiming for shareholder reflective loss. However, international investment law adopts a different approach from that of domestic law, allowing shareholders to bring claims for losses suffered by the company. Host States often argue that such rights belong to the company rather than to its shareholders, and therefore that arbitral tribunals lack jurisdiction over such claims. Nonetheless, tribunals have consistently held that shareholders, by virtue of holding shares that qualify as an “investment” under the relevant investment treaty, attain the status of “investors” and are entitled to seek relief under investment arbitration. This interpretation, however, gives rise to a conflict between the two legal regimes, as it contravenes the principles underpinning domestic company law.
This paper examines the principles and rules of domestic company law, as well as investment treaties and arbitral decisions under international investment law, to delineate the scope of shareholder rights in each regime and clarify the specific points of conflict between them. It also considers whether the 2023 draft amendment proposed by UNCITRAL Working Group III offers an appropriate solution. |
| 參考文獻: | 中文文獻
法規
1. 《公司法》
2. 《證券交易法》
3. 《有限合夥法》
協定
新加坡與臺灣、澎湖、金門及馬祖個別關稅領域經濟夥伴協定，2013年11月7日簽署。
判決
臺灣臺北地方法院103年度金字第104號民事判決。
專書
1. 柯芳枝（2002），《公司法論（下）》，增訂五版，三民。
2. 劉連煜（2020），《現代公司法》，增訂十五版，新學林。
期刊論文
1. 王志誠（2012年），法人格獨立原則之適用及界限，月旦法學雜誌，第207期。
2. 王志誠、許光承（2019年），股東權之理論基礎及其權利保護，華岡法粹，第67期。
3. 許德風（2017年），論公司債權人的體系保護，中國人民大學學報，第31期。
4. 陳銳（2002年），論反面解釋的有效形式、邏輯根據及其位階，現代法學，202207期。
5. 曾宛如（2009年），公司法最低資本額之變革，月旦法學雜誌，171 期。
6. 賴英照（1983年），企業所有與企業經營之分合-證券交易法第26條之檢討，法學叢刊，第112期。
7. 钱玉林（2009年），英国的股东派生诉讼:历史演变和现代化改革，环球法律评论，第2期。
碩博士論文
1. 李澤楊（2023年），《股東直接訴權建立之芻議—— 以英美法為借鏡》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
2. 枋啟民（2007年），《少數股東民事訴訟救濟制度之檢討》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
3. 黃意涵（2017年），《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》，國立政治大學國際經營與貿易學系研究所碩士論文。
網路資料
1. 公司法全盤修正修法委員會，公司法全盤修正修法建議文本說明，網址：https://www.law.nccu.edu.tw/uploads/asset/data/5fc364a2dca3a31008009dd9/section1.pdf。
2. 台新金融控股股份有限公司（2015），2015年企業社會責任報告書，網址：https://www.taishinholdings.com.tw/tsh/responsibility/files/CSR-report/2015-CSR-report_c.pdf。
3. 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。
4. 立法院法律系統，公司法異動條文及理由，2018年7月6日，https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?006E30C43538000000000000000001400000000400FFFFFD00^04517107070600^00000000000。
5. 立法院法律系統，有限合夥法異動條文及理由，2015年6月5日，https://lis.ly.gov.tw/lglawc/lawsingle?0%5E60C060060C0C0660C06006970C066AC06C060D0C2662C862070C。
6. 股東的靈丹妙藥：通過條約仲裁追討反射損失，香港律師會會刊，2023年1月，網址：https://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/shareholders’-panacea-overcoming-reflective-loss-through-treaty-arbitration（最後瀏覽日：2025年7月9日）。
7. 馮萱榕，【股東會零股包餐攻略1】零股達人傳授包餐投資法 花2萬爽領1.2萬元禮券，Yahoo！股市，2025年2月24日，網址：https://tw.stock.yahoo.com/news/【股東會零股包餐攻略1】零股達人傳授包餐投資法-花2萬爽領12萬元禮券-000059834.html（最後瀏覽日：2025年7月9日）。
英文文獻
英國法規
1. THE COMPANIES ACTS 2006.
2. THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986.
美國法規
1. CALIFORNIA CODE, CORPORATIONS CODE.
2. DELAWARE CODE TITLE 8 – CORPORATIONS.
3. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
4. REVISED MODEL BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT.
協定、條約
1. Agreement between Chile and Japan for a Strategic Economic Partnership, signed Mar. 27, 2007, entered into force Sept. 3, 2007.
2. Agreement between the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and the Government of Malaysia on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Belgo.-Malay., Nov. 22, 1979, 1284 U.N.T.S. 165.
3. Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden and the Government of Romania on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Swed.-Rom., Oct. 29, 2002.
4. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the Reciprocal Protection and Promotion of Investments, signed 25 October 2011.
5. Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investment Between the Republic of Austria and the Kyrgyz Republic, Austria-Kyrgyzstan, Apr. 22, 2016, entered into force Oct. 1, 2017.
6. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Can.-E.U., Oct. 30, 2016.
7. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States art. 25 (1), opened for signature Mar. 18, 1965, 575 U.N.T.S. 159.
8. Energy Charter Treaty, signed Dec. 17, 1994, entered into force Apr. 16, 1998, 2080 UNTS 95, 34 ILM 360 (1995).
9. North American Free Trade Agreement, signed Dec. 17, 1992, entered into force Jan. 1, 1994
10. Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006).
11. U.S. DEP’T OF STATE, 2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012), https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/BIT%20text%20for%20ACIEP%20Meeting.pdf.
12. Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Ger.-Pak., Nov. 25, 1959, 457 U.N.T.S. 23.
英國法院判決
1. Bligh v. Brent [1837] 2 Y. & C. Ex. 268 (Eng.).
2. Edward v. Halliwell [1950] 2 All E.R. 1064.
3. Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders’ Association [1915] 1 Ch 881.
4. Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co., [2002] 2 A.C. 1 (House of Lords 2000).
5. Pender v. Lushington [1877] 6 Ch D 70 (Eng.).
6. Percival v. Wright [1902] 2 Ch. 421 (Eng.).
7. Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. and Others (No. 2), [1982] Ch. 204 (C.A.) (Oct. 5, 1981).
8. Re a Company (No. 00477 of 1986) [1986] B.C.L.C. 382 (Ch.).
9. Salomon v A Salomon and Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL).
10. Sharp v. Blank [2017] B.C.C. 187.
11. Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v. Shirlaw [1940] A.C. 701 (HL).
國際仲裁法院判斷及國際法院之判決
1. Antoine Goetz et consorts v. République du Burundi, ICSID (W. Bank) ARB/95/3, Award (Feb. 10, 1999).
2. Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID (W. Bank) ARB/ 87/3, Final Award (Jun. 27, 1990).
3. Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award (July 24, 2008).
4. Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier & Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award (Dec. 27, 2016).
5. Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (Judgment) [1970] ICJ Rep 3.
6. Camuzzi Int’l S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/2, Decision on Objection to Jurisdiction (May 11, 2005).
7. CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (Sept. 13, 2001).
8. CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Jurisdiction (July 17, 2003).
9. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award (12 May 2005).
10. Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID (W. Bank) ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (Jan. 14, 2004).
11. GAMI Investments, Inc. v. The Government of the United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Final Award (Nov. 15, 2004).
12. GAMI Investments, Inc. v. The Government of the United Mexican States, UNCITRAL (Submission of the United States of America) (Jun. 30, 2003).
13. Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID (W. Bank) ARB/03/10 (Decision of the Tribunal on Preliminary Questions on Jurisdiction) (Jun. 17, 2005).
14. Ioan Micula et al. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award (Dec. 11, 2013)
15. Lanco International Inc. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID (W. Bank) ARB/97/6 (Preliminary Decision: Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal) (Dec. 8, 1998).
16. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc .v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Award (Jul.25, 2007).
17. Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, PCA Case No. 2012–20.
18. Orascom TMT Investments S.à r.l. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35, Award (May 31, 2017).
19. Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL (Final Award) (Sept. 3, 2001).
20. Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (July 23, 2001).
21. Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award (Sept. 28, 2007).
22. Surfeit Harvest Investment Holding Pte Ltd v. Republic of China (Taiwan), PCA, ITALAW, https://www.italaw.com/cases/5929 (last visited July 9, 2025).
23. William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009–04, Award on Damages (Jan. 10, 2019).
美國法院判決
1. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
2. Cramer v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 582 F.2d 259 (3d Cir.1978).
3. Glenn v Hoteltron Sys., 74 N.Y.2d 386 (1989).
4. Goldstein v. Denner, No. 2020-1061-JTL, 2022 WL 1797224 (Del. Ch. June 2, 2022).
5. Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U.S. 450, 460–61, 26 L.Ed. 827 (1882).
6. Horwitz v. Balaban, 112 F. Supp. 99 (S.D.N.Y. 1949).
7. Kahn v. American Cone & Pretzel CO. et al., 365 Pa. 161 (1970).
8. Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991).
9. Knapp v. Bankers Sec. Corp., 230 F.2d 717 (3d Cir. 1956).
10. Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947).
11. Muschel v. W. Union Corp., 310 A.2d 904 (Del. Ch. 1973).
12. Re Saul D Harrison & Sons plc, [1995] 1 B.C.L.C. 14 (Ch.).
13. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531 (1970).
14. Security First Corp. v. U.S. Die Casting & Dev. Co., 687 A.2d 563 (Del. 1997).
15. Smith v. Hurd, 53 Mass. (12 Met.) 371 (1847).
16. Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1031 (Del. 2004).
專書
1. PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, 1994.
2. CAMPBELL MCLACHLAN, LAURENCE SHORE AND MATTHEW WEINIGER, INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION 191 (1st ed. 2007).
3. CHIN LENG LIM, JEAN HO & MARTINS PAPARINSKIS, INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION: COMMENTARY, AWARDS AND OTHER MATERIALS (2d ed. 2021).
4. FRANKLIN A. GEVURTZ, CORPORATION LAW 153 (West Academic Publishing. 2000).
5. Henry Hansmann and Richard Squire, External and Internal Asset Partitioning: Corporations and Their Subsidiaries, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF CORPORATE LAW AND GOVERNANCE (Gordon & Ringe, eds., 2018).
6. JOHN ARMOUR, ET AL., What is Corporate Law?, in THE ANATOMY OF CORPORATE LAW: A COMPARATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL APPROACH (Reinier Kraakman eds., 3d ed. 2017).
7. KENNETH J. ARROW, THE LIMITS OF ORGANIZATION (1974).
8. LUKAS VANHONNAEKER, SHAREHOLDERS’ CLAIMS FOR REFLECTIVE LOSS IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (Cambridge Univ. Press 2020).
9. PAUL L. DAVIES & SARAH WORSHINGTON, GOWER: PRINCIPLES OF MODERN COMPANY LAW (10th ed. 2016).
10. RUDOLF DOLZER & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2ND ED. 2012).
11. ZACHARY DOUGLAS, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF INVESTMENT CLAIMS (CAMBRIDGE UNIV. PRESS 2009).
期刊
1. Anuki Suraweera, Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Proposing Reform Options for States, 38(3) ICSID REVIEW - FOREIGN INVESTMENT L. J., 595 (2023).
2. Chieh Lo, Surfeit v. Taiwan, A Claim Too Ambitious? An Assessment of Taiwan’s First Investment Treaty Case and Its Implications, 12(1) CONTEMP. ASIA ARB. J. 71 (2019).
3. Dennis J. Block, Stephen A. Radin & James P. Rosenzweig, The Role of the Business Judgment Rule in Shareholder Litigation at the Turn of the Decade, 45 BUS. LAW. 469 (1990).
4. Editors, Distinguishing Between Direct and Derivative Shareholder Suits, 110 U. PA. L. REV. 1147 (1962).
5. Henry Hansmann & Reinier Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, 89 GEO. L.J. 439 (2001).
6. Jill E. Fisch & Steven Davidoff Solomon, Should Corporations Have a Purpose?, 99 TEX. L. REV. 1309 (2021).
7. John Armour, Shareholder Rights, 36 OXFORD REV. ECON. POL'Y 314 (2020).
8. Julian Arato, The Private Law Critique of International Investment Law, 113 AM. J. INT’L L. 1. (2019).
9. Julian Arato, Kathleen Claussen, Jaemin Lee and Giovanni Zarra, Reforming Shareholder Claims in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, 14(2) JOURNAL OF INTL. DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 242 (2023).
10. Julian Velasco, The Fundamental Rights of Shareholders, 40 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 413 (2006).
11. Kenneth J. Vandevelde, A Brief History of International Investment Agreements, 12 U.C. DAVIS J. INT’L L. & POL’Y 157 (2005).
12. Kyla Tienhaara, Regulatory Chill in a Warming World: The Threat to Climate Policy Posed by Investor-State Dispute Settlement, 7 TRANSNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 229 (2018).
13. L. S. Sealy, Shareholders' Agreements. An Endorsement and a Warning from the House of Lords, 51 CAMB L. J. 437 (1992).
14. Margaret M. Blair and Lynn A. Stout, A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, 85 VIRGINIA L. REV. 247 (1999).
15. Michael C. Jensen & William H. Meckling, Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, 3 J. FIN. ECON. 305 (1976).
16. Michael Waibel, Fragmentation in International Investment Law in Julie Bedard and Patrick W. Pearsall (eds.), State of Arbitration: Essays in Honour of Professor George Bermann (2022), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4052586.
17. Note, Individual Pro Rata Recovery in Stockholders' Derivative Suits, 69 HARV. L. REV. 1314 (1956).
18. Paddy Ireland, Company Law and the Myth of Shareholder Ownership, 62 MOD. L. REV. 32 (1999).
19. R.H. Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 4 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 3 (1988).
20. Raphael Ren, Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law, 39(3) ARBITRATION INTL., 425 (2023).
21. Sandra K. Miller, How Should U.K. and U.S. Minority Shareholder Remedies for Unfairly Prejudicial or Oppressive Conduct Be Reformed?, 36 AM. BUS. L.J. 579.
22. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Director Primacy: The Means and Ends of Corporate Governance, 97 NW. U. L. REV. 547 (2003).
23. VanDuzer, J. Anthony, Enhancing the Procedural Legitimacy of Investor-State Arbitration through Transparency and Amicus Curiae Participation, 52 MCGILL LAW JOURNAL 681 (2007).
24. Vera Korzun, Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss: How International Investment Law Changes Corporate Law and Governance, 40 U. PA. J. INT’L L. 189 (2018).
UN Document
1. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, G.A. Res.3281 (XXIX), U.N. GAOR, 29th Sess., 2315th plen. mtg., U.N. Doc. A/RES/3281(XXIX (Dec. 12, 1974), reprinted in 14 I.L.M. 251 (1975).
2. G.A. Res. 3201 (S-VI), Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, U.N. GAOR, 6th Special Sess., Supp. No. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/S-6/3201 (May 1, 1974).
3. U.N. Secretariat, Possible Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Shareholder Claims and Reflective Loss, at 5, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.170 (Aug. 9, 2019), https://docs.un.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.170.
4. U.N. Secretariat, Possible reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Draft provisions on procedural and cross-cutting issues, at 6, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.231 (July 26, 2023), https://docs.un.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.231.
網路資料
1. Business Roundtable, Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/opportunity-commitment (last visited July 9, 2025).
2. Milton Freidman, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, N.Y. Times (Sept. 13, 1970), at https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html (last visited July 9, 2025).
其他
1. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, CCSI and UNCITRAL’s Working Group III on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform, CCSI COLUMBIA, https://ccsi.columbia.edu/content/ccsi-and-uncitrals-working-group-iii-investor-state-dispute-settlement-reform (last visited July 9, 2025).
2. David Gaukrodger, Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2013/03, OECD Investment Division, 2013.
3. David Gaukrodger, Investment Treaties and Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss: Insights from Advanced Systems of Corporate Law, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2014/02, OECD Investment Division, 2014.
4. Great Britain Law Commission, SHAREHOLDER REMEDIES: REPORT ON A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 3 (1) (E) OF THE LAW COMMISSIONS ACT 1965 82-83 (s. n. 1997).
5. OECD (2011), The Role of Institutional Investors in Promoting Good Corporate Governance, Corporate Governance, OECD Publishing.
6. OECD Secretariat, Shareholder Claims for Reflective Loss in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A “Component-by-Component” Approach to Reform Proposals, Informal Discussion Paper (Dec. 2021), https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/oecd_shareholder_claims_for_reflective_loss_in_isds_-_informal_discussion_paper_for_uncitral_wg_iii.pdf.
7. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Investment Law: Understanding Concepts and Tracking Innovations -A Companion Volume to International Investment Perspectives 49 (2008), https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264042032-en.
8. World Bank, Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment pmbl. (1992). |
| 描述: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
109351037 |
| 資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109351037 |
| 資料類型: | thesis |
| 顯示於類別: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 學位論文
|
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 |
描述 |
大小 | 格式 | 瀏覽次數 |
|---|
| 103701.pdf | | 2342Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | 檢視/開啟 |
|
在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.
|
