政府控制企業於國際投資法及投資仲裁中所涉之法律問題

Legal Issues Regarding State-Controlled Entities in International Investment Law and Investor-State Arbitration

陳怡秀(Sonia Yeashou Chen)

指導教授 ： 羅昌發

共同指導教授 ： 林彩瑜

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.02110

摘要

隨著全球化下政府控制企業投資活動之盛行，不論政府控制企業在內國經營，或至外國投資，均有可能引發與外國投資人或投資地主國間之投資爭端。當在國內時，爭端可能源自母國對政府控制企業法律上或事實上的支持；而當在國外時，政府控制企業與其母國的連結更可能造成投資地主國的疑慮，從而使其採取國家保護措施。此均可能構成國際投資法下之義務違反，因而投資人與國家仲裁可能被用以作為爭端解決機制。由於政府控制企業不同於典型國家或私人，有其特殊性，是以政府控制企業之涉入，不僅加深案件複雜程度，更可能影響原有國際投資協定及投資仲裁機制下之法律適用。
本文自政府控制企業與其政府間連結之角度切入，處理爭端解決過程中所涉及之國際投資法及投資仲裁之法律問題；全文旨在提出法律框架概況，並兼及於可能的制度改善方向，可分為三大部分。第一部分主要處理政府控制企業在內國經營及在外國投資時所可能產生之投資爭端態樣，並將此等爭端以國際投資協定中之實體條款進行涵攝；目的在於說明政府控制企業確有涉入國際投資法爭端之可能性，兼論實體條款之適用問題。第二部分則探究此等爭端，在投資仲裁程序之進行中，有何特別之法律問題必須處理；目的在於釐清現行爭端解決機制之運作。第三部分則立基於前兩部分之討論，進一步探究目前爭端解決機制是否足以適當解決政府控制企業所涉國際投資爭端；倘若否，又應如何改善既有機制。
本文之主要論點為，既有爭端解決機制下所發展出以區分政府控制企業活動本質係主權性或商業性作為各階段之判準，有其操作之侷限性。事實上，政府控制企業之活動，通常難以截然二分為主權行為或單純的商業行為。此外，政府控制企業參與投資之現象與相關爭端，幾乎均係現今全球化經濟體系下投資地主國對於其產業升級、永續發展、國家安全等政策無法良好調和的結果；各式政府控制企業所涉案例無論在各國國情、國家對該等企業之控制程度、政府控制企業在該國之定位等等，均有相當之不同。是以，若欲根本地防免爭端，應調整國際投資協定及其投資仲裁，使之能調和各投資地主國與母國使用「政府控制企業」之政策需求，而非僅仰賴後階段仲裁庭區分主權行為或商業行為之技術性操作。最後，本文歸納整合若干防免政府控制企業爭端之要素，認為可透過在投資協定中增訂「政府控制企業條款」，以防免或有效解決未來之政府控制企業相關爭端。

關鍵字

政府控制企業 ； 國有/國營企業 ； 主權財富基金 ； 國際投資 ； 國際投資協定 ； 爭端解決 ； 投資人與國家仲裁（投資仲裁）

並列摘要

With the surge in the investment activities of State-controll enterprises (“SCEs”) under globalization, either by way of SCEs operating within its home States or SCEs investing abroad, investment disputes between SCEs and foreign investors or host countries may arise. On one hand, while in SCEs’ home States, the disputes between SCEs and foreign investors are mainly resulted from the de jure or de facto support for SCEs from their home State; on the other hand, while SCEs invest abroad, they are also surrounded by controversy due to their connections with their home States, resulting in stricter national protective regulations from the host State. All of these may constitute a violation of various obligations under international investment agreements (“IIAs”), and thus triggering the use of investor-State arbitration. Since a SCE is neither a typical “State” nor a typical “private investor”, SCEs’ involvement in the disputes not only would complicate the cases, but would also affect the application of the relevant laws under the existing IIAs and the investment arbitration regime.
The thesis addresses the legal issues in international investment law and investment arbitration which may occur in the process of resolving disputes from the standpoint of SCEs’ connection with their home States. The thesis seeks to provide an overview of the legal framework and to cover possible enhancement of the mechanism, the discussion of which could be divided into three parts. The first part mainly identifies the types of disputes that may arise when SCEs operate in their home countries or when SCEs invest abroad, and applies the the substantive provisions of IIAs to the disputes. The purpose is to explain that SCEs may indeed be involved in disputes under IIAs, and to discuss problems in the application of IIA’s substantive provisions. The second part then addresses the specific legal issues that may arise when the said disputes are resolved in the investment arbitration. The purpose is to explain the operation of the existing dispute resolution mechanism. The third part builds upon, but moves beyond, the discussion in the previous parts of the thesis to explore whether the current dispute resolution mechanism could accommodate international investment disputes in which SCEs are involved, and, if not, how to improve the existing mechanism.
The thesis argues that the tests developed under the existing dispute resolution mechanism, which mostly involve the determination of whether the activities of SCEs are commercial or governmental in nature, are of limited use. In fact, it is usually difficult to determine whether the activities of SCEs are commercial or governmental. In addition, the disputes involving SCEs are, on most of the occasions, resulted from the host State not being able to strike a balance among their industrial policy and the need for sustainable development and national security etc. Cases involving SCEs have various context in terms of the State’s local situation, the extent of government’s control over SCEs, and the positioning of the SCEs in their home countries. Hence, the thesis suggests that, in order to reduce or effectively resolve the disputes, instead of just relying on the tests distinguishing between commercial and governmental, the IIAs and the investment arbitration should be adjusted so as to harmonize the said domestic policies for which the host States and the home States utilizing SCEs. To be specific, the contracting parties to the IIA may consider incorporating a “SCEs provision” into the IIA, integrating certain considerations to prevent or effectively resolve future SCEs-related disputes.

並列關鍵字

State-controlled entities ； State-owned enterprises ； Sovereign Wealth Funds ； international investment ； International Investment Agreements (IIAs) ； dispute resolution ； Investor-State Arbitration (Investment Arbitration)

參考文獻

陳淳文（2005）。〈論行政契約法上之單方變更權－以德、法法制之比較為中心〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，34卷2期，頁215-253。

范世平（2012）。〈新加坡主權財富基金發展與影響的政治分析〉，《問題與研究》，51卷1期，頁37-68。

林子儀（1983）。《國家從事公營事業之憲法基礎及界限》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文（未出版），台北。

Schmit Jongbloed, Wouter P.F. et al. (2012), Sovereign Investment: An Introduction, in SOVEREIGN INVESTMENT CONCERNS AND POLICY REACTIONS 3 (Karl P. Sauvant et al. eds.)

Nolan, Michael D. & Frederic G. Sourgens (December 2, 2010), State-Controlled Entities As Claimants in International Investment Arbitration: An Early Assessment, COLUMBIA FDI PERSPECTIVES, No. 32.