论国有企业的国际投资法规制.pdf

内容摘要尽管历经了私有化改革浪潮，国有企业在全球范围内仍广泛存在，并 以东道国国有企业和母国国有企业投资者两种角色活跃于国际投资市场 中。前者是指东道国国有企业以吸引外资、管理外资或与外资竞争的方式 参与国际投资；后者是指母国国有企业以新设、并购等方式开展海外投资。近年来，国有企业参与国际投资所引发的身份问题、公平竞争问题和人权 问题获得高度关注，甚至受到特别规制。本文旨在围绕上述三个问题，在 研析国际投资法规制国有企业之既有实践的基础上，探讨国际投资法规制 国有企业之未来可能，进而结合中国国有企业大量参与国际投资的现实，提出中国的因应对策。本文除引言和结论外，共分五章，主要结合国有企业在国际投资中的 两种角色及相关的三个问题展开分析。引言部分介绍了本文的选题背景及选题意义、分析了国内外关于本文 选题的研究现状、阐述了本文的研究内容和研究方法，并说明了研究的创 新之处和难点问题。第一章旨在为国际投资法规制国有企业提供现实背景与理论基础。本 章首先系统梳理国有企业的历史发展及存在基础，以论证国有企业产生与 存续的必然性，并在详细考察国际经贸规则和OECD国有企业公司治理指 引等国际法规范中国有企业内涵之演变后，决定以“所有权”作为国有 企业的界定要素，框定本文的研究范围；其次，从东道国国有企业和国有 企业投资者两个维度，透视国有企业参与国际投资的具体形式，并揭示因 国有企业的“国有属性”和运营领域所引发的身份问题、公平竞争问题和 人权问题，以阐释规制国有企业之原因；最后，结合既有规范之缺陷、现 实规制之需求，以及国际投资条约和国际投资争端解决机制之发展，论证 适用国际投资法规制国有企业的必要性与可行性。第二章考察国际投资法通过身份认定规制国有企业之仲裁实践，揭示 国有企业被认定为和可能被认定以主权国家身份行事的相关情形及有关争 议。本章首先指出“国有制”并非认定国有企业身份的决定性要素，国际 投资法“公私分立”的结构特质，使国际投资仲裁庭有能力适用国家责 任条款草案中的归因规则、国际投资协定中的国有企业条款等相关法律 依据认定国有企业身份。这也构成国际投资法规制国有企业的起点问题。其次，就东道国国有企业身份认定而言，既可发生于管辖权阶段，也可存 在于实体审理阶段：在管辖权阶段存在的三种身份认定进路中，初步证明 法在很大程度上仅因国有企业的“国有”属性，即作出其行为可归因于国 家的假定；在实体审理阶段，即便适用国家责任条款草案将国有企业 行为归因于政府的门槛很高，也不乏成功归因的案例；不仅如此，既有裁 决中也存在宽泛解释国家责任条款草案归因规则，降低其归因门槛的 主张和实践；此外，仲裁庭在适用国际投资协定国有企业条款认定国有企 业身份时，对该条款的定性及其与国家责任条款草案归因规则之适用 关系均存在争议。最后，就国有企业投资者诉请资格而言，即便国有企业 构成国际投资协定中受保护的投资者，在诉诸ICSID仲裁时，仍需适用 Bro ch es标准认定公私身份。Bro ch es标准的抽象性，也引发“行为目的”是否构成“履行政府职能”判断要件之争。第三章探析国际投资法规制国有企业公平竞争问题之可能。当前绝大 多数国际投资协定均未纳入专门规制国有企业公平竞争之条款，相关缔约 实践仅见于早期的美式国际投资协定之中。本章遂从这些投资协定入手，分析这些条款从产生至转型的历史过程，再结合晚近国有企业公平竞争规 则体系化发展对于国际投资法的影响，探讨国际投资法规制东道国国有企 业和国有企业投资者公平竞争问题之既有实践和未来可能。研究表明：其 一，虽然既有国际投资协定中的非歧视待遇条款难以规制东道国国有企业 相较于外国投资者享有的竞争优势，但是自由贸易协定中国有企业公平竞 争条款的发展可能会作为“外部规则”影响投资仲裁庭的解释。其二，自 由贸易协定中国有企业“非歧视条款”的不可仲裁性，限制了投资仲裁庭 规制东道国国有企业歧视性给惠行为之能力，但是不能排除这一条款被重 新纳入国际投资协定、并辅之以国家间仲裁机制或友好型争端解决机制实 施之可能。其三，在东道国受到歧视性准入审查的国有企业投资者，难以 诉诸国际投资协定中的“投资鼓励和促进”条款、”准入前国民待遇”条 款寻求救济。对此，缔约方未来可以考虑在国际投资协定中纳入关于东道 II国外资审查程序的透明度要求，减少投资者遭受不公平安全审查之担忧。其四，出于对国有企业投资者扭曲东道国投资环境之担忧，未来缔约方可 能通过构建母国投资补贴制度、利用透明度条款来规制国有企业投资者的 不公平竞争优势。第四章探讨国际投资法规制国有企业人权问题之可能。鉴于当前在国 际投资法领域尚不存在规制国有企业人权问题的专门研究，本章从国际投 资法与人权问题互动的原因入手，结合联合国工商企业与人权指导原则 等国际人权规范对国有企业的特别规制，揭示国际投资法规制国有企业人 权不法行为之特点。就东道国国有企业而言，东道国对其国有企业负有更 高的“人权适当注意义务”，以及投资仲裁实践中赔偿制度的创新，可使 国际投资法在规制东道国国有企业人权负面影响中发挥更大作用。就国有 企业投资者而言，本章在探析国际投资法规制投资者人权责任基本进路的 基础上，结合国际人权规范和国内政策法规对于国有企业履行人权尽建之 更高要求和国有企业投资者在采掘业之重要存在，认为国有企业投资者可 因未履行“人权尽责”或“社区人权责任”而受到国际投资法规制。第五章基于中国在国际投资中兼具资本输入国与输出国的“双重身 份”，结合中国的国际投资条约实践，分别针对中国作为东道国时的中国 国有企业和中国作为母国时的中国国有企业，在身份问题、公平竞争网;题 和人权问题上可能受到的国际投资法规制，提出因应之策。例如可在中外 投资条约中纳入明确的国有企业特别归因规则，积极参与国有企业公平竞 争条款谈判等。在结论部分，本文承认，当前无论是在投资缔约实践还是争端解决实 践中，很少对国有企业予以特别规制，并且相关的规制实践主要集中于国 有企业的身份问题。但是本文认为，不能排除未来国有企业的身份问题、公平竞争问题和人权问题会受到国际投资法更为严格或说特别的规制。原 因在于：一方面，国有企业的“国有属性”构成身份认定之重要事实考量；另一方面，国际经贸规则中的国有企业章节、OECD国有企业公司治理指 引，以及联合国工商企业人权指导原则等规范均对国有企业作出特 别规制，这些事实和规范要素均可能成为国际投资法规制国有企业之重要 考量。有鉴于此，以“双重角色”参与国际投资的中国国有企业，有必要in了解国际投资法规制的各种可能情形，并予以回应。关键词：国有企业；国际投资法；身份；公平竞争；人权IVABSTRACTDespite th e wa ves o f priva tiza tio n a nd refo rm,sta te-o wned enterprises(SOEs)still o pera te widely in th e wo rld a nd pa rticipa tes in th e interna tio na l investment ma rket a s bo th h o st sta tes5 entities a nd fo reign investo rs.Wh en it co mes to th e fo rmer,it mea ns th a t th e h o st sta tes SOEs pa rticipa te in interna tio na l investment by a ttra cting fo reign investo rs,ma na ging fo reign investments,o r co mpeting with fo reign investo rs.As fo r th e la tter,it mea ns th a t th e SOEs o f h o me sta te ma ke investment a bro a d th ro ugh new greenfield investment,merger a nd a cq uisitio n,etc.Recently,th e issues o f identity,fa ir co mpetitio n,a nd h uma n righ ts ca used by SOEs,pa rticipa tio n in interna tio na l investment h a ve a ttra cted lo ts o f spo tligh ts,wh ich even h a ve been subject to specia l regula tio n.Th e purpo se o f th is disserta tio n is to study a nd a na lyze th e existing pra ctice o f interna tio na l investment la w regula tio n o f SOEs o n th e a bo ve th ree issues,a nd to explo re th e regula tio n po ssibilities in th e future.Co nsidering th e Ch inese SOEs vita l ro le in th e interna tio na l investment ma rkets,th is disserta tio n will put fo rwa rd so me so lutio ns fo r Ch ina.In a dditio n to th e intro ductio n a nd co nclusio n,th is disserta tio n is divided into five ch a pters,ma inly a bo ut th e two ro les o f SOEs in interna tio na l investment a nd th ree rela ted issues.Th e intro ductio n presents th e ba ckgro und a nd significa nce o f th is to pic,reviews th e litera ture o n th is to pic a t h o me a nd a bro a d,expo unds th e resea rch co ntents a nd meth o ds,a nd expla ins th e inno va tio n a nd difficulties o f th e resea rch.Ch a pter 1 describes th e rea l ba ckgro und a nd th eo retica l ba sis fo r th e interna tio na l investment la w regula tio n o f SOEs.Firstly,it systema tica lly so rts o ut th e h isto rica l develo pment a nd existence ba sis o f SOEs to demo nstra te th e necessity o f th eir emergence a nd existence.After exa mining th e evo lutio n o f th e definitio n o f SOEs in interna tio na l lega l no rms,such a s interna tio na l rules fo r eco no mic a nd tra de,OECD Guidelines o n Co rpo ra te Go verna nce o f Sta te-Owned Enterprises,etc.,it decides to ta ke“o wnersh ip“a s th e fa cto r to define SOEs to cla rify th e resea rch sco pe.Seco ndly,it elucida tes h o w th e SOEs o f h o st Sta tes a nd SOE investo rs ta king pa rt in th e interna tio na l investment a nd revea ls th e videntity issue,fa ir co mpetitio n issue,a nd h uma n righ ts issue ca used by th e“sta te o wnersh ip*5 a nd th e SOEs o pera ting field,to expla in th e rea so ns fo r regula ting SOEs.Fina lly,it demo nstra tes th e necessity a nd fea sibility o f a pplying interna tio na l investment la w to regula te SOEs,by co nsidering th e defects o f existing regula tio ns,th e dema nds o f regula tio ns a nd th e develo pment o f IIAs a nd interna tio na l investment dispute settlement mech a nisms.Ch a pter 2 exa mines th e a rbitra tio n pra ctice o f interna tio na l investment la w regula tio n o f SOEs th ro ugh identifica tio n,revea ling th e releva nt situa tio ns a nd disputes o f SOEs th a t a re identified a nd ma y be identified a s so vereign sta tes.First o f a ll,it po ints o ut th a ttcSta te o wnersh ip is no t th e decisive fa cto r in determining th e sta tus o f SOEs.Th e structura l ch a ra cteristics o f public-priva te distinctio n,in th e interna tio na l investment la w ena ble th e interna tio na l investment a rbitra tio n tribuna l to a pply th e a ttributio n rules in th e Dra ft Articles o n Sta te Respo nsibility(ILC Dra ft),th e SOE cla uses in IIAs a nd o th er releva nt lega l ba ses to determine th e sta tus o f SOEs.Th e identity issue is a lso th e sta rting po int fo r th e interna tio na l investment la w regula tio n o f SOEs.Seco ndly,a s to th e identity issue o f th e Ho st Sta tes7 SOEs,it ca n eith er ta ke pla ce a t th e jurisdictio na l ph a se o r th e merit ph a se.Amo ng th e th ree identifica tio n a ppro a ch es a t th e jurisdictio na l ph a se:th e emplo yment o f prima facie a ppro a ch is la rgely ba sed o n“Sta te o wnersh ip5,i.e.,presuming SOEs a ctio ns ca n be a ttributed to th e Sta te.At th e merit ph a se,even if th e th resh o ld fo r th e a pplica tio n o f th e a ttributio n rules in th e ILC dra ft is very h igh,th ere a re still ma ny ca ses a ttributing th e co nduct o f SOEs to th e go vernment.No t o nly th a t,but th ere a re a lso cla ims a nd pra ctices in th e existing rulings th a t bro a dly interpret th e a ttributio n rules o f ILC Dra ft a nd lo wer th e a ttributio n th resh o ld.Besides,wh en th e a rbitra tio n tribuna l a pplied th e SOE cla uses o f IIAs to identify SOEs,th ere were disputes o ver th e q ua lifica tio n o f th e cla use a nd its a pplica tio n rela tio nsh ip with th e a ttributio n rule in ILC Dra ft.Fina lly,a s fa r a s th e q ua lifica tio n o f SOE investo rs is co ncerned,even if SOEs a re co vered investo rs in IIAs wh en reso rting to ICSID a rbitra tio n,th e Bro ch es test still needs to be a pplied.Th e a bstra ct na ture o f th e Bro ch es test a lso lea ds to a dispute o ver wh eth er th e tribuna l sh o uld co nsider th e“purpo se“o f SOEs a ctivities wh en determining wh eth er th e entity h a s disch a rged a n essentia lly go vernmenta l functio n.Ch a pter 3 discusses th e po ssibility o f interna tio na l investment la w regula tio n o f th e SOEs fa ir co mpetitio n issue.Currently,th e va st ma jo rity o f IIAs h a ve no t inco rpo ra ted specific pro visio ns regula ting fa ir co mpetitio n issues rela ted to SOEs.Co mpetitive eq ua lity cla uses a re fo und in ea rly U.S.IIAs.Sta rting with th ese IIAs,it a na lyzes th e VIh isto rica l tra jecto ry fro m emergence to tra nsfo rma tio n o f th ese cla uses,a nd th en discusses th e existing pra ctices a nd future po ssibilities o f th e interna tio na l investment la w to regula te th e fa ir co mpetitio n issues induced by SOEs o f h o st sta te a nd SOE investo rs in co mbina tio n with th e recent impa ct o f th e systema tic develo pment o f th e fa ir co mpetitio n rules o f SOEs in interna tio na l investment la w.It sh o ws th a t:Firstly,a lth o ugh it is ch a llenging fbr th e existing no n-discrimina to ry trea tment pro visio ns in IIAs to regula te th e co mpetitive a dva nta ges enjo yed by th e h o st co untrys SOEs o ver fo reign investo rs,th e evo lving o f fa ir co mpetitio n pro visio ns fbr SOEs in free tra de a greements ma y a ffect th e interpreta tio n o f investment a rbitra tio n tribuna ls a s“externa l rules”.Seco ndly,th e no n-a rbitra bility o f th e no n-discrimina tio n cla use o f SOEs in free tra de a greement limits th e investment a rbitra tio n tribuna l?s a bility to regula te th e discrimina to ry preferentia l beh a vio rs o f SOEs o f th e h o st sta te,but it ca nno t be ruled o ut th a t th is cla use will be re-inco rpo ra ted into th e IIAs a nd supplemented by th e implementa tio n o f th e inter-sta tes a rbitra tio n mech a nism o r friendly dispute settlement mech a nism.Th irdly,investo rs o f SOEs subjecting to discrimina to ry a dmissio n review in th e h o st sta te h a ve difficulties in seeking relief fro m th e pro mo tio n a nd enco ura ge”cla use a nd th e t4pre-esta blish ment na tio na l trea tmenf cla use in IIAs.In th is rega rd,th e co ntra cting pa rties ma y co nsider enh a ncing th e tra nspa rency o f th e h o st co untrys fo reign investment review in future IIAs,to reduce th e risk o f discrimina to ry review o f th e h o st sta te.Fo urth ly,o ut o f co ncern th a t SOEs ma y disto rt th e investment enviro nment o f th e h o st sta te,future co ntra cting pa rties ma y regula te th e unfa ir co mpetitive a dva nta ge o f SOEs investo rs by esta blish ing th e h o me sta tes investment subsidy system a nd a pplying tra nspa rency cla uses.Ch a pter 4 flesh es o ut th e po ssibility o f interna tio na l investment la w to regula tio n o f SOEs a dverse h uma n righ ts impa cts.Given th e fa ct th a t th ere is currently no specific resea rch o n th e regula tio n o f h uma n righ ts o f SOEs in th e field o f interna tio na l investment la w,th is ch a pter sta rts with th e rea so ns fbr th e intera ctio n between interna tio na l investment la w a nd h uma n righ ts issues.It revea ls th e ch a ra cteristics o f interna tio na l investment la w in regula ting th e illega l h uma n righ ts beh a vio rs o f SOEs by co mbining th e uniq ue regula tio n o f SOEs by interna tio na l h uma n righ ts no rms such a s th e United Na tio ns Guiding Principles o n Business a nd Huma n Righ ts.In terms o f th e h o st sta tes SOEs,th e h o st sta tes h a ve a h igh er“due diligence o bliga tio n o n h uma n righ ts”,a nd th e inno va tio n o f co mpensa tio n mech a nism in th e pra ctices o f investment a rbitra tio n ca n ma ke th e interna tio na l investment la w pla y a mo re significa nt ro le in regula ting th e nega tive impa ct o f h uma n righ ts o f th e SOEs in th e h o st sta te.As fo r th evnSOE investo rs,th is sectio n firstly a na lyzes th e ba sic a ppro a ch es o f interna tio na l investment la w to regula te investo rs5 h uma n righ ts respo nsibilities.Th en it co mbines th e h igh er req uirements o f interna tio na l h uma n righ ts no rms a nd do mestic po licies a nd regula tio ns fo r SOEs to a rgue th a t SOE investo rs ca n be regula ted by interna tio na l investment la w fo r fa iling to fulfill th eir h uma n righ ts due diligence.With th e vita l presence o f SOE investo rs in th e extra ctive industry,it co ncludes th a t SOE investo rs ca n be regula ted by interna tio na l investment la w fbr fa iling to fulfill th eir so cia l co mmunity h uma n righ ts respo nsibilities.In interna tio na l investment scena rio s,Ch ina pla ys do uble ro les,no t o nly a s o f th e ca pita l-impo rting co untry but th e ca pita l-expo rting co untry in interna tio na l investment.Co nsidering th e interna tio na l investment la w po ssible Regula tio n o f Ch inese SOEs identity issues,fa ir co mpetitio n issues,a nd h uma n righ ts issues,Ch a pter 5 puts fo rwa rd so me so lutio ns a s th e respo nse.Co mbining with Ch ina s interna tio na l investment trea ty pra ctices,th ese so lutio ns include,inter a lia,inco rpo ra ting specific a ttributio n rules fbr SOEs ca n be included in Ch ina5s investment trea ties,ta king a n a ctive ro le in nego tia tio ns o n fa ir co mpetitio n cla uses fbr SOEs.Th e co nclusio n pa rt a ckno wledges th a t no ma tter in th e investment co ntra cting pra ctices o r dispute settlement pra ctices,th ere a re few specia l Regula tio n o f SOEs,a nd th e releva nt regula tio n pra ctices ma inly fo cus o n th e sta tus o f SOEs.Ho wever,th is disserta tio n h o lds th a t th e identity,fa ir co mpetitio n,a nd h uma n righ ts issues o f SOEs will be subject to mo re strict regula tio ns o r specia l regula tio n o f th e interna tio na l investment la w,ba sed o n two fo llo wing rea so ns.One is th a t th e“sta te o wnersh ip”o f SOEs co nstitutes a n impo rta nt fa ctua l co nsidera tio n fo r deteimining identity.Besides,no rms such a s th e ch a pter o n SOEs in interna tio na l rules fbr eco no mic a nd tra de,th e OECD Guidelines o n Co rpo ra te Go verna nce o f Sta te-o wned Enterprises,a nd th e UN Guiding Principles o n Huma n Righ ts fbr Business a nd Huma n Righ ts a ll pro vide specia l regula tio ns fbr SOEs.Th ese fa cts a nd no rma tive elements ma y beco me essentia l co nsidera tio ns fbr th e regula tio n o f SOEs by interna tio na l investment la w.Th erefo re,it is necessa ry fbr Ch inese SOEs th a t pa rticipa te in interna tio na l investment a s“dua l ro les“to understa nd a nd respo nd to va rio us po ssible situa tio ns regula ted by interna tio na l investment la w.Key Words:Sta te-o wned Enterprises;Interna tio na l Investment La w;Identity;Fa ir Co mpetitio n;Huma n Righ ts.vni缩略语表(ABBREVIATIONS)英文缩写Abbr.英语名称English Na me中文名称Ch inese Na meBITsBila tera l Investment Trea ties双边投资条约CETA