2012-08-012024-05-17https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/688650摘要：「投資人-地主國」 （investor-State）間之投資條約仲裁（treaty-based investment arbitration，簡稱投資仲裁） ，近年來已構成了國際投資法發展的重要元素。在投資仲裁 的架構下，外國投資人有權針對地主國違反投資條約義務之作為，直接透過仲裁機構 （例 如世界銀行「投資人與地主國解決爭議中心」 ，ICSID）或依循各項國際仲裁規則（例如 聯合國國際貿易委員會仲裁規則，UNCITRAL）提出仲裁，以尋求救濟。投資仲裁判斷 雖多涉及地主國政府之規範措施（government regulatory measures）是否違反投資條約之 國際法義務，具有相當程度之公法性質，然卻以提供投資人「金錢損害賠償」為主要（唯 一）之救濟方式。政府規範措施於投資仲裁下，是否適合以金錢損害賠償予以救濟，從 國際法體系之一致性、地主國制訂公共政策之能力、投資人之救濟實益角度觀察，均有 若干值得檢討與研究之處。例如，諸多政府規範措施可能因此面臨潛在之高額金錢損害 賠償風險及不確定因素；對有意繼續在地主國進行商業營運之投資人而言，惟有地主國 撤銷違法措施始能對其提供充分之救濟。 鑑此，本計畫擬以投資仲裁判斷之公法性質及金錢損害賠償救濟實務問題出發，探 討政府規範措施於投資仲裁下適用「金錢損害賠償」救濟及其潛在影響。其次，將進一 步探討投資仲裁實務下，適用「非金錢損害賠償救濟」 ，特別是「撤銷違法措施」之可 能及其限制。再者，本計畫將從國際法、投資法與 WTO 相互關聯及法規範比較之角度， 研究適用「撤銷違法措施」之問題及值得借鏡之處。依據此等前階段研究之具體發現， 本計畫將回歸於規範設計的層次，在平衡投資人與地主國利益的原則下，提出適用「撤 銷違法措施」之要件、原則及限制之建議方案，以回應政府規範措施及投資仲裁判斷之 公法特質，以為貢獻。<br> Abstract: nvestor-State treaty-based arbitration has constituted an essence of the development of international investment law for the last decade. Under the investment arbitration, foreign investors are entitled to seek direct redress for damages caused by a State’s alleged breaches of the treat’s obligations through arbitration institution proceedings (e.g. ICSID) or ad hoc arbitration rules (e.g. UNCITRAL). Though most investment awards centers on the legitimacy of government regulatory measures by host States, which are of the public law characterization, the use of pecuniary compensation as a remedy is a dominant. From the perspectives of the consistency of international law system; the capacity of host States to make a public policy; and the effectiveness of remedy for investors, whether the use of pecuniary remedy is suitable for government regulatory measures is questionable and might merit further considerations. For instance, various government regulatory measures may thus be exposure to high risk of monetary compensation and full of uncertainty. Also, for those investors who are willing to continue their business within the host State, the removal of illegal measures in force might serve as the only effective remedy. Against the above background, this project will first take up the public law nature of investment arbitral awards and the prevalent pecuniary remedy practices, and then explore how the potential effects brought by the pecuniary remedy on the government regulatory measures. Furthermore, this project will address whether the non-pecuniary remedies, in particular the withdrawal of illegal measures, can be applied and its potential limitations in the context of investment arbitration in terms of recent arbitral awards. On the comparative views on the interrelated issues of international law, investment law and the WTO, this project will draw the lessons from the WTO practices as a reference. Finally, out of the systemic concern, this project will forward some proposals to the inclusion of the remedy of the withdrawal of illegal measures in regard to host government measures in the investment arbitration as a contribution, which aims to make the investment arbitral awards return to its home of public law regime.投資仲裁非金錢損害賠償ICSIDWTOinvestment arbitrationnon-pecuniary compensationICSIDWTO