Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/147023| 題名: | 國際投資法與國際人權法對於財產權保障之比較 Comparison Between International Investment law and International Human Rights Law in Terms of Property Rights |
作者: | 林思妤 Lin, Szu-Yu |
貢獻者: | 薛景文 Hsueh, Ching-Wen 林思妤 Lin, Szu-Yu |
關鍵詞: | 國際人權法 國際投資法 不歧視待遇 徵收 拒絕司法 公平公正待遇 司法救濟權 Yukos v Russia International Human Rights Law International Investment Law expropriation FET Access to Justice Non-discrimination treatment denial of justice Yukos v Russia |
日期: | 2023 | 上傳時間: | 1-Sep-2023 | 摘要: | 國際投資法與國際人權法皆是在保障人權，只是投資法乃專精於保障外國投資者之財產權，而人權法保障之權利包羅萬象，兩法皆有保障財產權，而兩法對於財產權之保障原則、文字與應用皆十分類似。本篇文章藉由Yukos v Russia一案作為研究動機，將比較投資法與人權法對於財產權保障之規範，研究兩者異同之處。\n在透過將國際投資法之徵收原則、公平與公正待遇原則、訴諸司法之權利、正當程序與禁止拒絕司法原則、禁止歧視原則，與國際人權法之財產權條文規範、受司法保護之權利（有效救濟權、公平審判權）、不歧視原則做比較後，發現不論是從法條之文字使用或是實務上投資仲裁庭與人權法院對系爭原則之適用與解釋，皆很相似，而由海牙常設仲裁法院與歐洲人權法院各自對於Yukos v Russia一案之判決內容中也可印證上述比較結果，即國際投資法與國際人權法在對於財產權之保障上所使用之法律原則是相同的，即便國際人權法有公益上之考量，兩法對於財產權保障之相似性仍極高，並不存在投資法對投資者財產權保護過大之疑慮，因此投資者若與地主國發生財產權上之糾紛，或許可以不僅僅向投資仲裁庭尋求救濟，亦可選擇透過國際人權法尋求保護。 International Investment law and International Human Rights Law both aim to safeguard human rights. However, International Investment law specializes in protecting the property rights of foreign investors, whereas International Human Rights law encompasses a wide range of rights. Both laws include provisions for the protection of property rights, and the principles, texts, and application of these principles are quite similar. This article takes the Yukos v Russia case as a research stimulus to compare the norms of property rights protection in International Investment law and International Human Rights law, and to examine the similarities and differences between the two. By comparing principles such as expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, access to justice, due process and prohibition of denial of justice, and non-discrimination in International Investment Law with provisions related to those rights in International Human Rights Law, the article found that both laws share significant similarities in the use and application of these principles, and the judgments of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the European Court of Human Rights on Yukos v Russia case supported these findings as well. Even though International Human Rights law takes public interest into consideration, the two laws bear a striking resemblance in safeguarding property rights. There is no substantial concern that International Investment law excessively protects investors` property rights. Therefore, if investors encounter disputes regarding property rights with host states, they might not only seek remedies from investment arbitration but also explore protection through International Human Rights law. |
參考文獻: | 中文文獻\n專書\n鄧衍森（2016），國際人權法理論與實務，2版，臺北：元照。\n期刊論文\n李明峻（2015年），國際人權條約與財產權保障，台灣國際法季刊，12卷2期，頁39-52。\n張文貞（2010年），跨國法院的權力爭逐與對話－－歐洲人權法院及歐洲法院二件判決評析，台灣法學雜誌，143期，頁73-95。\n鄧衍森（2010年），人權保障的規範理論：序曲，台灣法學雜誌，第166期，頁123-130。\n鄧衍森（2015年），聯合國決議與國內法的關係－－評析Kadi and Al Barakaat v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities案，月旦法學教室，149期，頁33-35。\n鍾子晴（2021年），試析投資人與地主國爭端解決機制下環保反訴主張之準據法問題－－以Aven v Costa Rica.案為中心，經貿法訊，279期，頁25-33。\n碩博士論文\n邱鴻（2021年），國際能源訴訟之管轄權、規範衝突與投資人權益保障：以Yukos案為例，國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文。\n蔡孟翰（2016），論國際人權法的水平效力問題，東吳大學法學院法律學系碩士論文。\n英文文獻\n協定、條約、規則\nThe North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada-U.S -Mexico, Dec. 17, 1992.\n2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty.\nInternational Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.\nG.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Dec. 16, 1966).\nG.A. Res. 217A (III), Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948).\nCharter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1.\nG.A. Res. 2106 (XX), International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Dec. 21, 1965).\nUnited Nations G.A., The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Dec. 18, 1979).\nUnited Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (May 3, 2008).\nUN Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG), Legally Binding Instrument to Regulate, in International Human Rights Law, the Activities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, Draft (Geneva: OEIGWG, 2019).\nG.A. Res. 45/158, The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (Dec. 18, 1990).\nIndigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).\nGeneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Oof 12 August 1949 (1949).\nGeneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 (1949).\nG.A. Res. 60/147, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (Dec. 15, 2005).\n2004 US Model BIT.\n1991 Spain-Argentina BIT.\nChile- Malaysia BIT.\nILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (Aug. 1, 2001).\nG.A. Res. 39/46, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Dec. 10, 1984).\nUniversal Civil Jurisdiction with Regard to Reparation for International Crimes (Aug. 30, 2015).\nU.N Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/11/4 (2011).\nUN Human Rights Committee, Rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/3/Rev.12 (Jan. 4, 2021).\nG.A. Res. 60/147, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147 (Dec. 16, 2005).\nCharter of The United Nations, June 26, 1945.\nProtocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) (June 8, 1977).\nEuropean Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 4, 1950.\nAmerican Convention of Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.\nAfrican Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, June 27, 1981.\nG.A. Res. 41/128 (Dec. 4, 1986).\nThe Energy Charter Treaty, Dec. 17, 1994, 2080 U.N.T.S. 95.\nRome Statute of the International Criminal Court (July 17, 1998).\nInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.\nUnited States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (July 1, 2020).\n網路資料\nCommittee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights (last visited July 4, 2023), COUNCIL OF EU, available at https://pace.coe.int/en/pages/committee-30/committee-on-the-election-of-judges-to-the-european-court-of-human-rights.\nInternational Criminal Court, Understanding the International Criminal Court (2020), available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/understanding-the-icc.pdf.\nThe Evolution of Human Rights, COUNCIL OF EUR. (last visited May 15, 2023), available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/the-evolution-of-human-rights.\nUN Human Rights Committee Follow-Up Procedure Documents, available at https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/FollowUp.aspx?Treaty=CCPR&Lang=en.\nUN Press Release, UN Experts Voice Concern Over Adverse Impact of Free Trade and Investment Agreements on Human Rights (June 2, 2015), available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2015/06/un-experts-voice-concern-over-adverse-impact-free-trade-and-investment?LangID=E&NewsID=16031.\nWhat are Fundamental Rights?, EU AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (last visited May 5, 2023), available at http://fra.europa.eu/en/content/what-are-fundamental-rights.\n判決\nADC v Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award (2006).\nAmbatielos Claim (Greek v UK), ICJ (1956).\nAzinian v Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2 (1999).\nAzurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award (2006).\nBayindir v Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award (2009).\nCase T‐315/01, Kadi v Council and Commission (Sept. 3, 2008).\nCJEU, Nold, Kohlen- und BaustoffgroBhandlung.\nCME v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (2003).\nCMS v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award (2005).\nCorn Products International, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/1, Decision on Responsibility (2008).\nECtHR, Judgement, Anheuser-Buscch Inc. v. Portugal (2007).\nECtHR, Judgement, Béláné Nagy v. Hungary (2015).\nECtHR, Judgement, Beyeler v. Italy (2000).\nECtHR, Judgement, Blumberga v. Latvia (2008).\nECtHR, Judgement, Centro Europa 7 s.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy (2012).\nECtHR, Judgement, Dabić v. Croatia (2021).\nECtHR, Judgement, Depalle v. France (2010).\nECtHR, Judgement, Fabris v. France (2013).\nECtHR, Judgement, Iatridis v. Greece (1999).\nECtHR, Judgement, Jahn and Others v. Germany (2005).\nECtHR, Judgement, James and Others v. UK (2020).\nECtHR, Judgement, Liamberi and Others v. Greek (2020).\nECtHR, Judgement, Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium (1995).\nECtHR, Judgement, Scordino and Others v. Italy (no. 1) (2006).\nECtHR, Judgement, Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine (2002).\nECtHR, Judgement, Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden (1984)\nECtHR, Judgement, Zolotas v. Greek (2013).\nGAMI v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Award (2004).\nKaradassopoulos v Georgia, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18 (2007).\nLoewen v United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award (2003).\nMetalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award (2000).\nMethanex v United States, UNCITRAL, Award (2005).\nMTD v Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award (2004).\nOAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, App. No. 14902/4, ECtHR (Jan. 29, 2009).\nOAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos V. Russia, Application no. 14902/04, ECtHR (Sept. 20, 2011).\nOscar Chinn Case (UK v Belgium), Dec. 12, 1934, PCIJ, Series A/B, No 63.\nParkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award, (2007).\nSD Myers v Canada, First Partial Award, UNCITRAL (2000).\nSempra v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16 (2007).\nSiag v Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Award (2009).\nSPP v Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award (1992).\nTecmed v Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award (2003).\nThunderbird v Mexico, UNCITRAL, Award (2006).\nTotal v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01 (2010).\nVivendi v Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award (2007).\nWaste Management v Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2 (2000).\nWena Hotels v Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Decision on Interpretation (2005).\nYukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, PCA 2005-04/AA227.\n專書\nDolzer, Rudolf, and Christoph Schreuer. 2012. Principles of International Investment Law. 2nd ed.\nMazzeschi, Riccardo P. 2021. International Human Rights Law Theory and Practice.\nMiles, Kare. 2013. The Origins of International Investment Law Empire, Environment and the Safeguarding of Capital. 1st ed.\nShue, Henry. 2020. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy: 40th Anniversary Edition.\n期刊\nAlshahrani, Sarah M. 2020. What Should We Know About the Origins of International Investment Law? International Journal of Legal Information 48:122-131.\nBrenninkmeijer, Mees. 2021. The Problem of Execution Immunities and the ICSID Convention. The Journal of World Investment & Trade 22:429-458.\nCousins, Mel. 2021. Legitimate Expectation and Social Security Law Under the European Convention of Human Rights. European Journal of Social Security 23:24-43.\nFarer, Tom. 1992. The Hierarchy of Human Rights. American University International Law Review 8:115-119.\nKoji, T. 2001. Emerging Hierarchy in International Human Rights and Beyond: From the Perspective of Non‐Derogable Rights. European Journal of International Law 12: 917-941.\nLane, Lottie. 2018. The Horizontal Effect of International Human Rights Law in Practice. European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance 5:5-88.\nLissitzyn, Oliver J. 1936. The Meaning of the Term Denial of Justice in International Law. American Journal of International Law 30:632-646.\nLuca, De. etal. 2020. Investment and human rights: Is there an elephant in the room? Columbia FDI Perspectives 282.\nMann, F A. 1981. British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments. British Yearbook of International Law 52:241-254.\nMeron, Theodor. 1986. On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights. The American Journal of International Law 80:1-23.\nO`Cinneide, Colm. 2003. Taking Horizontal Effect Seriously: Private Law, Constitutional Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Hibernian Law Journal 4:77-108.\nSauvant, Karl P. and Ünüvar, Güneş. 2016. Can Host Countries Have Legitimate Expectations? Columbia FDI Perspectives 183.\nSheffer, Megan Wells. 2011. Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Friend or Foe to Human Rights. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 39: 483-521.\nShelton, DL. 2007. An Introduction to the History of International Human Rights Law. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works.\nWinfried H. A. M. van den Muijsenbergh, and Sam Rezai. 2012. Corporations and the European Convention on Human Rights. Global Business. & Development Law Journal 23:45-68.\nUN文件\nUNCTAD, International Investment Instruments: A Compendium, Vol I (1996).\nU.N. HRC, General Comment No. 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13(May 26, 2004).\nU.N Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/11/4 (2011).\nUN HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSONER, REPORTING UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS – TRAINING GUIDE 9 (2021).\nUN HRC, Guidelines for the Treaty-Specific Document to be Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/2009/1 (Nov. 22, 2010).\n其他\nCEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence against Women, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Doc. A/47/38.\nIDI, Resolution on the Immunity from Jurisdiction of the State and of Persons Who Act on Behalf of the State in Case of International Crimes, Naples (Sept. 10, 2009). | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 國際經營與貿易學系 110351040 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110351040 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 104001.pdf | 1.46 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.