1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 試析德國廢核政策於國際投資法之爭議
An analysis on German Nuclear Phase-Out under International Investment Arbitration
作者 楊筑羽
Yang, Chu-Yu
貢獻者 薛景文
Hsueh, Ching-Wen
楊筑羽
Yang, Chu-Yu
關鍵詞 能源憲章條約
間接徵收
合理期待
傘狀條款
廢核
Energy charter treaty
Indirect expropriation
Legitimate expectation
Umbrella clause
Nuclear Phase-Out
日期 2018
上傳時間 29-Aug-2018 15:47:07 (UTC+8)
摘要 2011年3月11日日本核災事變發生後，德國政府立即於2011年7月31日公布之第13次核能法修正案，致力於加速淘汰所有德國境內之核電廠，瑞典能源公司Vattenfall以新修正案損害其基於能源憲章條約之權利為由，向「國際投資爭端解決中心（International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes，ICSID）」提交仲裁案件。隨後，與其他兩家德籍能源公司E.ON和RWE，以新修正案中違反德國基本法第14條對財產權之保障為由，提訴願至德國聯邦憲法法庭。
     兩個案件皆涉及Vattenfall公司與德國政府間之間接徵收、合理期待爭議。由德國憲法法庭於2016年12月6日公布之判決中，可知第13次修正案未對訴願者之財產構成徵收，但違反訴願者基於第11次修正案而產生之合理期待。再者，因外國投資人與地主國簽訂核電投資契約係屬特許契約，於國際投資法下亦涉及傘狀條款。儘管ICSID之Vattenfall II案目前仍在審判中，但本文將基於德國憲法訴願判決，與過往ICSID仲裁庭之判斷，以及本案當事人雙方於公開聽證會之主張，試析Vattenfall II案。
On the 11th of March in 2011, Japan was struck by the nuclear disaster. Right after the tragedy, the German Government announced the 13th Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, in an effort to accelerate the phase-out plan for all nuclear power plants within the country. Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company, argued that the new amendment prejudiced its rights under the Energy Charter Treaty, and submitted a request for arbitration to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Subsequently, the other two Germany companies, E.ON and RWE, also filed an administrative appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court, stating that the new amendment violated the protection of property rights in Article 14 of the German Basic Law.
     These two cases involve the issues in indirect expropriation and legitimate expectation between Vattenfall and the German Government. In the judgement pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court on the 6th of December in 2016, it was determined that the 13th amendment did not constitute expropriation on the property of the appellant, but went against the appellant’s legitimate expectation under the 11th amendment. Moreover, the nuclear power investment agreement between foreign investors and landlord country was concession agreement, and thus it involved umbrella clauses of the International Investment Law. While the case ICSID v. Vattenfall is still in proceedings, this thesis intends to analyze the Vattenfall Ⅱ case, and make conclusion based on the Federal Constitutional Court appeal judgement, the previous ICSID arbitrations and the arguments from the two parties in the public hearings.
參考文獻 中文文獻
     中華民國經濟部，國際投資協定-分析釋義，頁56-59，https://www.dois.moea.gov.tw/file/pdf/publication.pdf。
     「主要國際組織能源情勢發展-能源憲章組織（ECT）」，APEC能源國際合作資訊網，網址：https://apecenergy.tier.org.tw/energy4/ect.php（最後瀏覽日：2018年8月14日）。
     李貴英，「能源憲章條約、德國廢核爭端與國際投資仲裁：Vattenfall v. Germany一案之探討」，歐美研究，第四十四卷第三期，民國103年9月，頁309-310。
     李貴英、鄭昀欣，「能源憲章條約下投資爭端解決機制之研究-以徵收問題為例」，貿易政策論叢，28期，頁 191，210（2017年）。
     「核能的正反思考（下）：擁核的三大理由」，The News Lens 關鍵評論，2016年3月27日，網址：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/38938。
     梁天瑞，「掀開德國廢核真相」，國政研究報告，2013年6月20日，網址：https://www.npf.org.tw/2/12387。
     陳朝建，「行政法教室：名詞解釋-主觀公權利與反射利益」，台灣法律網，http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&area=free_browse&parent_path=,1,1648,&job_id=130365&article_category_id=1170&article_id=64629。
     葉佳華，「回應廢核遊行，經濟部：2025年非核家園已納入電業法」，ETtoday新聞雲，2018年3月11日，網址：https://www.ettoday.net/news/20180311/1128167.htm。
     楊筑羽，「論國際投資條約中合理期待之爭議－以德國憲法法院第13次核能法修正案判決對合理期待之解釋，試評國際投資爭端Vattenfall II案之可能發展」，第215期，頁19-40。
     「電業法修正草案」全案條文 ，2017年1月11日，網址：https://zh.scribd.com/document/336281801/%E9%9B%BB%E6%A5%AD%E6%B3%95%E4%BF%AE%E6%AD%A3%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88-%E5%85%A8%E6%A1%88%E6%A2%9D%E6%96%87-2017-1-11。
     「電業法修正草案」第95條：「核能發電設備應於中華民國一百十四年以前，全部停止運轉。政府應訂定計畫，積極推動低放射性廢棄物最終處置相關作業，以處理蘭嶼地區現所儲存之低放射性廢棄物，相關推動計畫應依據低放射性廢棄物最終處置設施場址設置條例訂定。」。
     劉書彬，「311核災後德國核能政策之研究-兼論德國核能治理之公民參與」，台灣民主季刊，10卷3期，頁131，140（2013年）。
     「賴清德重申政府廢核決心 2025年綠電完全取代核電」，自由時報，2018年4月30日，網址： http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2411150。
     
     英文文獻
     書籍
     Ioana Tudor, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment 166-168 (1st ed., 2008).
     Robert Thomas, Legitimate Expectation and Proportionalty in Administration Law 42 (1st ed., 2000).
     Robert Thomas, The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in UK Administrative Law, in The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law: A Comparative Study 2 (A.K. Sperr & D. Zacharias ed., 2012).
     Rudolf Dolzer & Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law 101 (2d ed. 2012).
     期刊
     American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Third, the Foreign Relations of the United State, Vol. 1 Sec. 712, comment g. (1987).
     Daphne Barak-Erez, The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations and the Distinction between the Reliance and Expectation Interests, European Public Law, Vol. 11, Issue 4, 583, 584 (2005).
     Elnur Kərimov, Umbrella Clauses Within Energy Charter Treaty, Baku State University Law Review 4(1), at 84.
     Iacob, Iuliana-Gabriela; Cirlig, Ramona-Elisabeta, The Energy Charter Treaty and Settlement of Disputes - Current Challenges, 6(1) Bucharest 71, 72 (2016).
     James Chalker, Making The Investment Provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty Sustainable Development Friendly, 6(4) International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 435, 438 (2006).
     Kaj Hober, The Energy Charter Treaty: An Overview, 8 J. World Investment & Trade 323, 325.
     Michael Feit, Attribution and the Umbrella Clause – Is there a Way out of the Deadlock?, 21(1) Minnesota Journal of Int’l Law 21, 23(2012).
     Michele Potestà, Legitimate Expectation in Investment Treaty Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept, ICSID Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, 88, 89 (2013).
     P. Weil, The State, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: The No Longer Stormy Relationship of a Ménage à Trois, 15 Icsid Rev.–F.I.L.J. 401, 2000, at 415.
     Pope &Talbot, Inc. v. Government of Canada, (23) Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 431(2000).
     Ruumidig,Wolfgang, Phasing out nuclear energy in Germany, 9(3) German Politics 43, 49 (2000).
     Steven Reinhold, Good Faith in International Law, UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 2, 40, 47 (2013).
     The Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents. A Legal Framework for International Energy Cooperation, 38(47) Energy Charter Secretariat ECS 1, 13 (2004).
     Thomas Ruppert, Reasonable Investment-backed Expectations: Should Notice of Coastal Property Purchasers?, COLLEGE OF LAW FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, Vol. 26, No. 2, 240, 246 (2011).
     Zeinab Asqari1, Investor’s Legitimate Expectations and The Interests of The Host State in Foreign Investment, Asian Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 4, No. 12, 1906, 1907 (2014).
     機構報告
     Axel Vorwerk, The 2002 Amendment to the German Atomic Energy Act Concerning the Phase-out of Nuclear Power, 8, https://www.oecd-nea.org/law/nlb/nlb-69/nlb69-vorwerk.pdf.
     Dispute Settlement, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/dispute-settlement/overview/ (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Energy Charter Process Charter, International Energy Charter, Apr. 17, 2018, https://energycharter.org/fileadmin/ImagesMedia/Country_Flags/20180427-Energy_Charter_Map_April.pdf.
     Germany Regulatory and Institutional Framework for Nuclear Activities, Nuclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries, OECD, 2011, at. 6, https://www.oecd-nea.org/law/legislation/germany.pdf.
     International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? 5 (2012), available at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/german_nuclear_phase_out.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     State Contracts-UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreements, UNITED NATIONS 3, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteiit200411_en.pdf (2004).
     Suzy H. Nikièma, Best Practices-Indirect Expropriation, The International Institute for Sustainable Development, (Mar. 2012), http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/best_practice_indirect_expropriation.pdf.
     The Federal Government`s energy concept of 2010 and the transformation of the energy system of 2011, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Oct. 2011, at. 15.
     The International Energy Charter, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/process/international-energy-charter-2015/overview/ (last visited: Aug. 14, 2018).
     判決文件
     AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. (UK) v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Sept. 23, 2010.
     Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group S.A., Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v. Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. V (116/2010), Dec. 19, 2013.
     BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 06 December 2016, 1 BvR 2821/11 (Dec. 6, 2016).
     CMS Gas Transmission Company v. the Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of the Tribunal, May 12, 2005.
     Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award of the Tribunal, Sept. 5, 2008.
     Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award of the Tribunal, Aug. 18, 2008.
     EDF (Services) Limited and Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award of the Tribunal, Oct. 8, 2009.
     EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Oct. 8, 2009.
     Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, Mar. 28, 2011.
     LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, Oct. 3, 2006.
     Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe Anonyme S.A. (Greek) v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, May 30, 2015.
     Metaclad Corporation v. the United Mexico States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/1, Award of the Tribunal, ¶¶ 28-36 (Aug. 30, 2000), 5 ICSID Rep. 212 (2002).
     Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul (Austria) v. Tajikistan, Arbitration Institute of the SCC - Case No. V (064/2008), partial award on jurisdiction and liability, Sept. 2, 2009.
     MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7, Award of the Tribunal, May 25, 2004.
     Methanex v. United States, Final Award, Part IV, Chap. D(2005).
     Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Latvia, Arbitration Institute of the SCC Case No 118/2001, Dec. 16, 2003.
     Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award of the Tribunal, Sept. 11, 2007.
     Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 136 (1978).
     Petrobart Ltd. v. Kyrgyzstan, Arbitration Institute of the SCC - Case No 126/2003, Mar. 29, 2005.
     Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Aug. 27, 2008.
     Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobile Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award of the Tribunal, July 29, 2008.
     Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, UNCITRAL Arb, 65 (Nl.-Cz. 2006)
     Schmidt and Another v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, [1968] 2 Ch 339, 349(Lord Denning MR).
     Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award, 6 February 2007.
     Starrett Housing Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 24, Interlocutory Award No. ITL 32-24-1, 19 December 1983,4 Iran-US CTR 122.
     Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, May 29, 2003.
     Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, https://www.italaw.com/cases/1654#sthash.Pk5MXK7Q.dpuf .
     網頁資料
     Artemis Malliaropoulou, Legitimate expectations in the TTIP proposal, in CETA, in EU law and in international investment law: a paradigm of Heraclitean hidden harmony?, EFILA BLOG, Nov. 24, 2016, https://efilablog.org/2016/11/24/legitimate-expectations-in-the-ttip-proposal-in-ceta-in-eu-law-and-in-international-investment-law-a-paradigm-of-heraclitean-hidden-harmony/.
     Caroline Simson, German Law to Compensate Swedish Energy Co. Advances, Law360, May 23, 2018, https://www.law360.com/articles/1046469?scroll=1.
     Christoph Schreuer, The Concept of Expropriation under the ETC and other Investment Protection Treaties, ¶ 12, http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/csunpublpaper_3.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Columbia, Germany: The Birth of The Nuclear Dilemma, Aug. 5, 2012, https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/germany-birth-of-nuclear-dilemma
     Dispute Settlement, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/dispute-settlement/overview/ (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Developments in Germany following the nuclear disaster in Japan, http://www.bmu.de/en/topics/nuclear-safety-radiological-protection/nuclear-safety/response-to-fukushima/overview/ (last visited Agu. 14, 2018).
     Fukushima on the Global, The Nuclear Accident, http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/whats-happened (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Germany to compensate utilities for nuclear phaseout losses, World Nuclear News, May 24, 2018, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Germany-to-compensate-utilities-for-nuclear-phaseout-losses-24051801.html.
     Herdem Attorneys at Law, Turkey: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Aug. 21, 2015, http://www.mondaq.com/turkey/x/422030/international+trade+investment/Bilateral+Investment+Treaties (last visited Aug. 14, 2017).
     K Yannaca-Small, Interpretation of the Umbrella Clause in Investment Agreements, OECD Working Papers on International Investment Number 2006/3, Oct. 2006, at 3, https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2006_3.pdf.
     Kerstine Appunn, The history behind Germany`s nuclear phase-out, Clean Energy Wire, Jan. 2, 2018, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out.
     List of all Investment Dispute Settlement Cases, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/dispute-settlement/all-investment-dispute-settlement-cases/(last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Science for Environment Policy DG Environment News Alert Service, Fukushima’s effects on nuclear policy in Germany and the UK, European Commission, Apr. 19, 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/280na2_en.pdf.
     Sören Amelang, Looking back: Germany five years after Fukushima, Clean Energy Wire, Mar. 8, 2016, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/looking-back-germany-five-years-after-fukushima.
     Sornarajah, M., International Commercial Arbitration—The Problem of State Contracts, 3(1990).
     The Thirteenth Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act Is for the Most Part Compatible with the Basic Law, Bundesverfassungsgericht, Press Release No. 88/2016, Dec. 6, 2016, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2016/bvg16-088.html
     The International Energy Charter, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/process/international-energy-charter-2015/overview/ (last visited: Aug. 14, 2018).
     United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Fair and Equitable Treatment-UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, available at http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
105351054
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105351054
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 薛景文zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Hsueh, Ching-Wenen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 楊筑羽zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yang, Chu-Yuen_US
dc.creator (作者) 楊筑羽zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yang, Chu-Yuen_US
dc.date (日期) 2018en_US
dc.date.accessioned 29-Aug-2018 15:47:07 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 29-Aug-2018 15:47:07 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 29-Aug-2018 15:47:07 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105351054en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119712-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國際經營與貿易學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 105351054zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 2011年3月11日日本核災事變發生後，德國政府立即於2011年7月31日公布之第13次核能法修正案，致力於加速淘汰所有德國境內之核電廠，瑞典能源公司Vattenfall以新修正案損害其基於能源憲章條約之權利為由，向「國際投資爭端解決中心（International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes，ICSID）」提交仲裁案件。隨後，與其他兩家德籍能源公司E.ON和RWE，以新修正案中違反德國基本法第14條對財產權之保障為由，提訴願至德國聯邦憲法法庭。
     兩個案件皆涉及Vattenfall公司與德國政府間之間接徵收、合理期待爭議。由德國憲法法庭於2016年12月6日公布之判決中，可知第13次修正案未對訴願者之財產構成徵收，但違反訴願者基於第11次修正案而產生之合理期待。再者，因外國投資人與地主國簽訂核電投資契約係屬特許契約，於國際投資法下亦涉及傘狀條款。儘管ICSID之Vattenfall II案目前仍在審判中，但本文將基於德國憲法訴願判決，與過往ICSID仲裁庭之判斷，以及本案當事人雙方於公開聽證會之主張，試析Vattenfall II案。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) On the 11th of March in 2011, Japan was struck by the nuclear disaster. Right after the tragedy, the German Government announced the 13th Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, in an effort to accelerate the phase-out plan for all nuclear power plants within the country. Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company, argued that the new amendment prejudiced its rights under the Energy Charter Treaty, and submitted a request for arbitration to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Subsequently, the other two Germany companies, E.ON and RWE, also filed an administrative appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court, stating that the new amendment violated the protection of property rights in Article 14 of the German Basic Law.
     These two cases involve the issues in indirect expropriation and legitimate expectation between Vattenfall and the German Government. In the judgement pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court on the 6th of December in 2016, it was determined that the 13th amendment did not constitute expropriation on the property of the appellant, but went against the appellant’s legitimate expectation under the 11th amendment. Moreover, the nuclear power investment agreement between foreign investors and landlord country was concession agreement, and thus it involved umbrella clauses of the International Investment Law. While the case ICSID v. Vattenfall is still in proceedings, this thesis intends to analyze the Vattenfall Ⅱ case, and make conclusion based on the Federal Constitutional Court appeal judgement, the previous ICSID arbitrations and the arguments from the two parties in the public hearings.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1
     第一節 研究動機與目的 1
     第二節 研究架構 2
     第三節 研究方法及限制 3
     第二章 德國核電政策沿革與聯邦憲法法庭判決 4
     第一節 德國廢核化緣由 4
     第二節 核能政策沿革 5
     第三節 德國聯邦憲法法庭判決 10
     第三章 「能源憲章條約」之間接徵收、合理期待、傘狀條款的解釋適用 25
     第一節 能源憲章條約之簡介 25
     第二節 間接徵收 29
     第一目 間接徵收案例分析 30
     第二目 徵收補償之例外情形 43
     第三目 小結 45
     第三節 公平公正待遇下之合理期待 45
     第一目 合理期待之內涵 49
     第二目 投資者合理期待之依據 51
     第三目 合理期待之限制 56
     第四目 小結 58
     第四節 傘狀條款 58
     第一目 傘狀條款之用語 60
     第二目 傘狀條款之單方行為 62
     第三目 小結 63
     第四章 試析國際投資爭端Vattenfall II案之可能發展 65
     第一節 Vattenfall II案之事實背景 65
     第二節 涉及國際投資法下間接徵收之爭議 68
     第一目 簡述能源憲章條約之間接徵收 68
     第二目 雙方當事人之主張 69
     第三目 本文試析 70
     第三節 涉及國際投資法下合理期待之爭議 71
     第一目 簡述能源憲章條約之合理期待 71
     第二目 雙方當事人之主張 72
     第三目 本文試析 73
     第四節 涉及國際投資法下傘狀條款之爭議 76
     第一目 簡述能源憲章條約之傘狀條款 76
     第二目 雙方當事人之主張 77
     第三目 本文試析 77
     第五章 結論 79		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105351054en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 能源憲章條約zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 間接徵收zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合理期待zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 傘狀條款zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 廢核zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Energy charter treatyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Indirect expropriationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Legitimate expectationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Umbrella clauseen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Nuclear Phase-Outen_US
dc.title (題名) 試析德國廢核政策於國際投資法之爭議zh_TW
dc.title (題名) An analysis on German Nuclear Phase-Out under International Investment Arbitrationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻
     中華民國經濟部，國際投資協定-分析釋義，頁56-59，https://www.dois.moea.gov.tw/file/pdf/publication.pdf。
     「主要國際組織能源情勢發展-能源憲章組織（ECT）」，APEC能源國際合作資訊網，網址：https://apecenergy.tier.org.tw/energy4/ect.php（最後瀏覽日：2018年8月14日）。
     李貴英，「能源憲章條約、德國廢核爭端與國際投資仲裁：Vattenfall v. Germany一案之探討」，歐美研究，第四十四卷第三期，民國103年9月，頁309-310。
     李貴英、鄭昀欣，「能源憲章條約下投資爭端解決機制之研究-以徵收問題為例」，貿易政策論叢，28期，頁 191，210（2017年）。
     「核能的正反思考（下）：擁核的三大理由」，The News Lens 關鍵評論，2016年3月27日，網址：https://www.thenewslens.com/article/38938。
     梁天瑞，「掀開德國廢核真相」，國政研究報告，2013年6月20日，網址：https://www.npf.org.tw/2/12387。
     陳朝建，「行政法教室：名詞解釋-主觀公權利與反射利益」，台灣法律網，http://www.lawtw.com/article.php?template=article_content&area=free_browse&parent_path=,1,1648,&job_id=130365&article_category_id=1170&article_id=64629。
     葉佳華，「回應廢核遊行，經濟部：2025年非核家園已納入電業法」，ETtoday新聞雲，2018年3月11日，網址：https://www.ettoday.net/news/20180311/1128167.htm。
     楊筑羽，「論國際投資條約中合理期待之爭議－以德國憲法法院第13次核能法修正案判決對合理期待之解釋，試評國際投資爭端Vattenfall II案之可能發展」，第215期，頁19-40。
     「電業法修正草案」全案條文 ，2017年1月11日，網址：https://zh.scribd.com/document/336281801/%E9%9B%BB%E6%A5%AD%E6%B3%95%E4%BF%AE%E6%AD%A3%E8%8D%89%E6%A1%88-%E5%85%A8%E6%A1%88%E6%A2%9D%E6%96%87-2017-1-11。
     「電業法修正草案」第95條：「核能發電設備應於中華民國一百十四年以前，全部停止運轉。政府應訂定計畫，積極推動低放射性廢棄物最終處置相關作業，以處理蘭嶼地區現所儲存之低放射性廢棄物，相關推動計畫應依據低放射性廢棄物最終處置設施場址設置條例訂定。」。
     劉書彬，「311核災後德國核能政策之研究-兼論德國核能治理之公民參與」，台灣民主季刊，10卷3期，頁131，140（2013年）。
     「賴清德重申政府廢核決心 2025年綠電完全取代核電」，自由時報，2018年4月30日，網址： http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/2411150。
     
     英文文獻
     書籍
     Ioana Tudor, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment 166-168 (1st ed., 2008).
     Robert Thomas, Legitimate Expectation and Proportionalty in Administration Law 42 (1st ed., 2000).
     Robert Thomas, The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in UK Administrative Law, in The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law: A Comparative Study 2 (A.K. Sperr & D. Zacharias ed., 2012).
     Rudolf Dolzer & Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law 101 (2d ed. 2012).
     期刊
     American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Third, the Foreign Relations of the United State, Vol. 1 Sec. 712, comment g. (1987).
     Daphne Barak-Erez, The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations and the Distinction between the Reliance and Expectation Interests, European Public Law, Vol. 11, Issue 4, 583, 584 (2005).
     Elnur Kərimov, Umbrella Clauses Within Energy Charter Treaty, Baku State University Law Review 4(1), at 84.
     Iacob, Iuliana-Gabriela; Cirlig, Ramona-Elisabeta, The Energy Charter Treaty and Settlement of Disputes - Current Challenges, 6(1) Bucharest 71, 72 (2016).
     James Chalker, Making The Investment Provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty Sustainable Development Friendly, 6(4) International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 435, 438 (2006).
     Kaj Hober, The Energy Charter Treaty: An Overview, 8 J. World Investment & Trade 323, 325.
     Michael Feit, Attribution and the Umbrella Clause – Is there a Way out of the Deadlock?, 21(1) Minnesota Journal of Int’l Law 21, 23(2012).
     Michele Potestà, Legitimate Expectation in Investment Treaty Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept, ICSID Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, 88, 89 (2013).
     P. Weil, The State, the Foreign Investor, and International Law: The No Longer Stormy Relationship of a Ménage à Trois, 15 Icsid Rev.–F.I.L.J. 401, 2000, at 415.
     Pope &Talbot, Inc. v. Government of Canada, (23) Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 431(2000).
     Ruumidig,Wolfgang, Phasing out nuclear energy in Germany, 9(3) German Politics 43, 49 (2000).
     Steven Reinhold, Good Faith in International Law, UCL Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, Vol. 2, 40, 47 (2013).
     The Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents. A Legal Framework for International Energy Cooperation, 38(47) Energy Charter Secretariat ECS 1, 13 (2004).
     Thomas Ruppert, Reasonable Investment-backed Expectations: Should Notice of Coastal Property Purchasers?, COLLEGE OF LAW FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, Vol. 26, No. 2, 240, 246 (2011).
     Zeinab Asqari1, Investor’s Legitimate Expectations and The Interests of The Host State in Foreign Investment, Asian Economic and Financial Review, Vol. 4, No. 12, 1906, 1907 (2014).
     機構報告
     Axel Vorwerk, The 2002 Amendment to the German Atomic Energy Act Concerning the Phase-out of Nuclear Power, 8, https://www.oecd-nea.org/law/nlb/nlb-69/nlb69-vorwerk.pdf.
     Dispute Settlement, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/dispute-settlement/overview/ (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Energy Charter Process Charter, International Energy Charter, Apr. 17, 2018, https://energycharter.org/fileadmin/ImagesMedia/Country_Flags/20180427-Energy_Charter_Map_April.pdf.
     Germany Regulatory and Institutional Framework for Nuclear Activities, Nuclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries, OECD, 2011, at. 6, https://www.oecd-nea.org/law/legislation/germany.pdf.
     International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? 5 (2012), available at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/german_nuclear_phase_out.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     State Contracts-UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreements, UNITED NATIONS 3, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteiit200411_en.pdf (2004).
     Suzy H. Nikièma, Best Practices-Indirect Expropriation, The International Institute for Sustainable Development, (Mar. 2012), http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/best_practice_indirect_expropriation.pdf.
     The Federal Government`s energy concept of 2010 and the transformation of the energy system of 2011, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Oct. 2011, at. 15.
     The International Energy Charter, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/process/international-energy-charter-2015/overview/ (last visited: Aug. 14, 2018).
     判決文件
     AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. (UK) v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Sept. 23, 2010.
     Anatolie and Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group S.A., Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v. Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. V (116/2010), Dec. 19, 2013.
     BVerfG, Judgment of the First Senate of 06 December 2016, 1 BvR 2821/11 (Dec. 6, 2016).
     CMS Gas Transmission Company v. the Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award of the Tribunal, May 12, 2005.
     Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award of the Tribunal, Sept. 5, 2008.
     Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award of the Tribunal, Aug. 18, 2008.
     EDF (Services) Limited and Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award of the Tribunal, Oct. 8, 2009.
     EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Oct. 8, 2009.
     Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, Mar. 28, 2011.
     LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, Oct. 3, 2006.
     Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe Anonyme S.A. (Greek) v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, May 30, 2015.
     Metaclad Corporation v. the United Mexico States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/1, Award of the Tribunal, ¶¶ 28-36 (Aug. 30, 2000), 5 ICSID Rep. 212 (2002).
     Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul (Austria) v. Tajikistan, Arbitration Institute of the SCC - Case No. V (064/2008), partial award on jurisdiction and liability, Sept. 2, 2009.
     MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7, Award of the Tribunal, May 25, 2004.
     Methanex v. United States, Final Award, Part IV, Chap. D(2005).
     Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v. Latvia, Arbitration Institute of the SCC Case No 118/2001, Dec. 16, 2003.
     Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award of the Tribunal, Sept. 11, 2007.
     Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 136 (1978).
     Petrobart Ltd. v. Kyrgyzstan, Arbitration Institute of the SCC - Case No 126/2003, Mar. 29, 2005.
     Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Aug. 27, 2008.
     Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobile Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award of the Tribunal, July 29, 2008.
     Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, UNCITRAL Arb, 65 (Nl.-Cz. 2006)
     Schmidt and Another v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, [1968] 2 Ch 339, 349(Lord Denning MR).
     Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award, 6 February 2007.
     Starrett Housing Corporation v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Case No. 24, Interlocutory Award No. ITL 32-24-1, 19 December 1983,4 Iran-US CTR 122.
     Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, May 29, 2003.
     Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, https://www.italaw.com/cases/1654#sthash.Pk5MXK7Q.dpuf .
     網頁資料
     Artemis Malliaropoulou, Legitimate expectations in the TTIP proposal, in CETA, in EU law and in international investment law: a paradigm of Heraclitean hidden harmony?, EFILA BLOG, Nov. 24, 2016, https://efilablog.org/2016/11/24/legitimate-expectations-in-the-ttip-proposal-in-ceta-in-eu-law-and-in-international-investment-law-a-paradigm-of-heraclitean-hidden-harmony/.
     Caroline Simson, German Law to Compensate Swedish Energy Co. Advances, Law360, May 23, 2018, https://www.law360.com/articles/1046469?scroll=1.
     Christoph Schreuer, The Concept of Expropriation under the ETC and other Investment Protection Treaties, ¶ 12, http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/pdf/csunpublpaper_3.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Columbia, Germany: The Birth of The Nuclear Dilemma, Aug. 5, 2012, https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/germany-birth-of-nuclear-dilemma
     Dispute Settlement, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/dispute-settlement/overview/ (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Developments in Germany following the nuclear disaster in Japan, http://www.bmu.de/en/topics/nuclear-safety-radiological-protection/nuclear-safety/response-to-fukushima/overview/ (last visited Agu. 14, 2018).
     Fukushima on the Global, The Nuclear Accident, http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/whats-happened (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Germany to compensate utilities for nuclear phaseout losses, World Nuclear News, May 24, 2018, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Germany-to-compensate-utilities-for-nuclear-phaseout-losses-24051801.html.
     Herdem Attorneys at Law, Turkey: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Aug. 21, 2015, http://www.mondaq.com/turkey/x/422030/international+trade+investment/Bilateral+Investment+Treaties (last visited Aug. 14, 2017).
     K Yannaca-Small, Interpretation of the Umbrella Clause in Investment Agreements, OECD Working Papers on International Investment Number 2006/3, Oct. 2006, at 3, https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2006_3.pdf.
     Kerstine Appunn, The history behind Germany`s nuclear phase-out, Clean Energy Wire, Jan. 2, 2018, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out.
     List of all Investment Dispute Settlement Cases, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/dispute-settlement/all-investment-dispute-settlement-cases/(last visited Aug. 14, 2018).
     Science for Environment Policy DG Environment News Alert Service, Fukushima’s effects on nuclear policy in Germany and the UK, European Commission, Apr. 19, 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/280na2_en.pdf.
     Sören Amelang, Looking back: Germany five years after Fukushima, Clean Energy Wire, Mar. 8, 2016, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/looking-back-germany-five-years-after-fukushima.
     Sornarajah, M., International Commercial Arbitration—The Problem of State Contracts, 3(1990).
     The Thirteenth Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act Is for the Most Part Compatible with the Basic Law, Bundesverfassungsgericht, Press Release No. 88/2016, Dec. 6, 2016, http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2016/bvg16-088.html
     The International Energy Charter, International Energy Charter, https://energycharter.org/process/international-energy-charter-2015/overview/ (last visited: Aug. 14, 2018).
     United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Fair and Equitable Treatment-UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, available at http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2018).		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.IB.033.2018.F06-