臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

國際投資保障協定，係為保障外國投資人及其投資免受地主國政府之不當干預，而設有實體面、程序面上的保障。其中，程序面上，通常會約定當地主國政府違反國際投資保障協定，投資人得對地主國政府將投資爭端訴諸爭端解決機制，例如：國際投資仲裁。投資人基於對地主國司法公正性、投資爭端高度技術性等考量，可能較傾向透過仲裁解決爭端。然而，近年來此一機制逐漸受到各方批評，引發了許多爭議。主要的面向來自於國際投資仲裁機制過度、不當壓縮地主國管制空間，特別是當議題設及公共衛生、人權保護、金融秩序等議題時，更是格外敏感。

2017年，台新金與財政部之間就彰銀經營權糾紛，歷經一、二審的判決，目前尚在最高法院審理階段，但原先僅是單純的國內法爭端，卻因我國與新加坡簽有臺星經濟夥伴協定，而使新加坡投資人Surfeit公司得將此一爭端訴諸國際投資仲裁，而引發許多對國際投資仲裁機制在程序問題上的關注及疑慮。

本文即以本案為出發點，聚焦於國際投資機制上程序問題的討論，並探討對地主國管制空間的影響、國內法院與國際投資仲裁間之關聯，以及針對國內法院判決作出評析，以及未來本案於國際投資仲裁之發展作出分析及預測。

International investment agreements (hereinafter “IIAs”) protect foreign investors and its investment from host states’ inappropriate intervention, and provide foreign investors both substantial and procedural protection. The investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism (hereinafter “ISDS”) means foreign investors can settle investment disputes with host state relies on arbitration rather than domestic courts. ISDS mechanisms are very common in IIAs. Because the foreign investors may have concerns to domestic courts and the investment disputes are highly technical, they prefer to settle the disputes through international investment arbitration. However, ISDS mechanisms raise several concerns and critics that ISDS mechanism unduly, improperly affect and constrain the regulatory space of host states, especially when the disputes are related to public health, human right or financial regulation.

In 2017, the corporate control fight of Chang Hwa Bank, between Taishin Financial Holdings and Ministry of Finance, is sub judice at Supreme Court. Originally, it seems like a purely domestic disputes. However, Surfeit Harvest Investment Holding, a Singaporean investor, filed this case to international investment arbitration under the Agreement between Singapore and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Partnership (ASTEP), then it aroused lots of concerns on procedural issues of international investment arbitration.

This article will focus on the procedural issues of international investment arbitration and discuss the influence of regulatory space of host states, and relationship between domestic courts and international investment arbitration tribunals. Also, this article will review and comment on the judgments made by courts in the first and second instance. In the end, this article will analyze and predict the development of the Surfeit case.

第一章、 序言 7
第一節 研究動機 7
第二節 研究範圍與研究方法 11
第三節 研究架構 11
第二章、 國際投資保障協定 12
第一節 國際投資保障協定介紹 12
第二節 台灣投資保障協定之發展沿革 13
第三節 經濟合作協定下之投資專章的新發展 16
第一項 TPP之歷程 16
第二項 CPTPP 17
第三項 CPTPP縮小ISDS機制適用範圍 18
第三章、 彰銀經營權糾紛始末與判決評析 21
第一節 彰銀案背景事實 21
第一項 一次金改與二次金改 21
第二項 台新金正式入主彰銀 22
第三項 彰銀經營權糾紛 23
第二節 臺灣台北地方法院判決之認定（第一審） 25
第一項 系爭新聞稿與函文為私法上之「要約」 25
第二項 台新金以最高價得標係對財政部前開要約所為之承諾 29
第三項 台新金與財政部間私法契約之內容 29
第四項 兩造間私法契約未違公序良俗 32
第五項 第一審法院判決結果 33
第三節 臺灣高等法院判決之認定（第二審） 34
第一項 台新金與財政部間成立以系爭新聞稿、函文為內容之私法上契約 35
第二項 系爭契約之效力 38
第三項 法院判決結果 39
第四節 台新彰銀經營權案之判決評析 40
第五節 小結 41
第四章、 國際投資仲裁機制於Surfeit案之適用 43
第一節 國際投資爭端與國際投資仲裁規則 44
第一項 國際投資爭端之背景 44
第二項 國際投資仲裁機制與規則 44
第二節 國際投資仲裁機制之程序爭點 47
第一項 國際投資法之「投資」與「投資人」 47
第二項 國際投資法之岔路條款 64
第三節 實體法上爭點 73
第一項 國際投資法上之徵收 73
第三項 公平公正待遇標準 86
第五章、 投資仲裁機制存在及制度設計之反省 90
第一節 對仲裁機制之反思 90
第一項 仲裁人之天生偏見 90
第二項 仲裁庭組成欠缺多元性 92
第三項 仲裁庭判斷欠缺可預測性及上訴救濟之機制 93
第四項 小結 94
第二節 對地主國管制空間之影響 95
第一項 條約挑選 96
第二項 國內法院與國際投資仲裁庭判斷歧異之處理 105
第六章、 結論與建議 111
第一節 國際投資保障協定及國際投資仲裁機制 111
第二節 彰銀案／Surfeit案之分析 112
第一項 彰銀案／Surfeit案未必能通過管轄權之檢驗 112
第二項 財政部行為未違反FET標準 113
第三項 財政部之行為不構成間接徵收 113
第四項 國內訴訟與國際仲裁結果與其關聯 114
第三節 彰銀案／Surfeit案之貢獻 115
第四節 彰銀案／Surfeit案之啟示 115
第一項 簽訂國際投資保障協定考量面向應更多元與全面 115
第二項 簽訂國際投資保障協定是否納入岔路條款 117
第三項 對條約挑選問題的重視 117

中文文獻

專書
余勁松（2007），《國際投資法》，三版，北京：法律出版社。
李貴英（2004），《國際投資法專論》，初版，台北：元照。
陳敏（2009），《行政法總論》，六版，台北：新學林。
經濟部投資業務處（2012），《國際投資協定-分析釋義》，初版，台北：經濟部。

期刊論文
丁克華（2005），〈由金融自由化談我國資本市場發展的回顧與展望〉，《臺灣金融財務季刊》，6卷3期，頁35-64。
林彩瑜（2014），〈國際投資仲裁程序與公共衛生之關聯：以菸品控制爭端為例〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，43卷3期，頁549-585。
陳惠薇（2013），〈我國經濟自由化之探討〉，《經濟研究》，13卷，頁183-206。
陳希佳（2011），〈探討我國法院關於非機構（ad hoc）仲裁判斷的裁判－臺灣高等法院99年度非抗字第122號民事裁定及其可能的影響〉，《仲裁》，93期，頁26-41。
陳雅萍（2009），〈淺析《東協全面性投資協定》之利益拒絕條款之適用要件－以外交關係條款為核心〉，《東協瞭望》，頁14-19。
陳麗娟（2016），〈全球治理下「投資人地主國爭端解決機制」之研究：以歐盟與加拿大的 CETA 為例〉，《貿易政策論叢》，23期，頁175-203。
張慶麟（2011），〈論國際投資協定中“投資”的性質與擴大化的意義〉，《法學家》，2011:6期，頁82。
朱明新（2012），〈國際投資仲裁平行程序的根源，風險以及預防-以國際投資協定相關條款為中心〉，《當代法學》，2012:2期。頁143-152。
許慧儀（2016），〈國際投資法之「公平與公正待遇」標準發展之研究〉，《華岡法粹》，第60期，頁91-125。

條約
亞東關係協會與財團法人交流協會有關投資自由化、促進及保護合作協議
臺星經濟夥伴協定

學位論文
栗瑤（2015），《雙邊投資條約中岔路口條款适用研究》，西南政法大學碩士論文。
陳雅眉（2008），《ICSID架構下國際投資爭端解決體制之研究》，東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文。
羅傑（2013），《國際投資法上合理規制措施之研究-以間接徵收規範為中心》，國立交通大學科技法律研究所學位論文。
龔鈺芬（2015），《ICSID管轄權之範圍－從ICSID公約第25.1條及實務案例論「投資」概念》，國立交通大學科技法律研究所學位論文。

英文文獻

Books
COGLIANDRO, G., & MCLACHLAN, M., INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION: SUBSTANTIVE PRINCIPLE （2008）.
DOUGLAS, ZACHARY, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF INVESTMENT CLAIMS, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS （2009）.
DOLZER, RUDOLF & SCHREUER, CHRISTOPH, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW （SECOND EDITION 2008）.
M. SORNARAJAH, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS （THIRD EDITION 2010）.
ILIAS BANTEKAS, AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS （2015）.

Articles
AHMAD GHOURI, THE EVOLUTION OF BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES, INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LAW REVIEW 14:6 189 （2011）.
ANDREW NEWCOMBE, THE BOUNDARIES OF REGULATORY EXPROPRIATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, ICSID REVIEW-FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW JOURNAL 20:1 （2005）.
ALEX GRABOWSKI, THE DEFINITION OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE ICSID CONVENTION: A DEFENSE OF SALINI, 15 CHI. J. INT'L L. 287 （2014-2015）.
BEN MOSTAFA, THE SOLE EFFECTS DOCTRINE, POLICE POWERS AND INDIRECT EXPROPRIATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, 15 AUSTL. INT'L L.J. 267 （2008）.
CAROLINE HENCKELS, BALANCING INVESTMENT PROTECTION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST: THE ROLE OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW AND THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFERENCE IN INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION, 4 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 197 （2013）.
CATHERINE A. ROGERS, TRANSPARENCY IN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION, 54 U. KAN. L. REV. 1301 （2005-2006）.
CHIARA GIORGETTI, WHO DECIDES WHO DECIDES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION, 35 U. PA. J. INT'L L. 431 （2013-2014）.
GEORGIOS DIMITROPOULOS, CONSTRUCTING THE INDEPENDENCE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATORS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, 36 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 371 （2016）.
GUS VAN HARTEN & MARTIN LOUGHLIN, INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION AS A SPECIES OF GLOBAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 17 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 121 （2006）.
GUS VAN HARTEN, THE PUBLIC—PRIVATE DISTINCTION IN THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE, 56 INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 371 （2007）.
HANS SMIT, THE PERNICIOUS INSTITUTION OF THE PARTY-APPOINTED ARBITRATOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COMMONS （2010）.
JOOST PAUWELYN, THE RULE OF LAW WITHOUT THE RULE OF LAWYERS? WHY INVESTMENT ARBITRATORS ARE FROM MARS, TRADE ADJUDICATORS FROM VENUS, 109 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 761 （2015）.
JULIEN CHAISSE, THE TREATY SHOPPING PRACTICE: CORPORATE STRUCTURING AND RESTRUCTURING TO GAIN ACCESS TO INVESTMENT TREATIES AND ARBITRATION, 11 HASTINGS BUS. L.J. 225 （2015）.
JANE Y. WILLEMS, THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTOR STATE DISPUTES AND CHINA: NEW DEVELOPMENTS ON ICSID JURISDICTION, 8 S.C. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 1 （2011-2012）.
MICHAEL FEIT, RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE BREACH OF CONTRACT COMMITTED BY A STATE-OWNED ENTITY, 28 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 142 （2010）.
MICHAEL WAIBEL, INVESTMENT ARBITRATION: JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE FACULTY OF LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 9/2014 （2014）.
MICHAEL WAIBEL, OPENING PANDORA’S BOX: SOVEREIGN BONDS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, 101 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 711 （2007）.
P. DUNHAM & S. GREENBERG, BALANCING SOVEREIGNTY AND THE CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATIONS INVOLVING STATE ENTITIES, THE INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION LAW REVIEW 23:6 （2006）.
PETER ISAKOFF, DEFINING THE SCOPE OF INDIRECT EXPROPRIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, 3 GLOBAL BUS. L. REV. 189 （2013）.
PATRICK DEL DUCA, THE RULE OF LAW: MEXICO'S APPROACH TO EXPROPRIATION DISPUTES IN THE FACE OF INVESTMENT GLOBALIZATION, 51 UCLA L. REV. 35 （2004）.
PRABHASH RANJAN & PUSHKAR ANAND, DETERMINATION OF INDIRECT EXPROPRIATION AND DOCTRINE OF POLICE POWER IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, IN JUDGING THE STATE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT LAW （2016）.
SUSAN D. FRANCK, EMPIRICALLY EVALUATING CLAIMS ABOUT INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION, 86 N.C. L. REV. 1 （2008）.
SUSAN D. FRANCK, THE LEGITIMACY CRISIS IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION: PRIVATIZING PUBLLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH INCONSISTENT DECISIONS, 73 FORDHAM L. REV. 1521 （2004-2005）.
STEPHAN W. SCHILL, ENHANCING INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW'S LEGITIMACY: CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF A NEW PUBLIC LAW APPROACH, 52 VA. J. INT'L L. 57 （2011-2012）.
VICKI BEEN & JOEL C. BEAUVAIS, THE GLOBAL FIFTH AMENDMENT-NAFTA'S INVESTMENT PROTECTIONS AND THE MISGUIDED QUEST FOR AN INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY TAKINGS DOCTRINE, 78 N.Y.U. L. REV. 30 （2003）.
XIAO-JING ZHANG, PROPERT INTERPRETATION OF CORPORATE NATIONALITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW TO PREVENT TREATY SHOPPING, 6 CONTEMP. ASIA ARB. J. 49 （2013）.
YANNACA-SMALL, C., " INDIRECT EXPROPRIATION" AND THE" RIGHT TO REGULATE" IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, OECD （2004）.


Cases
Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3
Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12
Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4.
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment
Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I.- DIPENTA v. République algérienne démocratique et populaire, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/08
Champion Trading Company, Ameritrade International, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9
Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, LP v.The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.ARB/01/3
H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB 09/15.
Iurii Bogdanov, Agurdino-Invest Ltd. and Agurdino-Chimia JSC v. Republic of Moldova, SCC.
Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11
Limited Liability Company Amto v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005
Link-Trading Joint Stock Company v. Department for Customs Control of the Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL.
LG&E Energy Corporation v. Argentina （2007） 46 ILM 36
Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB（AF）/97/1.
MCI Power Group, LC and New Turbine, Inc v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6
Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467
Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers （Greece） v. The Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21
Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12.
Phillips Petroleum Co Iran v Iran, Award No 425-39-2 （June 29, 1989）
Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5
Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2
Romak S.A. （Switzerland） v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA280.
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v The Islamic Republic of Iran （1984）
Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL.
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada （1998）
Starrett Hous. Corp. v. Gov’t of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 4 Iran-U.S. Ck. Trib. Rep. 122 （1983）.
Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18
Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. The Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12
Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB （AF）/00/2.
Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, 6 Iran-U.S. Cl. Trib. Rep. 219 （1984）
Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2
Venezuela Holdings, B.V., et al （case formerly known as Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, B.V., et al.） v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27
Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4.


Treaties/ Norms
Agreement between Singapore and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu on Economic Partnership
Argentina - Croatia BIT （1994）
Argentina–France BIT （1991）
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Chile - New Zealand BIT （1999）
Egypt - United States of America BIT （1986）
ICSID Convention
North America Free Trade Area
The Trans-Pacific PartnershipComprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules
U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty （2012）

Internet Sources
Suzy H. Nikièma, Best Practices: Indirect Expropriation. Available at http://www.iisd.org/library/best-practices-indirect-expropriation
McGrady, B. （2011）. Implications of ongoing trade and investment disputes concerning tobacco: Philip Morris v. Uruguay. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2046261

Rahim Moloo & Justin M. Jacinto, Standards of Review and Reviewing Standards: Public Interest Regulation in International Investment Law. Available at
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2036243
Daniel, Angualia, The Role of Domestic Courts in International Commercial Arbitration （September 10, 2010）. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1674760 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1674760
Michael Waibel & Yanhui Wu, Are Arbitrators Political, In LawEcon Workshop. Bonn. （2011）. Available at http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~yanhuiwu/arbitrator.pdf
UNCTAD, Expropriation, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II. Available at http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d7_en.pdf
UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2017. Available at http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=1782
Is It Time to Redesign or Terminate Investor-State Arbitration? Available at https://www.cigionline.org/articles/it-time-redesign-or-terminate-investor-state-arbitration
OECD, International Investment Law: Understanding Concepts and Tracking Innovations. Available at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/international-investment-law-understanding-concepts-and-tracking-innovations_9789264042032-en
David Gaukrodger & Kathryn Gordon, Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community. OECD Working Paper No. 2012/3. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2207366