國際投資法上公正與公平待遇原則之研究

A Study on the Fair and Equitable Treatment Principle in International Investment Law

朴栽亨(Park Jae-Hyung)

公正與公平待遇 ； 國際投資協定 ； 國際最低標準 ； 充分保障和安全 ； 臺灣 ； Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) ； International Investment Agreements (IIAs) ； International Minimum Standard ； Full protection and security ； Taiwan

高大法學論叢

12卷2期（2017 / 03 / 01）

81 - 85+87-155+157-162

繁體中文

美國私募基金「龍昇星（Lonestar）」認爲在收購韓國外匯銀行過程中，因爲韓國政府的任意性及歧視性措施而受到莫大的損失，主張韓國政府行爲在韓國－比利時盧森堡雙邊投資協定（BIT）中違反「公正與公平待遇」、「充分及持續保護和保障」、「禁止以任意性及歧視性措施妨礙投資之經營、管理、維持、使用、享有或處置」、「國民待遇」、「最惠國待遇」、「徵收」、「保障轉移」等，於2012年11月向ICSID對韓國政府提出仲裁。本案在2016年6月荷蘭（海牙）預定最終辯論。圍繞本案的未來仲裁裁定，一些學者們認爲公正與公平待遇（FET）原則是影響本案勝敗的關鍵，本文對龍昇星所主張的韓國政府違反行爲中，針對公正與公平待遇進行研討。進入2000年以後，隨著與FET條款有關的國際投資爭端案件有逐漸增加之趨勢，目前FET原則占據相當重要位置。迄今FET原則不僅是出現在多數的國際投資協定（IIAs）中，甚至在多數的自由貿易協定（FTA）或一些區域貿易協定（RTA）的「投資」專章明定FET條款。但由於在多數的IIAs中沒有具體規定出FET的範圍和内容，其待遇的判斷標準交由每個案例之仲裁裁判官的裁量。在這種情況下，在國際投資實務上爭端當事人違反FET之判斷標準和裁定結果均難以預測，因此本文研究對解決FET原則的問題具有重要意義。目前臺灣與20多個國家簽署IIAs和FTA。雖然至今臺灣沒被國際投資爭端攪了進去，但是若其將來加入大規模型的國際協定（如FTAAP、TPP等），發生國際投資爭端（ISD）的可能性很大。因此透過國際投資爭端案例和目前臺灣與各國家所簽訂的IIAs之FET條款比較做分析，提出可預測的解釋方法及若干意見。

Lonestar, global private equity funds, claimed that, in the process of acquisition of Korea Exchange Bank in the early 2000s, the Korean government has engaged in a continuing pattern of arbitrary and discriminatory conduct. As result of this conduct Lonestar seems to be suffered great damages. Lonestar insisted that such conduct by Korean government is in breach e.g. obligation of Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), Full and Continuous Protection and Security, Prohibition of impairment by arbitrary and discriminatory measures the operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal of investment, Most Favored Nation (MFN), National Treatment (NT), Expropriation, and free transfer of investment) of Korea's obligation to Belgian investors (Lonestar's subsidiary company) under the terms of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea & Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investment (BIT). This case was requested for the ICSID arbitration to Korean government in November 14, 2012. Its' closing argument will be held in The Hague, the Netherlands in June 2016. According to some scholars, they believed that FET principle is the most important issue to decide this arbitration case. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to discuss the FET issue which is one of the violation of Korean government, is claimed by Lonestar. From the early 2000s, FET principle has occupied a very important position since International Investment Arbitration has increased to handle the FET in international investment disputes tribunal cases. FET principle is included not only the majority of International Investment Agreements (IIAs), but also the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the Regional Trade Agreement (RTA)'s Investment Chapter (e.g. TPP etc.). IIAs is intended to prescribe the FET in principle, but it did not specifically stipulate about the scope and content of the FET principle. The FET judgment to the arbitrator' discretion on case by case. In such cases, it is very difficult to predict what happens to the FET standard of and result of the decisions of arbitral tribunals that constitute a violation of the FET obligation in International investment practice. Thus, analyzing the FET principle seems to have considerable value. Taiwan has signed IIAs and FTA with about 20 countries so far, Taiwan did not officially report on international investment dispute. In the future, however, if Taiwan enter into the Big or Mega International Agreement (e.g. FTAAP, TPP etc.), it will be subject to confront with Investor-State Dispute (ISD) later. Therefore, through the analysis of Arbitration Case FET clause and comparative analysis of Taiwan's IIAs, this study may provide a predictable interpretation of FET principle and some suggestions.

1. Roth, Andres H. (1st ed. 1949). THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF INTERNATIONAL LAW APPLIED TO ALIENS. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.
2. Dolzer, Rudolf(2014).Fair and Equitable Treatment: Today's Contours.Santa Clara Journal of International Law,12,7-33.
3. Dolzer, Rudolf,Schreuer, Christoph(2008).PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
4. Garner, Bryan A.(2009).BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY.U.S.A.:West.
5. Malik, Mahnaz(2011).THE FULL PROTECTION AND SECURITY STANDARD COMES OF AGE: YET ANOTHER CHALLENGE FOR STATES IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION?.Canada:International Institute for Sustainable Development.
6. Mann, F. A.(1981).British Treaties For The Promotion And Protection Of Investments.British Yearbook of International Law,52(1),241-254.
7. Ranjan, Prabhash(2010).FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT IN INDIAN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS: AN OVERVIEW.Canada:International Institute for Sustainable Development.
8. Reinisch, August(ed.),Knahr, Christina(ed.)(2008).INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW IN CONTEXT.Utrecht:Eleven International Publishing.
9. Salacuse, Jeswald W.(2010).THE LAW OF INVESTMENT TREATIES.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
10. Schreuer, Christoph(2005).Fair And Equitable Treatment In Arbitral Practice.The Journal of World Investment & Trade,6(3),357-386.
11. Sornarajah, M.(2010).THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
12. Stephen, Fietta(2006).Expropriation and Fair and Equitable Standard.Journal of International Arbitration,23(5),375-399.
13. Tudor, Ioana(2008).THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD IN THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
14. UNCTAD(1999).FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT: UNCTAD SERIES ON ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT.New York:United Nation.
15. UNCTAD(2007).BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES 1995-2006: TRENDS IN INVESTMENT RULEMAKING.New York:United Nation.
16. UNCTAD(2015).Recent trends in IIAs and ISDS.IIA Issues,1,2-5.
17. UNCTAD(2012).FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT: UNCTAD SERIES ON ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT.New York:United Nation.
18. Vasciannie, Stephan(1990).The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law Practice.The British Yearbook of International Law,70(1),99-164.
19. 王貴國(2008)。國際投資法。北京=Beijing:法律出版社=Law Press。
20. 김여선(2014).국제투자법의 공정∙ 공평한 대우—ISD 만능조항.국제거래법 연구,23(2),417-446.
21. 김용일,홍성규(2012).국제투자법상 공정하고공평한 대우에 관한 연구.중재연구,22(3),187-213.
22. 余勁松(2014)。國際投資法。北京=Beijing:法律出版社=Law Press。
23. 林彩瑜(2011)。WTO 制度與實務。臺北=Taipei:元照=Angle。
24. 姚梅鎮(2011)。國際投資法。武漢=Wuhan:武漢大學出版社=Wuhan University Press。
25. 법무부(2014).투자자국가소송（ISD）최신판례분석.首爾:法務部.
26. 陳安編(2007)。國際投資法的新發展與中國雙邊投資條約的新實踐。上海=Shanghai:復旦大學出版社=Fudan University Press。
27. 楊慧芳(2009)。外資公平與公正待遇標準的要素評析。法學評論，3，77-82。
28. 楊慧芳(2010)。投資者合理期待原則研究。河北法學，28(4)，75-79。