| 以下仅列出文章摘要、目录等部分内容，如需获取完整论文资料，或原创定制、长期合作，请随时联系。 微信QQ:312050216 |
 |
 |
| 关于典型国际条约中有关征收规定的比较研究 摘要：随着各国在能源领域的合作日益密切、频繁，我国把能源合作视为“一带一路”项目建设的重点，在此背景下，《能源宪章条约》作为目前国际能源领域合作中最大的多边条约，其征收规则对国际能源合作具有重大的指导意义，但鉴于其在直接征收与间接征收认定标准，以及特许权撤销行为的认定标准这两方面的规定是模糊的，《能源宪章条约》暴露了在其现代化进程方面的缺失。而在国际能源合作实践中，观察联合国贸易和发展会议数据库发布的信息可得，援引《能源宪章条约》的仲裁案件中共有37个有关征收的案件，排除情况特殊的仲裁案件，征收相关案件占比已超过50%。显然，征收是国际能源投资中常见的政治风险。随着国际政治局势和能源市场的逐渐成熟，撤销特许权也渐渐成为能源领域征收中较为普遍的方式。相对于《能源宪章条约》，《北美自由贸易协定》与《美国双边投资协定范本（2012）》在直接征收与间接征收方面则更具有参考价值。一方面，虽然《北美自由贸易协定》未对征收有明确的定义，但明确地注明了直接征收与间接征收，另外，《北美自由贸易协定》中对直接与间接征收界限的认定大多源自于后续相关仲裁实践的总结。另一方面，《美国双边投资协定范本（2012）》在附录中对直接征收与间接征收进行了概念解释，相比之下，《能源宪章条约》则显得相对落后，无法与间接征收扩大化解释相衔接、辅助。根据目前现有的有关征收的国际能源仲裁案件，争议焦点主要集中在直接征收与间接征收，即征收的分类标准；特许权撤销行为即征收主要方式的认定标准这两方面。而在征收的合法性方面，由于规定相对统一，争议较少。 关键词：国际能源投资、征收、特许权协议、《能源宪章条约》、《北美自由贸易协定》、《美国双边投资协定范本（2012）》 Abstract:With an increasingly frequent international cooperation in the field of energy,China puts the top priority on the Belt and Road Initiative related to its energy development. Under this circumstances, as the largest multilateral treaties in the energy sector at present, the imposition regulations and rules released by the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) act as a significant guideline to the international energy cooperation. However, there are still some ambiguities in identification standards,such as the direct expropriation and indirect expropriation and the revoking of concessions. This illustrates the lack of modernization in the Energy Charter Treaty.Considering the practice of the international energy cooperation,there existed 37 arbitration cases invoking expropriation rules and regulations in the Energy Charter Treaty, up to 80.4% of the cases being expropriation related.(Excluding those involving settlement of reconciliation and arbitration cases due to energy policy changes.) Therefore, the political risk encountered by international energy investment mainly and obviously comes from expropriation. As political situation and energy market change worldwide,the withdrawal of concessions has gradually become a common way of energy expropriation. Compared with the Energy Charter Treaty,the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the 2012 U.S.Model Bilateral Investment Treaty have more reference value in terms of direct and indirect expropriation. On the one hand, instead of a clear definition of expropriation,the North American Free Trade Agreement literally indicates the ”direct” and ”indirect” expropriation. What's more, to distinguish the direct expropriation from the indirect one,the standard in the North American Free Trade Agreement is mostly concluded from the subsequent arbitration practice. On the other hand, On the other hand, the U.S.Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (2012) explains the concepts of direct and indirect expropriation in its appendix. In contrast with, the Energy Charter Treaty is relatively backward which cannotbe applied or adapted to the enlarging interpretation of indirect expropriation. According to the opening international energy arbitration cases related to expropriation, the dispute largely focuses on two aspects. One is direct and indirect expropriation,namely the classification standard of expropriation, and the other is the standard of affirming the revoked concession, namely the main way of expropriation. As for the legality of expropriation,there are few disputes because of the relatively uniform regulations released by existing international treaties. Keyword：International energy investment, expropriation, concession agreement,the Energy Charter Treaty, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) , the 2012 U.S.Model Bilateral Investment Treaty |
