查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 從契約義務到條約義務--論Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan一案管轄權裁定
- 國際投資爭端解決中心Compania de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. & Vivendi Universal (ex Compagnie Generale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic一案之評析
- 論仲裁管轄權
- 美國國家豁免實踐中有關外國侵權行為管轄問題之研究
- 美國關於資訊授權與管轄權相關問題
- 網路行為管轄權爭議問題之初探
- 沿海國各海域管轄區內之外國船舶上發生案件之管轄權歸屬
- 福明輪案所涉及管轄權問題之探討
- 論工程仲裁中最具爭議性之前置程序問題
- 論國際法之管轄權--評美國聯邦法院判決「湖廣鐵路債券案」
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 從契約義務到條約義務--論Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan一案管轄權裁定=From Contractual Obligations to Treaty Obligations--The Decision on Jurisdiction in Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan |
---|---|
作 者 | 李貴英; | 書刊名 | 臺灣國際法季刊 |
卷 期 | 2:2 民94.06 |
頁 次 | 頁115-159 |
分類號 | 589.42 |
關鍵詞 | 國際投資爭端解決中心; 雙邊投資條約; 管轄權; 最惠國待遇條款; 傘狀條款; International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes; ICSID; Bilateral Investment Treaty; BIT; Jurisdiction; Most-Favoured-NationTreatment Clause; Umbrella Clause; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 雙邊投資條約之締約國應遵守其條約義務,正如其應遵守契約義務,只不過條約與契約通常各有不同之爭端解決條款。然而在傘狀條款之下,可將地主國所應遵守之契約義務轉化為條約義務,而使根據條約規定所成立之仲裁庭有權審理因契約所生之爭端。在本件涉及水壩工程興建計畫之爭端案當中,ICSID仲裁庭裁定其有樣審理投資人所提之請求,亦即地主國因拒絕投資人建議根據契約之約定將爭端提付仲裁,故違反地主國與投資人母國所締結之雙邊投資條約。不過仲裁庭認為其無權審理投資人所提之其他請求。本文擬就該案所涉及之相關問題予以評析。 |
英文摘要 | The States Parties to the Bilateral Investment Treaty are bound by their treaty obligations as well as their contract obligations, but the dispute settlement procedures in each case are different. However, under an umbrella clause, the host State commits itself to comply with its contractual obligations, thus transforming those obligations into treaty obligations. Such a clause may bring the contract within the Tribunal's jurisdiction based on a treaty. In a dispute arising Out of a dam construction project, the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction over the investor's claims that the host State, by refusing to accede to the investor's request to arbitration pursuant to the contract, breached the Bilateral Investment Treaty concluded between host State and investor's home State. But the Tribunal decided that it hade no jurisdiction over the investor's other claims. This article aims at examining the relevant issues arising out of this case. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。