查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 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
- 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(ICSID)金字塔臺地仲裁判斷之評析
- 中共「全國人大」專門委員會審議法案之研究
- 中共「全國人大」專門委員會之探析
- 中共黨國體制下立法機關的制度化
- 從公司治理論董監事法制之改革
- 中共「人民代表大會」專門委員會的回顧與前瞻
- 美國之豬假性狂犬病的撲滅對策:農業局專門委員會之報告
- 國際投資保障條約下投資人對地主國仲裁費用問題
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 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=An Analysis on ICSID Case Compania de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. & Vivendi Universal (ex Compagnie Generale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic |
---|---|
作 者 | 李貴英; | 書刊名 | 經社法制論叢 |
卷 期 | 34 2004.07[民93.07] |
頁 次 | 頁1-40 |
分類號 | 579.32 |
關鍵詞 | 國際投資爭端解決中心; 仲裁判斷之撤銷; 專門委員會; 雙邊投資條約; 特許契約; 排他性管轄權條款; 國際責任; International center for settlement of investment disputes; ICSID; Annulment of an arbitral award; Ad hoc committee; Bilateral investment treaty; Concession contract; Exclusive jurisdiction clause; International responsibility; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 本案係因法國投資人與阿根廷圖庫曼省所簽訂之特許契約所引起之爭端,國際投資爭端解決中心仲裁庭認為其對本案有管轄權,不過卻駁回投資人針對實體問題所提出之若干請求。仲裁庭判定除非申請人先行根據特許契約所約定之排他性管轄權條款,向圖庫曼省行政法院提起訴訟以維護其權利,並且該法院在程序或實體上有司法不公之情事,否則不應歸責於阿根廷。投資人嗣後根據國際投資爭端解決中心公約第52條第1項之規定,主張仲裁庭明顯逾越權限,請求撤銷一部仲裁判斷。審理本件撤銷案之專門委員會認為一個國家可能雖未違反契約,但卻違反條約,反之亦可能雖未違反條約,但卻違反契約,蓋因兩者屬於不同之問題。專門委員會認為仲裁庭駁回投資人針對圖庫曼省之作為所提出之請求,事實上並未裁定該等作為是否違反法國與阿根廷於1991年所簽署之雙邊投資條約。因此專門委員會裁定仲裁庭明顯逾越權限,並且此一部份之仲裁判斷應予撤銷。本文擬就該案之相關問題予以評析。 |
英文摘要 | In a dispute arising out of a concession contract concluded between the Argentine province of Tucumán and a French investor, the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction, but dismissed the investor's claim on the merits. The Tribunal concluded that Argentina could not be held liable unless and until the investor had asserted its rights in proceedings before the contentious administrative courts of Tucuman, in accordance with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the concession contract, and had been procedurally or substantively denied its rights. The investor sought sartial annulment of the award pursuant to Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention, arguing that the Tribunal had, interalia, manifestly exceeded its powers. The ad hoc Committee noted that a state might breach a treaty without breaching a contract, and vice versa, holding that these were two separate issues. The Committee considered that the Tribunal, in dismissing the Tucumán claims as it did, actually failed to decide whether or not the conduct in question amounted to a breach of the 1991 Argentine-French Bilateral Investment Treaty. The Committee therefore concluded that the Tribunal manifestly exceeded its powers, and its decision with regard to those claims is annulled. 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。