Full recordShow full item record
Abstract20世纪70年代开始，国际贸易与投资一体化的发展趋势得到了经济学界与日俱增的关注。当前，在经济全球化的推动下，国际贸易与投资一体化的程度日益加深。鉴此，各国乃至国际社会对贸易与投资规则进行协调的必要性和紧迫性也大为增强。然而长久以来，国际贸易与投资体制一直处于相互分立、并行不悖的状态。尽管作为国际贸易法制的集大成者，《WTO协定》已经纳入了包括《服务贸易总协定》、《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》和《与贸易有关的投资措施协定》等投资规则，试图以此协调贸易与投资的关系，但这一努力仍非常有限。在WTO多边贸易谈判举步维艰的当下，作为调整全球外国直接投资最重要法律制度的BIT却迅猛发展。因此，从理论上探讨WTO与BIT体制一体化的理想与现实，研究依托双边演进路径发展的BIT是否以及在多大程度上超越了WTO的多边规则，这对于当前的BIT实践以及未来多边投资协定的谈判，都颇有意义。 鉴此，本文试图借鉴贸易与投资一体化的原理，建构国际贸易与投资法制一体化的语境，并讨论BIT的WTO递增效应。全文包括前言、正文和结语三大部分，其中，正文部分分为四章： 在第一章中，笔者首先回顾了国际贸易与投资一体化理论的缘起与表现，并以此经济动力为基础，探讨了国际贸易和投资法制的形式一体化和实质一体化的实然状况和应然趋势。此外，笔者还以WTO多边发展路径为参照对象，分析了依赖双边路径发展的BIT在形式理性和组织法层面方面的比较劣势。这种不平衡现象可能造成一国在BIT项下的承诺超越WTO的水平，进而引发BIT与WTO体制的不协调。 本文第二章和第三章旨在分别从实体和程序层面分析BIT的WTO递增效应。就实体层面而言，本文选取了WTO体制内的GATS和《TRIPS协定》作为研究对象，比较二者与BIT在调整范围和制度设计方面的异同，并着重分析了BIT对于GATS的准入前国民待遇和《TRIPS协定》的强制许可制度的递增效应。就程序层面而言，本文回顾了当前学术界对于BIT中普遍存在的ICSID仲裁机制与WTO争端解决机制有效性的既有评价，并结合ICSID与WTO争端解决机制的最新发展，从文本和实践两个角度比较了二者对于私人投资者保护的有效性。 第四章探讨WTO与ICSID这两个争端解决机制的管辖权冲突及其协调问题。在国际贸易与投资法制一体化的背景下，政府管制措施可能引发识别冲突的难题，并引发ICSID与WTO这两个争端解决机制管辖权冲突的可能性。对此，笔者分析了协调管辖权冲突的传统方法在此问题上的局限性，主张在个案的基础上通过各个争端解决机制的自由裁量这一柔性方法予以协调，并指出了BIT与WTO实体规则的统一在此问题上的决定性作用。 尽管在一定程度上看，本文属于“旧题新作”，但笔者仍试图从命题和角度两个方面实现学术研究的知识创新。一方面，本文借鉴经济学研究中贸易与投资的一体化理论，明确提出并初步论证了国际贸易与投资法制一体化的命题，试图从学理层面打通二者长久以来的学科隔阂，并在制度、规则及其实施层面提出应以一体化为应然发展方向；另一方面，与既有研究成果专注于WTO对国际投资法的影响这一研究视角不同，本文注重从BIT角度切入，研究以BIT为代表的国际投资法制对WTO体制的影响，从而揭示当前BIT体制对WTO体制的递增效应。
Since the 1970s, the integration of international trade and investment has attracted increasing attention among economists. In the current wave of economic globalization, the integration of international trade and investment is becoming closer, which highlights the necessity and urgency for countries and even the whole international community to coordinate their trade and investment disciplines. However, due to historic reasons, the international trade and investment regimes have been under separate and parallel development. Despite the fact that several agreements such as the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement) have been reached under the WTO regime, such attempts are limited and still far from enough. In addition, while multilateral trade negotiations are faltering, the BIT regime has been expanding both in a broader and deeper sense. Therefore, it is worthy of discussions on the ideal and reality of integration of WTO and BIT regimes, and how far the BIT regime under bilateral development path has gone beyond the multilateral WTO regime. Such discussion would benefit the rule-making of the current BIT program and the future multilateral investment agreement as well. In light of the above reasons, this dissertation attempts to draw reference from the economic theory of trade and investment integration, and discuss BIT’s WTO-plus effect in the context of integration of international trade and investment law. Besides preface and conclusion, this dissertation consists of four chapters. In Chapter One, the author reviews the origin and refection of the trade and investment integration theory. Based on this economic motivation, the author explores the ideal and reality of formal and substantive integration of the WTO and BIT regimes. Additionally, the author analyzes the unique bilateral development mode of BIT and its comparative disadvantages on its formal rationality and institutional law, which results in the WTO-plus effect as well as its incompatibility with the WTO regime. From the substantive and procedural perspective, the second and third chapter respectively deals with the WTO-plus effect of BIT. As to the substantive part, this dissertation chooses GATS and the TRIPS Agreement as the representative research objects, compares the differences and similarities between these two agreements and BIT in their coverage and main disciplines, especially the pre-establishment national treatment under BIT and the compulsory licenses rules under TRIPS Agreement. In regard of the procedural part, the author firstly reviews the existing assessment on the effectiveness of ICSID and WTO dispute settlement mechanisms, and then based on the latest development of the two mechanisms, re-examines their effectiveness in protecting the benefit of private investors. Chapter Four discuss the potential jurisdictional conflict between the WTO and ICSID dispute settlement mechanisms and its coordination. The author points out that, in the context of integration of international trade and investment law, difficulties on the clarification of governmental regulatory measures will arise, which may further lead to the possibility of forum shopping between the WTO and ICSID dispute settlement mechanisms. In this regard, traditional coordination method on jurisdictional conflict may play limited role. It is better to be coordinated by the specific tribunal/panel under its discretion on s case by case basis. But in the ultimate sense, such coordination relies on the unification of the BIT and WTO substantive declines.