跨國企業之保護與管制－以間接徵收為中心;Protection and Control of Multinational Enterprises – A Study of Indirect Expropriation

[[abstract]]自二十世紀末期以降，全球經貿往來迅速成長，跨國企業挾著雄厚資本，在世界各國進行大量投資，提供資金與生產技術，資本輸入國能藉以增加出口並改善對外貿易，促進經濟發展與現代化進程，惟因跨國企業通常著眼於資本輸入國的廉價勞動力，不願多花成本於環境保護及勞工權益保障，且跨國企業財力豐厚，進入當地市場可能造成本地產業無法與之競爭，跨國企業的投資將使國家對經濟的掌控能力下降，就國家的長遠發展而言未必有利。過去資本輸入國與資本輸出國與地主國對於外國投資活動的規範內涵常產生爭執，到現代則透過國際投資協定的締結，並輔以內國法及其他國際法規範，作為外國投資的規範架構。在此架構下，國家必須遵守條約及其他國際法規範，不得恣意而為任何管制措施。跨國企業的投資因此能獲得較完整的保障，降低投資風險，對於地主國吸引更多外國投資將有所助益。有關外國投資之議題，最受爭議者係對外國人私有財產之公用徵收，蓋徵收屬地主國各項管制措施中，對外國投資人資產侵害最為嚴重的一種。徵收依形式的不同可區分為直接徵收與間接徵收，前者係國家基於政策目的，將外國投資人擁有之資產藉由法令的頒布或干預措施的採行進行剝奪，使其喪失資產所有權，並將所有權移轉至國家或第三人；後者則指國家採行的干預措施，雖未涉及資產所有權的剝奪，在外觀上該私有財產仍屬外國投資人擁有，但其該等措施實質上已造成該資產經濟價值的喪失，甚至已達無法為使用、收益或處分的程度。在過去的二、三十年間，有關外國投資人資產遭受徵收的個案，大多數僅涉及所謂的直接徵收，但這個備受爭議的議題，從訴諸國際爭端解決機制的案件數量觀之，徵收的爭議重心已逐漸由直接徵收轉為間接徵收。從近年間的國際仲裁實務及其他學術研究可知，間接徵收應具備下列要件：屬國家行使主權之行為、構成對外國人私有財產的干預與經濟價值的嚴重減損、違反外國投資人的合理期待等。雖然地主國進行徵收的權力受到限制，但國際法承認國家仍享有一定程度的規制權限，能夠採取干預措施而不負補償責任，此種在美國法上稱為「警察權」，依據警察權實施的管制措施則稱「規律性措施」。本文擬從間接徵收的概念出發，探討其於國際投資法中之態樣、國際投資協定所確立的判斷標準，並檢視其與規律性措施的區別所在。 Since the end of 20th century, the amount of international trade has increased rapidly. Multinational enterprises (MNEs), having abundant capital, engage in investment ac-tivities all over the world. With the funds and production technologies provided by MNEs, capital importing countries can increase the number of exportations, improve foreign trades, promote economic growth, and accelerate modernization. In the past few decades, capital importing countries and capital exporting countries had disputes over the norm of foreign investment regulation. While in the modern days, the conclu-sion of treaties, along with other norms of international law and domestic laws, have built a legal framework of foreign investment.Amongst the regulatory measures, expropriation has the most severe infringement in the foreign investors’ rights. Hence, the expropriation of the property of aliens has been the most controversial issue of foreign investment. There are two types of expro-priation or taking of aliens’ property: direct and indirect. The former involves the out-right seizure of physical property or formal transfer of title whereas the latter has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure. Nowadays arguments about expropriation have shifted from direct expropria-tion to indirect expropriation. On the basis of arbitral awards and academic research in recent years, the determination of indirect expropriation requires a fact-based inquiry among other factors: the economic impact of the government action, the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government actions. This article is intended to explore the concept of indirect expropriation, its factors in the international legal sys-tem, the inclusion in international investment agreements treaties and its distinction between regulatory measures