政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/159377
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 118252/149288 (79%)
造访人次 : 75182578      在线人数 : 6610
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159377


    题名: 歐盟法下投資者與國家爭端解決機制之演進與評析
    The Evolution and Analysis of Investor–State Dispute Settlement Mechanisms under European Union Law
    作者: 卓依璇
    Chuo, Yi-Hsuan
    贡献者: 許耀明
    Hsu, Yao-Ming
    卓依璇
    Chuo, Yi-Hsuan
    关键词: Achmea案
    Micula案
    歐盟補貼法
    國際投資仲裁
    公平與公正待遇
    多邊投資法院
    Achmea
    Micula
    EU State Aid Law
    International Investment Arbitration
    Fair and Equitable Treatment
    Multilateral Investment Court
    日期: 2025
    上传时间: 2025-09-01 16:47:35 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 隨著歐盟法律整合日益深化，成員國間所簽訂之投資協定與歐盟法之間日漸浮現制度性衝突。歐盟法院自Achmea與Komstroy案起，即明確否定成員國間投資協定中所設仲裁條款之正當性，認為其排除《TFEU》第267條初步裁決機制，侵害歐盟法院對歐盟法律最終詮釋權。與此同時，Micula案則更進一步探討仲裁判斷的履行是否構成違反《TFEU》第107條的非法國家補貼。
    本論文旨在釐清國際投資仲裁義務在歐盟法秩序中的法律地位，並探討投資協定義務與歐盟補貼法之間是否有制度性調和的可能。研究方法包括法釋義學、文獻分析與案例研究，聚焦Achmea、Komstroy與Micula三案，解析國家補貼構成要件，並比較投資法中公平與公正待遇及正當期待原則之適用。研究發現，歐盟對成員國履行國際仲裁義務的態度趨於保守，強調歐盟法律的優先適用原則與法院詮釋權的排他性。即便歐盟推動投資法院系統與多邊投資法院作為替代性方案，以制度化手段回應現行投資人與地主國間爭端解決機制的正當性危機，上述制度仍在實際適用與執行層面臨諸多挑戰，尚難完全取代既有仲裁途徑。
    綜合分析可見，歐盟法與國際投資法在價值理念與法律技術層面均存在根本差異。未來若欲兼顧區域法律自主性與國際法義務之履行，制度設計應朝向補貼法標準的精緻化調整、引入歐盟法院審查機制，並評估契約型仲裁作為過渡選項之可行性。本文認為，多邊投資法院是否能成為制度整合的關鍵，仍取決於其法律架構能否在正當性與操作性之間取得平衡，並在全球多邊治理體系中獲得廣泛接受。
    As the legal integration of the European Union deepens, institutional conflicts have increasingly emerged between investment agreements concluded by EU Member States and EU law. Since the Achmea and Komstroy judgments, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has explicitly denied the legitimacy of arbitration clauses in intra-EU investment treaties, holding that they circumvent the preliminary ruling mechanism under Article 267 TFEU and thereby encroach upon the Court’s exclusive authority to interpret EU law. At the same time, the Micula case further raised the question of whether compliance with an arbitral award could itself constitute an unlawful State aid under Article 107 TFEU.
    This thesis aims to clarify the legal status of international investment arbitration obligations within the EU legal order and to examine the potential for systemic reconciliation between investment treaty commitments and EU State aid law. Employing doctrinal analysis, literature review, and case study methodology, this research focuses on the Achmea, Komstroy, and Micula decisions. It analyzes the legal criteria for State aid and compares the application of fair and equitable treatment (FET) and legitimate expectations under international investment law.
    The findings indicate that the EU adopts a cautious stance towards Member States’ execution of arbitral obligations, emphasizing the primacy of EU law and the exclusivity of CJEU jurisdiction. While the EU has proposed the Investment Court System (ICS) and the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) as institutional alternatives to the current investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, these reforms face practical challenges in terms of legal applicability, enforcement, and political feasibility, making them difficult to fully replace existing arbitration pathways in the short term.
    In conclusion, fundamental divergences exist between EU law and international investment law, both in normative foundations and legal techniques. To balance regional legal autonomy with the performance of international obligations, future institutional design should consider refining State aid assessment standards, incorporating EU judicial review mechanisms, and evaluating the feasibility of contract-based arbitration as a transitional tool. Whether the MIC can serve as a key mechanism for legal integration ultimately depends on its ability to strike a balance between legitimacy and functionality, and to gain broad acceptance within the global framework of multilateral governance.
    參考文獻: 一、中文部分
    （一）書籍
    丘宏達著、陳純一修訂（2021），現代國際法，台北市：三民書局。
    吳必然（2023），國際投資法：協定與仲裁（上），台北市：五南出版。
    李貴英（2004），國際投資法專論：國際投資爭端之解決，台北市：元照出版。
    羅昌發（2010），國際貿易法，台北市：元照出版。
    （二）期刊文章
    呂馥伊（2018），商務調解契約效力之實踐與展望，仲裁季刊，第107期，頁88-114。
    林俊宏（2009），ICSID 框架下台商赴中國大陸跨國投資爭端解決之探討，高大法學論叢，第5期，頁179-217。
    林韋仲（2020），國際投資爭端解決制度的改革：近代國家實踐的觀察，台灣國際法學刊，第18卷第1期，頁7-40。
    高啟中（2016），跨太平洋夥伴協定下的投資人對地主國仲裁機制──以ICSID與UNCITRAL仲裁程序之比較為中心，科技法學評論，13卷2期，頁47-93。
    張敏玲（2000），國家補助在歐體競爭法上之規範，公平交易季刊，第8卷第3期，頁61-110。
    張南薰（2023），歐盟之扭曲內部市場外國補貼規則之研究，政大法學評論，第175期，頁357-423。
    黃欣欣（2016），論非機構仲裁於我國仲裁法下的相關問題，月旦裁判時報，43期，頁1-6。
    魏杏芳（2024），由歐盟競爭政策與產業政策間衝突談保護主義再起的隱憂，經濟前瞻，第211期，頁160-164。
    龔鈺芬（2016），ICSID管轄權之範圍—從ICSID公約第25.1條及實務案例論「投資」概念，中華國際法與超國界法評論，12卷2期，頁339-375。
    （三）碩博士學位論文
    江欣子（2018），國際投資爭端解決中心仲裁管轄權相關問題研究，東吳大學法律學系研究所碩士學位論文。
    孫子絜（2020），論國際投資仲裁程序透明化之爭議與發展，東吳大學法律學系研究所碩士學位論文。
    練家安（2022），國際投資法下地主國規制權與外國投資人保護之探討，東吳大學法律學系研究所碩士學位論文。
    二、外文部分
    （一）書籍
    AMERASINGHE, CHITTHARANJAN F. 2008. DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION. New York: Oxford University Press.
    BARTELS, LORAND & PADDEU, FEDERICA. 2020 EXCEPTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. New York: Oxford University Press.
    BUNGENBERG, MARC & AUGUST REINISCH. 2020. FROM BILATERAL ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS AND INVESTMENT COURTS TO A MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT COURT: OPTIONS REGARDING THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT. Cham: Springer
    BERMANN, G. A. 2017. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS: THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION BY NATIONAL COURTS. Cham: Springer
    CRAIG, PAUL & BÚRCA, GRÁINNE DE. 2020. EU LAW: TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS. New York: Oxford Academic.
    CLYDE CROFT, CHRISTOPHER KEE & WAINCYMER, JEFF. 2013. A GUIDE TO THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    CRAIG, PAUL. 2012. EU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. New York: Oxford University Press.
    CHRISTOPH SCHREUER. 2009. THE ICSID CONVENTION: A COMMENTARY: A COMMENTARY ON THE CONVENTION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES BETWEEN STATES AND NATIONALS OF OTHER STATES. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    GJUZI, JOLA. 2018. STABILIZATION CLAUSES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH. Cham: Springer.
    KAUFMANN-KOHLER, G., & POTESTÀ, M.. 2020. INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND NATIONAL COURTS: CURRENT FRAMEWORK AND REFORM OPTIONS. Cham: Springer.
    KRIEBAUM, URSULA, AND SCHREUER, CHRISTOPH, AND DOLZER, RUDOLF. 2022. PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW. New York: Oxford Academic.
    MEHRANVAR, LADAN & BRAUCH, MARTIN DIETRICH & ANIL, ACHYUTH & KLOPPE, ANNA-SOPHIE & ALCOLEA, LUCAS CLOVER & SONGY, MADELEINE. 2024. BREAKING FREE: STRATEGIES FOR GOVERNMENTS ON TERMINATING INVESTMENT TREATIES AND REMOVING ISDS PROVISIONS. New York: Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
    M. SORNARAJAH. 2021. THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    MEERTS, PAUL W.. 2017. DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATION: ESSENCE AND EVOLUTION. Netherlands: Clingendael Institute.
    OPPENHEIM, L.. 2010. INTERNATIONAL LAW, A TREATISE. New York: Oxford University Press.
    PEERS, STEVE & CATHERINE BARNARD. 2023. EUROPEAN UNION LAW. New York: Oxford University Press.
    PIERNAS LÓPEZ, JUAN JORGE. 2015. THE CONCEPT OF STATE AID UNDER EU LAW: FROM INTERNAL MARKET TO COMPETITION AND BEYOND. New York: Oxford Academic.
    PAPARINSKIS, MARTINS. 2014. THE INTERNATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARD AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT. New York: Oxford University Press.
    SARAVANAN, A. & SUBRAMANIAN, S.R.. 2020. ROLE OF DOMESTIC COURTS IN THE SETTLEMENT OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTES: THE INDIAN SCENARIO. Cham: Springer
    VADI, V.. 2015. ANALOGIES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    （二）專書論文
    Baltag, Crina. 2024. The Modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty: A Necessary Reform?, in THE FUTURE OF INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 287-306, edited by BEN BEAUMONT & FAHIRA BRODLIJA & ROBERT ASHDOWN & ARMAND TERRIEN ALPHEN. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International
    Born, Gary and Šćekić, Marija. 2015. Pre-Arbitration Procedural Requirements ‘A Dismal Swamp’, in PRACTISING VIRTUE: INSIDE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 227-263, edited by DAVID D. CARON, STEPHAN W. SCHILL, ABBY COHEN SMUTNY, AND EPAMINONTAS E. TRIANTAFILOU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Clift, Ben. 2022. Economic patriotism: the transformation of economic governance in 21st century capitalism, in HANDBOOK OF ECONOMIC NATIONALISM 100-112, edited by ANDREAS PICKEL. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Levine, Judith. 2011. Navigating the parallel universe of investor–State arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules, in EVOLUTION IN INVESTMENT TREATY LAW AND ARBITRATION 369-408, edited by CHESTER BROWN AND KATE MILES. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Ostřanský, J. 2018. An Exercise in Equivocation: A Critique of Legitimate Expectations as a General Principle of Law under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, in GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION 344-377, edited by ANDREA GATTINI & ATTILA TANZI & FILIPPO FONTANELLI. Leiden: Brill.
    （三）期刊文章
    Abdikadirov, Meyirbek. 2023. Achmea and Beyond: The Future of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration. SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH NETWORK: 1-58.
    Alenezi, Atif M.. 2020. Preventing the Regulatory Chill of International Investment Law and Arbitration, INTERNATIONAL LAW RESEARCH 9: 85-99.
    Alshahrani, Sarah M. 2020. What Should We Know About the Origins of International Investment Law?, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW 48: 122-131.
    Biggs, J. 2021. The Scope of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations under the FET Standard in the European Renewable Energy Cases, ICSID REVIEW-FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW JOURNAL 36(1): 99-128.
    Brown, C. M. 2021. The contribution of the European Union to the rule of law in the field of international investment law through the creation of a Multilateral Investment Court, EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 27(1-3): 96-108.
    Baetens, F. 2016. The European Union’s proposed investment Court System: addressing criticisms of investor-state arbitration while raising new challenges, LEGAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION 43(4): 367-384.
    Ceyda, Knoebel & Collins, Stephanie. 2024. Enforcing intra-EU ICSID arbitration awards in a post-Achmea world in Europe: could the European Court of Human Rights assist in resolving the deadlock?, ARBITRATION INTERNATIONAL 40(3): 251–276.
    Caplan, Lee M. 2019. ISDS Reform and the Proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court, ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY 46: 53-60.
    Cavallini, C. 2018. On arbitral jurisdiction. How to deal with the complementarity between arbitral tribunals and the courts?, GLOBAL JURIST 18(2): 1-17
    Canner, S. J. 1998. The multilateral agreement on investment, CORNELL INT'L LJ 31: 567-681.
    Damjanovic, Ivana. 2024. The Reform of International Investment Law: Whose Rule of Law?, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RISK REGULATION 15: 524-540.
    Dupont, Pierre- Emmanuel. 2011. The Notion Of The ICSID Investment: Ongoing “Confusion” Or “Emerging Synthesis”, THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 12: 245-272.
    De Cecco, F. 2007. The Many Meanings of ‘Competition’in EC State Aid Law, CAMBRIDGE YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LEGAL STUDIES 9: 111-131.
    Exelbert, Jeremy Marc. 2016. Consistently Inconsistent: What Is a Qualifying Investment Under Article 25 of the ICSID Convention and Why the Debate Must End, FORDHAM LAW REVIEW FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 85: 1243-1279.
    Faccio, Sondra. 2023. Investment Contracts and the Reform of Investment Arbitration: Towards Sustainability, ICSID REVIEW 38: 625-643.
    Farnelli, Gian Maria. 2021. Recent Trends in Investment Arbitration Concerning Legitimate Expectations: An Analysis of Recent Renewable Energies Investment Case Law, INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY LAW REVIEW 23: 27-56.
    Gáspár-Szilágyi, Szilárd & Maxim Usynin. 2022. Does the Court of Justice of the EU Misunderstand Investment Law and Investment Treaty Arbitration in European Commission v. Micula?, THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION REVIEW 7: 53-75.
    Georgaki, Konstantina. 2022. Conflict Resolution between EU Law and Bilateral Investment Treaties of the EU Member States in the Aftermath of Achmea, YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW 41: 374-400
    Gáspár-Szilágyi, Szilárd. 2020. Let Us Not Forget about the Role of Domestic Courts in Settling Investor-State Disputes, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 18: 389-415.
    Grigonis, Simas. 2019. Investment Court System of CETA: Adverse Effects on the Autonomy of EU Law and Possible Solutions, INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE 5(2): 127-141.
    García, Melissa María Valdez. 2018. The Path Towards Defining “Investment” in ICSID Investor-State Arbitrations: The Open-Ended Approach, PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 18: 27-51.
    Garcia-Mora, Manuel R. 1950. The Calvo Clause in Latin American Constitutions and International Law. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW 33: 205-219.
    Hafeez, Ayesha. 2021. Modes of Dispute Resolution Under International Law, SSRN: 1-8.
    Konstantinidis, Mark. 2025. Intra-EU Investment Contract Arbitration after Achmea, INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 74: 225-245.
    Kehl, P., & Wuschka, S. 2024. The Energy Charter Treaty at a Tipping Point–Modernization Efforts, Withdrawal Plans and their Legal Consequences, ZEUS ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR EUROPARECHTLICHE STUDIEN 27: 59-90.
    Kinnear, Meg. 2023. The Role of ICSID in International Economic Law, JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 26: 35-39.
    Kovács, Bálint. 2022. Watch for the Ripples, Not Just the Splash: How the EU Position on Investment Arbitration Has Affected the Enforcement of Awards, CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW 3: 137-160
    Kim, Jin Woo, & Lucy M. 2021. Winnington-Ingram. Investment Court System Under EU Trade and Investment Agreements: Addressing Criticisms of ISDS and Creating New Challenges, GLOBAL TRADE AND CUSTOMS JOURNAL 16: 181-192.
    Kałduński, Marcin. 2019. Some Remarks on the Protection of Legitimate Expectations in International Investment Law, COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW 25: 215-237.
    Koutrakos, P.. 2016. The Relevance of EU Law for Arbitral Tribunals: (Not) Managing the Lingering Tension, THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 17(6): 873-894.
    Karim, M.R.. 2014. The EU Market Economy Investor Principle: A Good Paradigm?, PSN: OTHER FISCAL POLICY (TOPIC): 1-30
    Lee, Woon Seung. 2021. ISDS Reform: Analysis on Establishing a Multilateral Investment Court System, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARBITRATION, MEDIATION, AND DISPUTE MANAGEMENT 87(4): 484-506.
    Langford, Malcolm, Michele Potestà, Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler & Daniel Behn. 2020. Special Issue: UNCITRAL and Investment Arbitration Reform: Matching Concerns and Solutions: An Introduction. THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 21: 167-187.
    Morgandi, Tibisay & Bartels, Lorand. 2023. Exiting the Energy Charter Treaty under the Law of Treaties, KING’S LAW JOURNAL 34: 1-25.
    Moarbes, C. A. 2021. Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties Between the Member States of the European Union, INTERNATIONAL LEGAL MATERIALS 60(1): 99-137.
    Meerts, Paul W.. 2020. Diplomatic Negotiation at the Crossroads, INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATION 25: 18-30.
    Masumy, Naimeh. 2019. The Role of the Energy Charter Treaty in Fostering and Promoting Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Development, GRONINGEN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 7: 64-72.
    Malaya, J. Eduardo & Wahab-Manantan, Johaira. 2018. Dynamic between Diplomacy and International Law: Reflections on the Philippine Experience, PHILIPPINE YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 17: 1-33
    McCloskey, Bernard. 2017. Third-Country Refugees: The Dublin Regulation/Article 8 ECHR Interface and Judicial Remedies, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REFUGEE LAW 29(4): 641-643.
    Neframi, E. 2024. The Energy Charter Treaty as a Mixed Agreement, JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT AND TRADE: 1-31.
    Nguyen, Thi Lan Huong & Hoang, Thi Khanh Hien. 2024. Enhancing Investor-State Dispute Resolution: Suggestions to Optimize the Effectiveness of Cooling-off Clauses in International Investment Agreement Negotiations, VIETNAMESE JOURNAL OF LEGAL SCIENCES: 44-58.
    Ng, Sze Hian. 2021. The Future of the Energy Charter Treaty in a Post-Achmea Era, OXFORD UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL: 111-136.
    Nagy, C. I. 2018. Intra-EU bilateral investment treaties and EU law after Achmea:“Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back”, GERMAN LAW JOURNAL 19(4): 981-1016.
    Ndiaye, Tafsir Malick. 2018. Admissibility before the International Courts and Tribunals, JOURNAL OF LAW AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM 1: 21-47.
    Nyombi, C., & Mortimer, T. 2018. The turf war between the European Commission and Intra-EU BITs: is an end in sight, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION LAW REVIEW 21(3): 66-79.
    Öberg, Marja-Liisa. 2020. Autonomy of the EU Legal Order: A Concept in Need of Revision?, EUROPEAN PUBLIC LAW 26: 705-740.
    Potesta, Michele. 2013. Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept, ICSID REVIEW 28: 88-122.
    Särkänne, Katariina. 2022. Agreement for the Termination of the Intra-EU BITS: Breaking the Stalemate, But Not Quite There Yet?, NORDIC JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW91: 253-283.
    Schreuer, Christoph. 2010. Interaction Of International Tribunals And Domestic Courts In Investment Law, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION: THE FORDHAM PAPERS 4: 71-94.
    Samples, Tim R.. 2019. Winning and Losing in Investor- State Dispute Settlement, AMERICAN BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL 56: 115-175.
    Schilling, Theodor. 1996. The Autonomy of the Community Legal Order: An Analysis of Possible Foundations, HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 37: 389–410.
    Tietje, C., & Wackernagel, C. 2015. Enforcement of intra-EU ICSID awards: multilevel governance, investment tribunals and the lost opportunity of the micula arbitration, THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 16(2): 205-247.
    Tietje, C., & Wackernagel, C. 2014. Outlawing Compliance?-The Enforcement of intra-EU Investment Awards and EU State Aid Law. POLICY PAPERS ON TRANSNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 41: 1-7.
    Reinisch, August & Jasmin Mansour Fallah. 2022. Post-Termination Responsibility of States?, ICSID REVIEW. 37:101-120.
    Valdez García, Melissa María. 2018. The Path Towards Defining “Investment” in ICSID Investor-State Arbitrations: The Open-Ended Approach, PEPPERDINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAW JOURNAL 18: 27-52.
    Werner, Philipp & Caramazza, Marcello. 2019. ‘State’ Aid or Not - This Is the Question, EUROPEAN STATE AID LAW QUARTERLY 18: 519-527.
    （四）引用判決與仲裁判斷
    1. 歐洲聯盟法院判決
    Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, Case C-280/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415 (July 24, 2003)
    Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Denkavit Italiana, Case 61/79, 1980 E.C.R. 1205
    Asteris v. Greece, Case 106/87, 1988 E.C.R. 551
    Comm’n v. Ireland, Case C-459/03, EU:C:2006:345 (May 30, 2006)
    Comm’n v. Italy, Case C-494/06 P, ECLI:EU:C:2009:272, 2009 E.C.R. I-291 (Apr. 30, 2009)
    De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v. High Authority, Case 30/59, 1961 E.C.R. 1
    France v. Comm’n (Stardust), Case C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, 2002 E.C.R. I-4397 (May 16, 2002)
    Italy v. Comm’n, Case 173/73, 1974 E.C.R. 709
    Micula v. European Commission, Cases T-624/15 RENV, T-694/15 RENV & T-704/15 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2024:XXX (Gen. Ct. Oct. 2, 2024)
    PL Holdings Sàrl v. Poland, Case C-109/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:875 (Oct. 26, 2021)
    Poland v. PL Holdings Sàrl, Case C-109/20, EU:C:2021:321, Opinion of Advocate General Kokott
    PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG, Case C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160, 2001 E.C.R. I-2099 (Mar. 13, 2001)
    Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy LLC, Case C-741/19, 2021 E.C.R. I-0000 (Sept. 2, 2021)
    Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, Case C-284/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158 (Mar. 6, 2018)
    Steinike & Weinlig v. Germany, Case 78/76, 1977 E.C.R. 595 (Mar. 22, 1977)
    2. 歐洲人權法院判決
    Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland. App. No. 45036/98, Eur. Ct. H.R. (June 30, 2005)
    Stran Greek Refineries & Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, No. 13427/87, Judgement (9 December 1994)
    3. 國際法院判決
    Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (U.S. v. It.), Judgment, 1989 I.C.J. 15 (July 20).
    Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co. (Belg. v. Spain), Judgment, 1970 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 5).
    4. 國際投資仲裁判斷
    Achmea B.V. v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award (Dec. 7, 2012)
    Antaris Solar GmbH and Dr. Michael Göde v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-01, Award (May 2, 2018)
    Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic. ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award (Dec. 27, 2016)
    EDF (Servs.) Ltd. v. Romania. ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award (Oct. 8, 2009)
    Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary. ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability (Nov. 30, 2012)
    Energoalians (Komstroy) v. Republic of Moldova. ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25, Award (Oct. 28, 2013)
    Eureko B.V. v. The Slovak Republic. PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability, and Suspension (Oct. 26, 2010)
    Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award (May 16, 2018)
    Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award (Dec. 11, 2013)
    Occidental v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Case No. UN3467, Award (1976)
    PSEG Global, Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award (Jan. 19, 2007)
    Saluka Invs. B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (Mar. 17, 2006)
    Vattenfall AB v. Fed. Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, Award (Nov. 10, 2021)
    Vattenfall AB, Vattenfall Europe AG & Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v. Fed. Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/6 (Dec. 31, 2020)
    5. 常設國際法院
    Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. U.K.), 1924 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 3 (Aug. 30)
    6. 美國—墨西哥一般索賠委員會
    L.F.H. Neer & Pauline Neer (U.S.) v. United Mexican States, Award, 4 R.I.A.A. 60 (Gen. Claims Comm’n Oct. 15, 1926).
    （五）國際條約與憲章
    Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties Between the Member States of the European Union, 2020 O.J. (L 169) 1
    Charter of the United Nations, Oct. 24, 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI.
    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 17 U.S.T. 1270, 575 U.N.T.S. 159, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/ICSID-Convention.aspx.
    Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, with commentaries, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc. A/56/10, at 245 (2001).
    Draft Convention on Investment Abroad (Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention). U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/118 (Mar. 16, 1959)
    Draft Convention on Investment Abroad (Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention), Mar. 16, 1959, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/118.
    Energy Charter Treaty, Dec. 17, 1994, 2080 U.N.T.S. 95, available at https://www.energycharter.org/process/energy-charter-treaty-1994/energy-charter-treaty/.
    Statute of the International Court of Justice, Oct. 24, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, T.S. No. 993
    Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, opened for signature June 7, 2017, OECD Doc. C(2017)39.
    UN General Assembly, Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, A/RES/37/10, 15 November 1982, available at: https://www.refworld.org/legal/resolution/unga/1982/en/12048
    UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, G.A. Res. 31/98, U.N. Doc. A/31/17 (Dec. 15, 1976), available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/uncitralarbitrationrules.
    UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency for Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, G.A. Res. 68/109, U.N. Doc. A/RES/68/109 (Dec. 16, 2013), available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/transparency.
    UNITED NATIONS CONF. ON TRADE & DEV. (UNCTAD), Investor-State Dispute Settlement, UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2013/2 (2013), available at: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeia2013d2_en.pdf.
    United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, Dec. 10, 2014, 54 I.L.M. 751.
    （六）網路資料
    Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie & Sarah Brewin, Side-Stepping National Courts Would Be a Big Step Backwards for Europe: A Reaction to the EC’s Public Consultation on EU Cross-Border Investment, Investment Treaty News (Oct. 5, 2020), available at: https://www.iisd.org/itn/en/2020/10/05/side-stepping-national-courts-would-be-a-big-step-backwards-for-europe-a-reaction-to-the-ecs-public-consultation-on-eu-cross-border-investment-nathalie-bernasconi-osterwalder-sarah-brewin/#_ftn6 (last visited: May 6, 2025)
    Blanck, John I. European Union Member States Sign Treaty to Terminate Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties. ASIL Insights, Vol. 24, Issue 18 (2020). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/24/issue/18/european-union-member-states-sign-treaty-terminate-intra-eu-bilateral (last visited: May 25, 2025)
    Deborah Ruff, Fork-in-the-Road clauses: Divergent paths in recent decisions, available at: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/0bd10ad8/fork-in-the-road-clauses (last visited: Mar. 3, 2024).
    European Commission, Commission Proposes New Investment Court System for TTIP and Other EU Trade and Investment Negotiations, Press Release IP/15/5651 (Sep. 16, 2015), available at: https://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5651_en.htm. (last visited: May. 30, 2025).
    On, Alexandru-Daniel, The Relationship Between EU State Aid Law and Obligations Arising Under Investment Treaties, EFILA Blog (Apr. 3, 2018), available at: https://efilablog.org/2018/04/03/the-relationship-between-eu-state-aid-law-and-obligations-arising-under-investment-treaties/. (last visited: May 6, 2025)
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    110652020
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110652020
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[法律科際整合研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    202001.pdf2319KbAdobe PDF0检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈