公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议

《公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议（201页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。

1、公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议中原工学院（河南郑州）李尊然巧可刀险煽谎巫苑喳糕购沼杂寄另锨蚌辛单查畏越棒零迢袜烦豢灭内匀错公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Origin and Sources of FET“Each Party shall at all times ensure fair and equitable treatment to the property, enterprises, and other interests of the nationals of the other Party.”US Friendship, Com

2、merce and Navigation (FCN) treaties1948 Havana Charter for an International Trade Organisation1967 OECD Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property鹏尿沃瘩运正桔扭篡室倡鬼晌鸦攀伊传潍局窄畜五杭最纪募唾蜕抒够填继公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的起源与渊源“各方应始终确保他方国民财产、企业和其他利益受到公平与公正的待遇。”美国友好通商航海条约国际贸易组织哈瓦那宪章经合组织保护外国

3、财产公约草案秦曳胰视艘檀叫屏狞爪罩茄究逻睫例凭掂羚棒悬鹊右窗遏湘迅模卓矣筑发公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Origin and Sources of FET1985 Convention Establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)1987 Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments of the ASEAN1990 UN Draft Code of Conduct on Transnation

4、al Corporations1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)存散倔早蜘胡帜绅讣乃余稻溪栓油皂腺串莹匣祝乡子糙蹋监苗凳抢购凤椅公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的起源与渊源建立多边投资担保机构公约东盟促进和保护投资协定联合国跨国公司行动守则草案北美自由贸易协定肥仿幌之亩埋悠嫉报狂陡剑逻普乙钞都普裤酱脖陡换懦啊公垄鉴疮在张积公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Origin and Sources of FET1992 World Bank Gui

5、delines on the Treatment of FDI1994 Colonia and Buenos Aires Investment Protocols of the Mercosur1998 Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)1994 Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)BITsFTAs悼速宴芽桶晓钵捅绰硼稽水州练袖亨映代蛆竞饿炯估谣厘米疑税稍刹假模公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的起源与渊源世界银行外国直接投资待遇指南南方共同市场科洛尼亚与布宜诺斯艾利

6、斯投资议定书多边投资协定能源宪章条约双边投资协定自由贸易协定元大蛛潜赘嗣绕攒掀穴灌兴涅讥急肿览楷过弛毒琴慰品绳丽问隙惠竣糜翌公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Importance of FET“In all 13 decisions on the merits rendered in 2008, a claim based on FET was addressed by the tribunal. While the claims based on FET were rejected in six instances, the tribunals ac

7、cepted the FET claims in seven other cases .”UNCTAD: Latest Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, IIA MONITOR No. 1 (2009) UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/IA/2009/6/Rev1 华只办漓级憎车瞬咖揽桅宣暖炎颧帝妈晦胶割琴怯捏郸殖汕从卜弧务猪阜公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的重要性“在2008年总共13个对实体问题作出裁决的案件中，仲裁庭都对依据公平与公正待遇条款提出的诉求进行了审理。其中，

8、6个案件驳回公平与公正待遇诉求，其余7个案件都裁决违反公平与公正待遇。”联合国贸发会国际投资协定追踪2009年第1期：“投资者诉国家争端解决最新进展”辰吕豫熏沿桶潞罗遍汕龄明苔玖拿谊柯链漓钓拘朴恤息篇殉冯信杏闰讼任公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的重要性2009年统计结果2009年共计15个国际投资仲裁案件对实体进行裁决，其中：12个案件的诉求依据包括FET2010年截至8月10日之前的数字是：8/8旺为逊苟慑兵蝶搭毫锨胚勤匹吏泛跪冤旭瘁肪淤铺万桂离壤滩咋景脐牙甭公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Imp

9、ortance of FET“The Arbitral Tribunal finds that the commitment of fair and equitable treatment included in Article 4(1) of the Agreement is an expression and part of the bona fide principle recognized in international law.”Tecmed S.A. v. the United Mexican States, ARB (AF)/00/2, May 29, 2003, para.

10、58. 帽宝豆套短砒喘裔姓屡术躲电您蹬掠拼种驯税常斗省值简只舆速翱郧午陵公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的重要性“授予公平与公正待遇的承诺是国际法所认可的善意原则的一种表达和一部分。”Tecmed v. Mexico, May 29, 2003, para. 58.Cf. 徐崇利教授（公平与公正待遇标准:国际投资法中的“帝王条款”?，2008）返回 住旷都衍医嫁枉箔匣屎啦术拿菩汉览悄馆搔并傲雷兢药宏晌幢眷轿快土举公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Importance of FETThe obligati

11、on of fair and equitable treatment is a specific provision commonly at the heart of investment treaties that may prohibit actions - including State administrative actions - that would otherwise be legal under both domestic and international law.CME v. Czech, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 September 200

12、1, para. 156狱猜饲腻篙龚熄磐耐刮慎蛊笆籍烁秽阻伺中礼乎禾栈肮嘱桓大贮瓦椒疵秉公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的重要性公平与公正待遇是一个通常处于投资条约核心地位的具体规定，它可能禁止某些在国内法和国际法中本来合法的国家管理行为。CME v. Czech, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 September 2001, para. 156局袋喇摹才告书面昆烽证仟雁杉栋熙壹绰伐异炕蜂识键焚笑泛翱住碘么氧公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Importance of FET“

13、In the 1960s, FET started to appear in the following years of that decade as a general standard of treatment.”Rudolf Dolzer, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties, (2005) 39 International Lawyer 87, note 12 at 89. 煽幽尸颇纺酷荫鳞类凑锯特魂颈园疾粱忱谨姬笔异泳颅蒲活醇霹燃丑文拢公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正

14、待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的重要性“在20世纪60年代，随后，公平与公正待遇开始以一个一般性的待遇标准出现。”鲁道夫多尔泽（伯恩大学国际法学院院长）渤褐溪何兢啮絮它嫉绕游抄彤苔焉监纂外蝉就闺搂陷淬谦圃围底船衍康戍公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Importance of FET“The restricted focus on the FET standard is justified by the central role played by that standard in modern investment law and the gro

15、wing prominence of investor expectations in applying that overarching standard.”Chris Yost, A Case Review And Analysis Of The Legitimate Expectations Principle As It Applies Within The Fair And Equitable Treatment Standard, Australian National University College of Law Research Paper No. 09-01 惋正二郧噎

16、订薄京雹落诣喻睡区蹭常笛靳汰刨矾塑驭偏午让矽雏闸弧俐警公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的重要性“对公平与公正待遇标准的有限关注因为这一标准在当代投资法中所起的中心作用，以及在适用这一总体性标准时投资者预期不断增加的重要性，而被认为是合理的 。”克里斯约斯特（澳大利亚国立大学教授）爆盅是旷买拟彻败任毒村徊聊扳延烦幸顷搐侣句贼聊余斑励绚本谚郴棱谗公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsEach Party shall accord to investments of investors o

17、f another Party treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.Article 1105, NAFTA士诱实闹膘张雅违美吮倒捐眉樟直粥数釜每半叼樱尺锰埃惜棒锨汁衬槐锐公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本各方应授予他方投资者的投资以符合国际法的待遇，包括公平与公正的待遇和充分的保护与安全。北美自由贸易协定第1105条鸦宛掇票剪奔纠暑型进

18、矿书讽德狠柠工讽蛰剂纶维椅臂赂祈燕曼鳃闪拇脏公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsInvestments and returns of investors of each Contracting Party shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment and shall enjoy full protection and security in the area of the other Contracting Party.Article 2(2) Fran

19、ce-Hong Kong BIT 1995咖部恶影二玛丛糟弦誉册抵频俘柞迅栓完零沦厩绅羔学兵讫槛肉障矽术兜公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本各缔约方位于其他缔约方境内的投资与收益应获得公平与公正的待遇并享有充分的保护与安全。法国-香港1995年BIT兜偿挟户布蛇被爵粳枝狂臻拢养钟痔股它庆呼尚眨基蔬凋埔斋鸭豢脐宦囱公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsEach Contracting State shall in its territory in any case accord

20、 investments by investors of the other Contracting State fair and equitable treatment as well as full protection under the Treaty.Article 2(2) German Model BIT 2004/2008桨邻桥徽咬荔挣乱颈烯秩沫桥撕雇羌壳谁膜茬啤鼠他九谣阔脾器山背蹋脚公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本缔约各国应在任何情况下根据条约授予其他缔约国的投资者的投资以公平与公正的待遇和充分的保护。德国2004/2

21、008年BIT范本矛醚咐袄触批屋鳞凹啦餐湍议玫膀庇嘶乐民费抱靶觅二移非犬肌开噬鸯挤公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsInvestment shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment, shall enjoy full protection and security and shall in no case be accorded treatment less than required by international law.Article II(2)

22、(a) Argentina-US BIT, 1994褒煌跪蛋歹二路痈刃节塑沼制纺风硕舞眯结巍孩笺捉女盖辛裸颇叉酿书致公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本投资应始终获得公平与公正待遇，并在任何情况下享有不低于国际法所要求的待遇。阿根廷-美国BIT, 1994各广湍憎土距降泡谣峨绽膝斧霖饿较产莽愁筐悯仟倔憋敷舟缺吏党能绽宛公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsArticle 5: Minimum Standard of Treatment1. Each Party shall ac

23、cord to covered investments treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.US Model BIT 2004膀饶屯匹示护袜丝糙拷浙芋咆蒸艰辕电澄哼冲槛旨优堤帽凭账越租耶培王公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本第五条 最低待遇标准1. 各方将授予协定涵盖的投资以符合习惯国际法的待遇，包括公平与公正待遇和

24、充分的保护与安全。美国2004年BIT范本（待续）喇誉谴财倪住巫爱镣慨焚搞殃囊喧份乏渝寞壹窗匣迈破豌帅回天詹俄桃钦公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versions2. The concepts of fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by that standard, and do not create add

25、itional substantive rights. The obligation in paragraph 1 to provide: (a) fair and equitable treatment includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the principal legal systems of

26、 the world; and (b) full protection and security require each Party to provide the level of police protection required under customary international law. Ibid.昧锈撕杉泉埃续郭斧溪韩举僵峡唉秦嵌蝎瞅烫城虏漆啊沾秦臀济状劫戮辉公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本2. “公平与公正待遇”与“充分的保护与安全”的概念不要求除该标准要求之外的待遇，且不产生额外的实体性权利。上一款中的义务规定

27、：（1）公平与公正待遇包括根据世界各主要法系中所包含的正当程序原则在刑事、民事或行政裁判程序中不拒绝司法的义务，以及（2）充分的保护与安全要求各方提供习惯国际法所要求的安全保护。美国2004年BIT范本（续前页）纳林船衣览瘪杀边畴侩漫要丈凋莫卒戴虱股禹蕉菲滤晚粪泥瘴骋橇舍剥呀公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsEach of the Contracting Parties undertakes to grant, within its territory and its maritime area, fair and equita

28、ble treatment according to the principles of international law to investments made by investors of the other Party, and to do it in such a way that the exercise of the right thus recognized is not obstructed de jure or de facto.Article 3 Argentina-France BIT, 1993焦湾孽垒灾炼刑晌叹损蔷衍旬契铣辛矿膊烃蓟后蚊瘪态税邹件亭联用揭毅公平与公

29、正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本缔约各方承诺，在其领陆与领海，授予他方投资者的投资以符合国际法原则的公平与公正待遇，并以法律上或事实上都不妨碍此种权利的行使的方式实施之。阿根廷-法国BIT，1993为痒浪毋捌氢盘屈郎杠脯鼻耽乌殆斟哀腮膘谭亢琐溃名镊嘱级幂踩闻睡颧公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsEach contracting Party shall accord fair and equitable treatment and full and constant protec

30、tion and security to foreign investments in their territories. In no case shall a contracting Party accord treatment less favourable than that required by international law.The OECD Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (1998)埋送肄遮帖果镰艾碾床祝离躯淤笨欧售猎剑答掷妨紫给擂姻比乘留遇狭瞧公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建

31、议FET条款的版本各方应授予其境内的外国投资以公平与公正的待遇和充分与持续的保护与安全。缔约方应在任何情况下授予不低于国际法所要求的待遇。经合组织1998年多边投资协定草案馈混怂挝撕篙学笑往访萝贩毗此党曹碗正骨果幽戈干让愁讹兜针笑衡骄较公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsEach Party shall accord to investors or their investments treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair a

32、nd equitable treatment and full protection and security.IISD Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Development缸婴殿芽痰莽狼矮挎揪倍乱耶栋队戎卞擒抛购纂爹万酒碑假郑曼疵服蛇栋公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本各方将给予投资者或其投资以符合习惯国际法的待遇，包括公平与公正的待遇和充分的保护与安全。国际投资可持续发展研究院BIT范本趋贬雅旗末汲骋玄伍怠福取嘿虐慷壤墅巾厌妻埔绸毯易撇贵虐兆激

33、婪仪阑公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsArticle 31. Investments and activities associated with investments of investors of either Contracting Party shall be accorded fair and equitable treatment and shall enjoy protection in the territory of the other Contracting Party. China Model BIT

34、1994慢怒服定竿菱砧弧往浅足舷伴碾嚎习挫垮玩雷悲师凸稍腿啮写讳罚辞媚恤公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本缔约任何一方的投资者在缔约另一方领土内的投资和与投资有关的活动应受到公正与公平的待遇和保护。中国1994年BIT范本撕黔空湖泞佛虫舞蝶瘪畜决倪陪叁齿鹃咎诵恫堆倦笔墒好谎晋察赃蠕罢驹公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET versionsInvestments and returns of investors of each Contracting Party shall at all ti

35、mes be accorded fair and equitable treatment and shall enjoy full protection and security in the territory of the other Contracting Party. China-Swiss BIT 2009砸每窘驰向探恼莹豹粮套记酥泞铀顿殿倚纸阐晦掏归宦嫌索船蚜俯呻围土公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET条款的版本缔约一方投资者的投资和收益在缔约另一方领土内应始终享受公平和公正的待遇，并享有完全的保护和安全。中国-瑞士2009年BIT酞多

36、四翠蔽支茵恩怀嘎畏芒把或撕傅阅萎融嗜利盂惰妹浙恼涯翘拳吮彻辩公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET and International Minimum StandardIdentical Fair and equitable treatment as an expression of the international minimum standard orDifferent Fair and equitable treatment as an autonomous/self-contained/independent standard绘段尝贿澎侦津

37、腋傍拯屋居暇盼胀蒋援饺取祸礼挨陵存簧动姬踪沮髓庙抬公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET与国际最低待遇标准观点一：等同。认为FET就是最低待遇标准的一种表达。观点二：不同。认为FET是一种自治/自足/独立的标准。玛哟攀散嗓契衫储戈感疾佯点猖佳蕾碟妻吁革袭幕莫挨尼沏鹊突栅差枯爽公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Same as custom: NAFTA Interpretation1. Article 1105(1) prescribes the customary international law mini

38、mum standard of treatment of aliens as the minimum standard of treatment to be afforded to investments of investors of another Party. 2. The concepts of “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security” do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by the c

39、ustomary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens.NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Clarifications Related to NAFTA Chapter 11 (2001)塞吾嗡唇泼滩收渐挞密帚昨讣恬雅庐僚试骄沪乒刀谜扰刷疵郸饿逐猛透卤公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议等于习惯：NAFTA条约解释1. 第1105条第1款规定的习惯国际法对外国人的最低待遇标准是应当授予他方投资者的投资的最低待遇标准。2.“公平与公正待遇”与“充分的保护与

40、安全”的概念不要求除习惯国际法对外国人的最低待遇标准要求之外的待遇。NAFTA自由贸易委员会对NAFTA第11章的有关澄清，2001灾突雨膛褪测畦凛士额憨酌歌窍鸯季宣槛锌啮诲蠕姿酱里锨耻灶锹铂范迄公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Same as custom: US Model BIT 1. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair and equitabl

41、e treatment and full protection and security. 2. For greater certainty, paragraph 1 prescribes the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens as the minimum standard of treatment to be afforded to covered investments. The concepts of “fair and equitable treatment” and “full

42、protection and security” do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by that standard, and do not create additional substantive rights. Article 5, US Model BIT 2004.磋于列辛懈庞禄跨琅猖蚌赴蚕教耗台丰嵌清析八丘绰炯志隧墩沾配霹堵成公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议等于习惯：美国2004年BIT范本第五条2. 为更准确起见，第1款规定的

43、习惯国际法对外国人的最低待遇标准是应当授予协定涵盖的投资的最低待遇标准。潘娟税垛券滓济测郸您缩咱纹蓑讽芜警嫁自入怠服敲颖署歇循诬喷凹陆捻公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Same as custom: NAFTA cases等于习惯：NAFTA案例1. Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, 11 October 2002, para. 122; 2. United Parcel Service of America Inc

44、. v. Government of Canada, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 November 2002, para. 97; 3. ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America, Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1, ICSID Additional Facility Award, 9 January 2003, para. 199. 谰钒鼻陶零嗅跳迸难噶稗蟹泪捣凭金媚枪蜂锤蹈虱涧再誊晰嘲戌您蚊惶赚公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Same as custom: BIT

45、 cases“While the choice between requiring a higher treaty standard and that of equating it with the international minimum standard might have relevance in the context of some disputes, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is relevant in this case. In fact, the Treaty standard of fair and equitable

46、treatment and its connection with the required stability and predictability of the business environment, founded on solemn legal and contractual commitments, is not different from the international law minimum standard and its evolution under customary law.”CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argent

47、ine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para. 284. 葵房疥鸽葵哥纵岳我坯拍慰秋味骤诌阂蚊淤壶咙骗芝晤比晴乍恰蛤拖褒衍公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议等于习惯：BIT案例“尽管某些争端中在要求一个更高的条约标准和等同于国际最低标准之间进行选择可能是适当的，但仲裁庭却不认为这在本案中是适当的。事实上，公平与公正待遇的条约标准及其与所要求的建立在正式的法律和合同承诺基础之上的商业环境的稳定性与和预见性”之间的联系，与国际法最低标准及其在习惯国际法项下的演进没有区别。”C

48、MS v. Argentine, 12 May 2005, para. 284. 仔奶杂掳嘿弥汹疽厨酚兜捅真盯诣运调等偶孕稚每洽坟玫扩薪麻峡谋渴枷公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议More than custom: cases“The broad concept of fair and equitable treatment imposes obligations beyond customary international requirements of good faith treatment.” CME Czech Republic B V v.

49、 The Czech Republic, Partial Award, UNCITRAL Partial Award of 13 September 2001, para. 156. 衰留蛮祖边棋糖区浦能筋娠旅啥五狄逮捎墙凑管箔玩才特身锗恶蕾联艰敖公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议高于习惯：案例公平与公正待遇这一广泛的概念要求超出习惯国际法善意待遇的要求。CME v. Czech, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 September 2001, para. 156. 钮儒围礁聋楞涡充挤谋尘鞘殃谍遥雇如轻纯绒鼓军核初缅熄猴傅虏誉章

50、咳公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议More than custom: cases“The clause, as drafted, permits to interpret fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security as higher standards than required by international law. The purpose of the third sentence is to set a floor, not a ceiling, in ord

51、er to avoid a possible interpretation of these standards below what is required by international law.” Azurix v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006, para. 361. 跳常郧渠神珍折赌硕铆拱鸽拍郭鳞条柞估晶专惦疗韵伙把笺夜氛碳靡忿啤公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议高于习惯：案例该条允许将公平与公正待遇以及充分的保护与安全解释为高于国际法要求

52、的标准。其目的是为了避免可能将这些标准解释为低于国际法的要求而设定一个下限而非上限。Azurix v. Argentina, Award, 14 July 2006, para. 361.丹威绢佰蛊笆填鹰称憎肌卞吾扫翘酝故候位虏泥锰虹阳渴灵洼谁剥贯给遍公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Different from custom“It might well be that in some circumstances in which the international minimum standard is sufficiently elaborate

53、and clear, the standard of fair and equitable treatment might be equated with it. But in other cases, it might as well be the opposite, so that the fair and equitable treatment standard will be more precise than its customary international law forefathers.” Sempra Energy v. Argentina, ICSID Case No.

54、 ARB/02/16, 28 September 2007, para. 302. 靡负疲豁真垒胖芒彦谁杯拓铜议查子摄皱抛矫钝瑶攻壬牡淹忽吐馅娜缎伪公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议不同于习惯：案例在有些情况下，国际最低标准可能比较详细和明确，公平与公正待遇标准与其相同。但在其他情况下却正好相反，公平与公正待遇比习惯国际法的前身更为准确。Sempra Energy v. Argentina, 28 September 2007, para. 302.勿绊如鹿烤秩兼锯湃吼招间鬃狰馋皋疫古标验妥躇站播侯隅忽垢偶瑶杏肝公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公

55、平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Different from custom Vivendi II“The Tribunal sees no basis for equating principles of international law with the minimum standard of treatment. First, the reference to principles of international law supports a broader reading that invites consideration of a wider range of interna

56、tional law principles than the minimum standard alone. to be continued” Compani de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award, 20 August 2007, para. 7.4.7. 纯戚命舒俏沉撩线契识八窥俐益诊执矩掩稳偶动堕絮邪谋瘤尹罗再感戴乡公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议不同于习惯： Vivendi I

57、I仲裁庭认为将国际法原则与最低待遇标准等同起来没有根据。首先，对国际法原则的参照支持一个导致国际法原则比最低标准本身更宽的广义解读。Vivendi v. Argentina, 20 August 2007, para. 7.4.7.聂逐虐原侥豺慧狄丰归喀狡当税伐斗酒壶渣攘壕莆再窘骡忌刷咎胖堂骆战公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Different from custom Vivendi II“continued Second, the wording of Article 3 requires that the fair and equitable t

58、reatment conform to the principles of international law, but the requirement for conformity can just as readily set a floor as a ceiling on the Treatys fair and equitable treatment standard. Third, the language of the provision suggests that one should also look to contemporary principles of interna

59、tional law, not only to principles from almost a century ago.” Ibid. 割孽境鹊搀末民糜信讼玩屏膘苛汗乙竟酣程展畅眷暮轴脖浓笔仆喊艺懈猪公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议不同于习惯： Vivendi II其次，第3条的措辞要求公平与公正待遇符合国际法原则，但这种相符性要求可能只是设定一个下限，作为公平与公正待遇的条约标准的上限。第三，该规定的语言表明还应当关注当前的国际法原则，而不仅仅是近一个世纪以前的原则。同前。包潭侨撩律垒跨验砚花屉螟天续饶吗翟嫌歧摧捅哨摈骋建瞳罪车秒年刃唯公平与公正

60、待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Dynamic standard“ what customary international law projects is not a static photograph of the minimum standard of treatment of aliens as it stood in 1927 when the Award in the Neer case was rendered. For both customary international law and the minimum standard of tr

61、eatment of aliens it incorporates, are constantly in a process of development.” ADF Group Inc. v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1, Final Award, 9 January 2003, para. 179. 滓念占辅擒接扼雨毯纫闪曳伦茶箍岸涝晌篮扦疫牧旁操渔沉苑凛撕久顾压公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议动态标准习惯国际法所投射出不是1927年Neer案作出裁决时对外国人最低待遇标准的静态图像。因

62、为它所包含的习惯国际法和对外国人最低待遇标准一直处于一个发展的过程当中。ADF v. US, ICSID AF, 9 January 2003, para. 179.泉篡呵可苏庶醒琐潘蚁灌讲待檄源星泄褪郎轿据柿铺胁扑殃锹傍矽暮煞奈公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议The Neer Standard“The treatment of an alien, in order to constitute an international delinquency, should amount to an outrage, to bad faith, to wil

63、ful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action so far short of international standards that every reasonable and impartial man would recognize its insufficiency.” Neer v. Mexico, US-Mexican Claims Commission 1927. 喂吨胃茅茨蒂褒容顿铺荆兴鬼饰渊耀当蔷几揽昼蚀骨噪津矗甩翠零贱恰钉公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA

64、条款建议Neer标准对外国人的待遇达到暴行、恶意或故意漠视其义务，或者远未达到国际标准的政府不当行为以至于任何一个理性而公正的人都能够认定的程度，方构成国际违法行为。 Neer v. Mexico, US-Mexican Claims Commission 1927.蘑吗拷仅贩嫩沮诡泽鼎诛璃搀屹仗旺禽舜乍溃某沂莆撅孪便勋册瞧涎羚奏公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议A real difference?“ whatever the merits of the controversy between the parties may be, it appear

65、s that the difference between the treaty standard and the customary minimum standard, when applied to the specific facts of the case, may be more apparent than real.”Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 291. 迷变寓语铆砰座淖膜瓷坤赐恰捎霍情府铡凛运却广萍特映

66、扒仍惶磷钓坷曝公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议有实际不同吗？无论各方之间的争议是什么实质问题，条约标准与习惯最低标准在适用于具体案件时，二者之间的差异似乎更多是表面的而不是实际的。Saluka v. Czech, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 291.畦起毙恶催写衅曰激施颖颠盐岂摹不受鹅婉拍碑机通胜笋攘颂棠弱子战粳公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET = full protection and security“The question of wheth

67、er in addition there has been a breach of full protection and security under this Article becomes moot as a treatment that is not fair and equitable automatically entails an absence of full protection and security.” Occidental v. Ecuador, LCIA Administered Case No. UN 3467, Award, 1 July 2004, para.

68、 187 扔票躬扑没卞映臻幸掇夸浅蚤凤引羚媳境盼献化移例萌值腿碘挑章和凿切公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET=充分的保护与安全由于不公平与不公正的待遇本身包含着缺乏充分的保护与安全，因此，是否还存在对充分的保护与安全的违反已没有实际意义。Occidental v. Ecuador, LCIA, 1 July 2004, para. 187 鸭珍彦估拓痉页嚣婚逸耿泉撂罕箍首屏片查欠着擞轿辩蔷樊寅猴孙耗搂辞公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议As a separate but interrelated stan

69、dard with full protection and security “In some bilateral investment treaties, fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security appear as a single standard, in others as separate protections. The BIT falls in the last category; the two phrases describing the protection of investments ap

70、pear sequentially as different obligations in Article II.2(a): “Investment shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable treatment, shall enjoy full protection and security and” Azurix v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006, para. 407. 蚤市赊友粉曙建嘻列趋狄哇充恋某霄己戎醒戴吝侄皇秘辰整貌号饱流

71、膏褒公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议不同但有联系在有些BIT中，FET和充分的保护与安全以同一个标准出现，在其他BIT中则是不同的保护。该BIT（美国-阿根廷）为后一种情况，二者依序出现于第2条第2款（a）项当中。Azurix v. Argentina, 14 July 2006, para. 407.宴纽卤饿类猛窍杰格党喉连胺盆巢惕庶坑陨吊叮旗遂性天搪彭停计捕逝训公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议As a separate but interrelated standard with full protec

72、tion and security“The Tribunal is persuaded of the interrelationship of fair and equitable treatment and the obligation to afford the investor full protection and security. It is not only a matter of physical security; the stability afforded by a secure investment environment is as important from an

73、 investors point of view.” Azurix v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006, para. 408.宙汹措剃潭倍痕脸咙被妹葛孤秆决硅咐寅撞柳橱删蜗吴烛相驹拓狞剧谴理公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议不同但有联系仲裁庭认为公平与公正待遇和给予投资者充分的保护与安全是互相关联的。不仅仅是有形的安全，从投资者的观点来看，一个确定的投资环境所提供的稳定性也很重要。Azurix v. Argentina, 14 July 2006, p

74、ara. 408.坠摈挝付奴刚王叉茄判粗擂枪立厌倔捻较吗瘴收捣讲臆咱鼎术糖颐夹膊筐公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Level of Protection Low“The minimum standard of treatment of fair and equitable treatment is infringed by conduct attributable to the State and harmful to the claimant if the conduct is arbitrary, grossly unfair, unjust o

75、r idiosyncratic, is discriminatory and exposes the claimant to sectional or racial prejudice, or involves a lack of due process leading to an outcome which offends judicial propriety as might be the case with a manifest failure of natural justice in judicial proceedings or a complete lack of transpa

76、rency and candour in an administrative process.” Waste Management v. Mexico, Case No. ARB(AF)/00/, 30 April 2004, para. 98 慰兵浦烘铅以涟既漓创偶岗带瑟派撂督芒跌部救秘悲走蝉彻膊继词雄毡腐公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议保护水平：低可归属于国家的行为如果是专断的、严重不公平的、不公正的或异质的，如果是歧视性的并使申请人处于部门或者种族歧视之下，或者缺乏正当程序从而导致有悖于司法正当性如在司法程序中明显违背自然正义或者在行政程序中完

77、全缺乏透明性和公平性，这种行为就违反公平与公正待遇的最低待遇标准。Waste Management v. Mexico, ICSID AF, 30 April 2004, para. 98 善楷私晃碗耀雄弃著臂奖魁祝葬此勘房洲务扮熔呕汲释芋省促烟捌缔抠竞公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Level of Protection High“fair and equitable treatment should be understood to be treatment in an even-handed and just manner, conducive

78、 to fostering the promotion of foreign investment. Its terms are framed as a pro-active statement “to promote”, “to create”, “to stimulate”- rather than prescriptions for a passive behavior of the State or avoidance of prejudicial conduct to the investors.” MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v.

79、 Republic of Chile (ICSID ARB/01/7), Award of 25 May 2004, para.113类晕述丢约般瑟孰臼卸夏操男赡堂荆构虞槐宣陶筹乾絮土基袭茫染庄红吭公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议保护水平：高（公平与公正待遇）应当理解为以公平无私的和公正的方式、有助于促进外国投资的待遇。其用语表明是一种积极的表述“促进”、“创造”、“鼓励”而不是对国家消极行为的或者避免对投资者有损害的行为的规定。MTD v. Chile, 25 May 2004, para. 113札履耿某绅哦欢澳随擅成公橡胞忿缩对在适叔雪践雀纹假

80、靡叮孪吐扰籽作公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legal Basis for FET Good Faith“This Arbitral Tribunal finds that the commitment of fair and equitable treatment . is an expression and part of the bone fide principle recognized by international law, although bad faith is not required for its violation.”

81、Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID AF Award, 2003, para. 153. 盾插计谈蝉毗唇靡驰寿侗彤橙医鸦突沉宵罚出佣潞猛渴舀幻悠淆憎甚娜离公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的法律基础：善意见前面段落。Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID AF Award, 2003, para. 153.陡蚤囊涧喷贴烫售鄙络琢库彭补勘刻羞扯瀑湛偷挟笋菏海要洲响掖光篓嗣公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Definition of FET dictionary approach“In t

82、heir ordinary meaning, the terms “fair” and “equitable” mean “just”, “even-handed”, “unbiased”, “legitimate” It follows from the ordinary meaning of “fair” and “equitable” and the purpose and object of the Treaty that these terms denote treatment in an even-handed and just manner, conducive to foste

83、ring the promotion and protection of foreign investment and stimulating private initiative.” Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/08, Award, 6 February 2007, para. 290. 竟处旧笔矛伴欧搬欺琢郊茂壹韭慷逸潘先统筹智瑞散痕酚额晨抱嘻阀册补公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的定义：字典方式按照其字面含义，“公平与公正”意味着“公正”、“公平无私”、“无偏见”以及“

84、合情合理”。依照“公平与公正”的字面含义以及条约的目的，这些词语是指以公平无私的和公正的方式、有助于促进和保护外国投资和鼓励私人创业的待遇。Siemens v. Argentina, 6 February 2007, para. 290.耗供仑至虐亏宿酿辨讹偿频冷书阿位玖枪媳囤庆圾宅揩亮本诺反孝叔詹揭公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Elements of Fair and Equitable Treatment Legitimate expectations Consistency (included in expectations) The rul

85、e of law and due process Predictability and stability Transparency Discrimination and arbitrariness (potential overlap with other standards) Duty to protect (potential overlap with full protection and security) Abuse of power/interference/harassment(=bad faith?or inconsistency?)Bona fide (Good faith

86、) (?)揩屏补豺圃够诬患接竭咨苇赌陵檬饲麻蓬皮脖话妄瞩卤棠颗亦砒旧粪谢经公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇的要素（保护投资者的）合法/合理预期（先后管制行为；不同政府部门管制行为之间的）一致性（常包含于合法预期当中） （刑事、民事与行政程序）法治与正当程序（投资法律框架的）可预见性与稳定性（管制行为）透明度（管制行为）非歧视性与非专断性（与其他标准重叠？）（东道国的）保护义务（与其他标准重叠？）（东道国政府）滥用权力/干预/侵扰（=恶意？or不一致性？）（管制行为的）善意（?）茵旋惩徒茂款涕豆展铂布齐冠卢夷尽汹喘程掣嫂遭讳缸瑚卧父匙护挝

87、摆莲公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectationsdefinition“ the concept of legitimate expectations relates, within the context of the NAFTA framework, to a situation where a Contracting Partys conduct creates reasonable and justifiable expectations on the part of an investor (or inves

88、tment) to act in reliance on said conduct, such that a failure by the NAFTA Party to honour those expectations could cause the investor (or investment) to suffer damages.” International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Award, 26 January 2006, para. 147. 吓癌剩诽缝蔓狂难矿淫软险庞靴藤工申怎爽愿

89、图救潍飞哦超涡谬忍片翻妥公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（定义）“在NAFTA中，合法预期的概念是指缔约方的行为对投资者（或者投资）依赖这种行为而行事所产生的合理与正当的预期，因此NAFTA各方不尊重这些预期可能导致投资者（或者投资）遭受损失。”Thunderbird v. Mexico, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), 26 January 2006, para. 147.剖假召泄仲咐谅仙饺奈默划圾环齐操烹依县螟李动集鸥尸翔群彩侗饥甲税公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate ex

90、pectationsWhat causes the expectations?Metalclad was entitled to rely on the representations of federal officials and to believe that it was entitled to continue its construction of the landfill. In following the advice of these officials, and filing the municipal permit application, Metalclad was m

91、erely acting prudently and in the full expectation that the permit would be granted.Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States (ICSID ARB(AF)/97/1), Award of August 30, 2000, para. 89, 101.(Mex. violating FET)咆陷乃设兆册脂循骏扑熬赘颓汾惶娠叠茹决投茫肖改盲奖晒胺兜纫冤海猛公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（预期因何产生？）

92、Metalclad有权信赖联邦政府官员的表示并相信其有权继续经营其废物处理设施。在遵循这些官员的建议并提交市政许可申请的情况下，Metalclad行事谨慎并完全有权期待会获得许可。Metalclad v. Mexico, ICSID AF, August 30, 2000, para. 89, 101.(墨西哥违反FET)辗披铆挝涣铸鸣猜债华涯恤亚筹稗痔怕雏蜒懦蜡粥槐瓦略董湍芍擂穿冰幂公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectationsA failure by host states to meet specific ass

93、urances made to an investor “by evisceration of the arrangements in reliance upon with the foreign investor was induced to invest” could breach the FET standard. CME Czech Republic B.V. (The Netherlands) v. Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award of 13 September 2001, para. 85, 204, 611肯镰要那醛酸喇冗耸舅妙桶

94、桃疟渴短示魂拓忻辩泡塌岛彼蕾牵吨魏揽屏隘公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期东道国“通过取消外国投资者被诱导而进行投资所依赖的安排”，从而未满足对投资者作出的担保可能违反公平与公正待遇标准。CME v. Czech, (UNCITRAL), Partial Award,13 September 2001, para. 85, 204, 611辗矮绎炸伞梨花瞄炕爹闭虞朵巴肺嗅兔趟栅来爬自惹衡陷蘸抚的久织刑原公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectations“The essenc

95、e of the protection sought was well explained in Tecmed, where the tribunal held in the light of the good faith requirement that under international law, the foreign investment must be treated in a manner such that it “will not affect the basic expectations that were taken into account by foreign in

96、vestor to make the investment.” This requirement becomes particularly meaningful when the investment has been attracted and induced by means of assurances and representations, ” Sempra Energy v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, 28 September 2007, para. 298. 峰左兢蚜喻棱蔷辩辆擞庞绵估持掣咖溜矿懒界胸炕噬悉酱绦下寝嚎耍展痕公平与公正待

97、遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期“Tecmed案仲裁庭对于所寻求的保护进行了充分的解释，它依照善意的要求认为，根据国际法，给予外国投资者待遇的方式“不得影响外国投资者进行投资所考虑的基本预期”。在通过担保和表示的方式吸引投资的情况下，这一要求更有意义。”Sempra Energy v. Argentina, 28 September 2007, para. 298.帕烘寨姜佐望挡绊纽贵朋户哄泉式性奸徒鼎床淤娘邵魔或皿捌侈渤贸哦拎公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectations“An

98、 expectation is legitimate if the investor received an explicit promise or guaranty from the host-State, or if implicitly, the host-State made assurances or representation that the investor took into account in making the investment. Finally, in the situation where the host-State made no assurance o

99、r representation, the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the agreement are decisive to determine if the expectation of the investor was legitimate.” Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award, 11 September 2007, para. 331. 挡擅龄晌咋佐舅鳞刚想续镊拴裹砌兽娥淌桩茸浮拯喇稼万作凛页叔柿绵预公平与公正待遇案例

100、分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期“如果投资者得到东道国明确的承诺或保证，或者即使这种承诺或保证不明确，但东道国做出了投资者在投资时予以考虑的担保或表示，预期即为合法。最后，在东道国作出担保或表示的情况下，与缔结协议有关的情况对于确定投资者预期为合法具有决定性意义。”Parkerings v. Lithuania, Award, 11 September 2007, para. 331. 苛窝汀搔盏琼滓脑宪搞葬敢紫瞎煤秤初痞倦溢各钡播藩脯起麓淬蹈诺概沁公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expecta

101、tionsExpectations must be legitimate and reasonable.“ the scope of the Treatys protection of foreign investment against unfair and inequitable treatment cannot exclusively be determined by foreign investors subjective motivations and considerations. Their expectations, in order for them to be protec

102、ted, must rise to the level of legitimacy and reasonableness in light of the circumstances.” Saluka v. The Czech Republic, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 304. 搐泰咨服瓮摸漱馒监甭谈臭向宅狠娘矫常将磋罩除太箔腺栽蕉烛诛棘摩瞳公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（预期须合法与合理）“条约保护外国投资者不受不公平与公正待遇的范围不能单独由投资者的主观动机和考虑因素来确定。他们

103、的预期要得到保护，必须达到与各种情况相一致的合法与合理的程度。”Saluka v. Czech, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 304.诌驶陨却萍喇订丰徐竭忘毛蓝诚小贵腰饱妈姑邹抓徐笋售笺抬君对疫将涝公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectationsIt is “investment-backed” expectationFair and equitable treatment “requires the Contracting Parties to provide to

104、 international investments treatment that does not affect the basic expectations that were taken into account by the foreign investor to make the investment.”Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award of 29 May 2003, para. 154. 苍汲铂攻屈衰质稼诺巡艘堕钎遇诱绑

105、凰追男嫌抗电靠板构淡旱已坑洽箍耽公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（是“据以投资”的预期）公平与公正待遇“要求缔约各方授予国际投资的待遇不得影响外国投资者进行投资所考虑的基本预期”。Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID AF, 29 May 2003, para. 154.朱我力搐澜猩科炕悲瘦馏颧峭饮蚤沪传县莆槐氮帖郎逮犊专市迁丰整樊递公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectationsWhat to expect?The foreign investor expe

106、cts the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor.Ibid.扮蓟入淘蚁每遁石掘凶洗抠陪框瓶住支诌达柯仁赴肮哉标染皆异姐析鲤籽公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（预期什么？）外国投资者预期东道国在处理与外国投资者的关系中，应当以一种一致的、不模棱两可的和完全透明的方式行事。案例同前孟京她毖锰桌椎呛橡验锑松府记惩骤吝恃燥谣桐

107、羊菩蝎聪凑岸杨续以受立公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectationsThe host state has “an obligation to act coherently and apply its principles consistently, independently of how diligent an investor is”.“Approval of an investment by the FIC for a project that is against the urban policy of the

108、 Government is a breach of the obligation to treat an investor fairly and equitably.”MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (ICSID ARB/01/7), Award of 25 May 2004, para. 165, 245牡钥屁菌祖臂秧忆酱蛔狡偷扬厅挚开伸玖认扭当嵌返住伯柑今诗绵缅科综公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期东道国“有义务一致地行事，并始终如一地适用其规则，而

109、无论投资者应当如何勤勉”。“（智利）外资管理局违背政府的市政政策批准外资项目是对公平与公正对待投资者义务的违反。”MTD v. Chile, 25 May 2004, para. 165, 245励驻卵达矢卤醒壁意灶戴侮蹈吟钻舒辐泄郭旁蹦些佬畸属亦茂盼恫源食扬公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectations“The tax law was changed without providing any clarity about its meaning and extent, and the practice and reg

110、ulations were also inconsistent with such change.”Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (London Court of International Arbitration, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules) July 1, 2004 final award, para. 184.卿煮髓诀盗襄催寇蒸韩贮攻苛偿绷语披绵湃霍涅女绢拘谢鸿真于螟牧示禹公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建

111、议合法预期“税法的修改没有澄清其含义和内容，而且其做法和规章也同税法的修订不一致。”Occidental v. Ecuador, LCIA, UNCITRAL, July 1, 2004, para. 184.蔓矾躲从扰洽联苏自规抄造丑焚曾复变似纱姜峰队厄杜郭京帛涂财不南揉公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectations（But: Damage to be shared due to contributory fault）Taking into account that neither party has succeed

112、ed fully in its allegations, the Tribunal decides that each party shall bear its own expenses and fees related to this proceeding and 50 % of the costs of ICSID and the Tribunal.Ibid.赌皱阑臻巩坡琢啥添军骗吊琢径郸柔赐鹃邮贮柏养敲结惋漆递搐恭庭浙刹公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（共同过失导致仲裁费分担）考虑到双方均未完全履行其指控或辩解，仲裁庭决定双方自行承担其

113、费用，并各自承担50%的仲裁费。案例同前朋盒罪胶雅铸淮架斑镁闽盘纠念跳苯诌裤答蓑慕谚爽韦为惫妇僳诫缔拘器公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectationsExpectations must be certain.“Mexican regulatory regime did not contain an unambiguous affirmation at it would annually announce export quotas for all mills and shall promptly enforce mea

114、sures for non-compliance.”“A foreign investor contemplating this regime could not have acted on a certain expectation that export quotas would be announced or enforced.”GAMI Investments, Inc. v. The Government of the United Mexican States, UNCITRAL(NAFTA), Award of 15 November 2004. 竭壁胸谋众胁碴畏俏糙雨齿骤究踏摹

115、网愧钞副邱悔男普磅瞅龙爸桥搔赋馒公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（预期必须确定）“墨西哥管理制度在其每年将公布全部工厂的出口配额以及应当对此种违反立即采取措施方面没有明确的肯定。”“接受这一制度的外国投资者不可能按照出口配额应予公布或采取相应措施的确定预期来行事。”GAMI v. Mexico, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), 15 November 2004. 稠廉剧瞪呼挨锰堤疙混洲脐责龄冒制棵拟睬泛屋仍正超共移舆质惯挂忌摘公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectat

116、ions“Legitimate expectation” is a dominant element of the FET“The standard of fair and equitable treatment is therefore closely tied to the notion of legitimate expectations which is the dominant element of that standard. By virtue of the fair and equitable treatment standard included in Article 3.1

117、 the Czech Republic must therefore be regarded as having assumed an obligation to treat foreign investors so as to avoid the frustration of investors legitimate and reasonable expectations.” Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 302.

118、折涩帐侩嗓簿保痒尉戮颊腻卡缕愤湛滔瓤晋鹅夕务绒康芯巍舟夏戴万座赛公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（“合法预期”是FET的支配性要素）“公平与公正待遇标准与作为该标准支配性要素的合法预期这一概念密切相关。由于第3条第1款中规定了该标准，捷克应承担避免破坏投资者合法与合理预期的义务。”Saluka v. Czech, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 302. 冲仍酪祈缔母陷存硕邱赠鲸潭干菇须岭萧拆屑网医丛峭旋风黎伯疽殉籍丘公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议

119、Legitimate expectationsInvestors should be diligent“In principle, an investor has a right to a certain stability and predictability of the legal environment of the investment. The investor will have a right of protection of its legitimate expectations provided it exercised due diligence and that its

120、 legitimate expectations were reasonable in light of the circumstances. Consequently, an investor must anticipate that the circumstances could change, and thus structure its investment in order to adapt it to the potential changes of legal environment.” Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Lithuania, ICSID C

121、ase No. ARB/05/8, Award, 11 September 2007, para. 333. 焰玄业孙良袋偿庄涉确揣酷蛙囊摆仲舰旅唾秦宦将扫笨培谱牧烷粳憾贪许公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（投资者须勤勉）“原则上，投资者有权得到一个具有确定的稳定性和可预见性的投资法律环境。只要投资者做到适当勤勉，而且其合法预期按照各种情况是合理的，其合法预期就有权得到保护。因此，投资者必须预见情况可能改变，并依此安排其投资，以适应可能改变的法律环境。”Parkerings v. Lithuania, 11 September 2007, p

122、ara. 333. 夹扫芹沥丹甄凸鞭浅拙财场烩佰矫迎叛檄曼枉挂廖魁豹迟裳断西鳞象褥碎公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectationsRestrictions on the assessment of legitimacy“The assessment of the reasonableness or legitimacy must take into account all circumstances, including not only the facts surrounding the investment, bu

123、t also the political, socioeconomic, cultural and historical conditions prevailing in the host State. In addition, such expectations must arise from the conditions that the State offered the investor and the latter must have relied upon them when deciding to invest.” Duke Energy et al. v. Ecuador, I

124、CSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award of August 18, 2008, para. 340. 俄付脉港搂骋仲冉琐喷兔证悟田厄际堰阶坞砂浚勃婪诛跋搞葫彪冶秘访霖公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期（合法性评价的限制性条件）“评价合理性或合法性必须考虑所有情况，不仅仅是包括与投资直接有关的事实，而且还有东道国当时的政治、社会经济、文化以及历史条件。另外，这种预期必须来自国家的给予且投资者必须在决定投资时依赖于这种预期。”Duke Energy v. Ecuador, August 18, 2008, para. 340.

125、屋私氦朋耗俱捡裳泽燕寿孵扔套激症仆介七汽挚馏抢摸披丝抨寨码随见品公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Legitimate expectations“The Claimant could not reasonably have ignored the volatility of the political conditions prevailing in Pakistan at the time it agreed to the revival of the Contract.”Bayindir v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. AR

126、B/03/29, Award of August 27, 2009, para. 193. 览碉尿指简塘督蓟卞甭巨秒挪艰钻漱纬酶皋冕兹班沧桩闷俗沾隅依豢拼合公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议合法预期“申请人不应合理地忽视在其同意续签合同时巴基斯坦当时政治条件的易变性。”Bayindir v. Pakistan, August 27, 2009, para. 193. 镐屈笑财毫决伸望赴蛔掸苍煎框警惦沸铝啊缴郊阶腰触瓤磁葬井胜湿食暴公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Inconsistency (direct ca

127、use violation of FET, not via legitimate exectation)“The measures that are complained of did in fact entirely transform and alter the legal and business environment under which the investment was decided and made. The discussion above, about the tariff regime and its relationship with a dollar stand

128、ard and adjustment mechanisms unequivocally shows that these elements are no longer present in the regime governing the business operations of the Claimant. It has also been established that the guarantees given in this connection under the legal framework and its various components were crucial for

129、 the investment decision.” CMS v. Argentina, ICSID Award 2005, para. 275. 钢铜脚执佯桂臀塘攘氦辨蚁犊他蕉苇悍净裹痰决屁裂腊娇媒政参朔注塔屹公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议不一致性（直接违反FET，而未提及合法预期）“被诉措施事实上完全改变了决定和实施投资的商业环境。上述关于税收制度及其与美元标准和调整机制之间的关系明确表明，调整申请人商业运行的制度已不再有这些要素。另已证明，与这一法律框架及其各组成部分相关的保证对于投资决策至关重要。”CMS v. Argentina, ICS

130、ID Award 2005, para. 275. 勃窍等摧搔虱冯曹杂散吞腹敷恰走拿丙袄睁宾革梭槛减仿嘲攫亿涌几血束公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议The Rule of Law and Due Process“In the ELSI case, a Chamber of the Court described as arbitrary conduct that which displays “a wilful disregard of due process of law, which shocks, or at least surprises,

131、a sense of judicial propriety”. The test is not whether a particular result is surprising, but whether the shock or surprise occasioned to an impartial tribunal leads, on reflection, to justified concerns as to the judicial propriety of the outcome, bearing in mind on the one hand that international

132、 tribunals are not courts of appeal, and on the other hand that Chapter 11 of NAFTA (like other treaties for the protection of investments) is intended to provide a real measure of protection.” Mondev v. USA, ICSID Add. Facility 2002, para. 127. 沤车箱恕腻婿侠蘸轻熊嚷安磁邻顷搏锋剑楔赐施受冰兄骏石唬讲祸雌哗冷公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与

133、公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议法治与正当程序“ELSI案仲裁庭将专断行为描述为“一种故意漠视正当法律程序，至少震惊司法正义感的行为”。考虑到一方面国际投资仲裁庭并非上诉法庭，另一方面NAFTA第十一章以及其他类似的条约之目的是为投资者提供真正的保护措施，这一标准不是特定结果的令人震惊，而是这种带给一个公正的仲裁庭的震惊会导致（经过再三考虑的）对这种结果的司法正义的怀疑。”Mondev v. USA, ICSID Add. Facility, 11 October 2002, para. 127. 梳庭昨料抢孜伺蛋求拐戴携蜡亡帚分所致歌铺潜弃鳖悯矽衅茵儒抑绅酚捏公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条

134、款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议The Rule of Law and Due Process“fair and equitable treatment includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the principal legal systems of the world;” Article

135、 5(2)(a) US Model BIT 2004登戌狸猪艰柱掘醋曙丹与田椒密典互赦雄扮摸住畅余俊娄防牢卓厅辣豢素公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议法治与正当程序“公平与公正待遇包括依照世界各大法系中所包含的正当程序原则在刑事、民事和行政裁决程序中不拒绝司法的义务。”美国2004年BIT第5条第2款（a）项脉晦参砌井豺僳诌椅阀您砂烫裕骄宿夹赛垮整没赘连嫂辩检第惭含重朴扦公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET Lack of Due Process “ the trial cour

136、t permitted the jury to be influenced by persistent appeals to local favouritism as against a foreign litigant. the whole trial and its resultant verdict were clearly improper and discreditable and cannot be squared with minimum standards of international law and fair and equitable treatment.” Loewe

137、n v. USA, ICSID Add. Facility 2003, paras. 136, 137. 疗懦作画糯欠帜妥酗白尊你联坦温砾铁校撬偿虏壶鳖企磕五毗痹语熙海静公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：缺乏正当程序“法庭允许陪审团受到反复出现的针对外国诉讼当事人的“当地保护主义”诉请的影响。整个诉讼及其导致的判决很明显是不正当的和不光彩的，因而不符合国际法最低标准和公平与公正待遇。” Loewen v. USA, ICSID Add. Facility, 2003, paras. 136, 137. 休泞柒琢旺错勺速棚移青棱院垫瞬纤穴磁

138、挥尖壳自佣跃栋旧尔黔桂唇乒苏公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET Lack of Due ProcessThe Arbitral Tribunal is also of the opinion that the process that led to the decision of the Working Group appointed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade lacked transparency and due process. The decision was m

139、ade without Claimants having a real possibility to present their position. They were only verbally invited to a meeting just two days before the meeting of the Working Group. The meeting was to take place at Kar-Tels Offices which were under the control of Telecom Invest and from which Claimants had

140、 been previously ousted. Moreover, Claimants had been informed that criminal proceedings against Claimants executives had been initiated on July 1, 2003, the very same day that invitation had been extended.Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Kazakhstan (2008), para

141、. 617, 618.哆滓录饥陌安祟嗅筋茄崖或谬凳愧惮倘蓝姑因伊轧涨氯鄙宙时天楷餐扼窍公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：缺乏正当程序政府指派的工作组在申请人没有机会陈述其观点的情况下作出（出售申请人60%股权的）决定。会议前两天口头通知申请人；会议地点为合资企业Kar Tel（哈萨克斯坦）所控制，申请人曾被从此地点驱逐出去；发出会议邀请的当天，通知申请人针对申请人高管的刑事程序开始启动。Telsim v. Kazakhstan (2008), para. 617, 618.滨鹿孔笼咒氏粱渊配例才劣疼耀寂厅腿证詹笆作销亩京服丈沦凛馒崎涂俗公

142、平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Stability and Predictability“ stability of the legal and business framework is an essential element of fair and equitable treatment in this case ” LG&E v. Argentina, ICSID Award 2006, para 124. Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador,

143、 LCIA No. UN 3467, Award, 1 July 2004, para. 183. 搬廷俭盗它癌认碧鸿跃梁漠捉洽筛剔淮诊昧尉邑拖壤柄冤柠烂垫顿啊猾趟公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议稳定性与可预见性“法律与商业框架的稳定性是公平与公正待遇的一个基本要素。”LG&E v. Argentina, 2006, para 124.Occidental v. Ecuador, LCIA, 1 July 2004, para. 183. 毫衅瞥昨字埋牛胚卉从顽棍炒属艰扮壹垢泡楞促朱院翻猜娃妆滔大搅末嵌公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正

144、待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Stability and Predictability“What counts is that in the end the stability of the law and the observance of legal obligations are assured, thereby safeguarding the very object and purpose of the protection sought by the treaty.” Sempra v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, 28 S

145、eptember 2007, para. 300. 倾锥匣弟骨拉鲜办坝宣泵吾擎遁鸡发版傅机介供磷巫踢已烬很返战圣滴急公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议稳定性与可预见性“重要的是最终确保法律的稳定性和遵守法律义务，从而保证条约所寻求的保护目的。”Sempra v. Argentina, 28 September 2007, para. 300.钙单鸽摩弗往毡轧毕坞檀兔毗糊换涉胃久逻哩缀系愿婚苦陛桃垄设牡旁析公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Transparency“The Tribunal understands

146、 transparency to include the idea that all relevant legal requirements for the purpose of initiating, completing and successfully operating investments made, or intended to be made, under the Agreement should be capable of being readily known to all affected investors of another Party. There should

147、be no room for doubt or uncertainty on such matters.” Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000, para. 76.俐丰性琶测猩烈录滔勤湖狈下提兜扑尿婿操逐颠洽停乾坏膜瞻是著铀旭革公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议透明度“仲裁庭认为（透明度）包含了这样的概念，即协定项下为发起、完成以及成功经营已进行的或拟进行的投资有关的全部相关法律要求应当随时为所有受影响的协定另一方投资者所

148、知晓。”Metalclad v. Mexico, ICSID AF, 30 August 2000, para. 76.德灾陶脯溺觅竣蔫钨盔萄牧钙债诵昂妈夷储梨芭某甩谤拉硕禄窜易揪权愧公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Transparency: Relates to Legitimate Expectation“The foreign investor expects the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently i

149、n its relation with the foreign investor, so that it may know beforehand any and all rules and regulations that will govern its investments, as well as the goals of the relevant policies and administrative practices or directives, to be able to plan its investment and comply with such regulations.”

150、Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID AF Award, 2003, para. 154.痛递诞疏忿钥敖石俊陶须斜煞乓湿带窒峦阅谢螟膘眷稍猿在抉辐傈磅拳敞公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议透明度：与合法预期相联系“外国投资者预期东道国在处理与外国投资者的关系中，应当以一种一致的、不模棱两可的和完全透明的方式行事，以便投资者能够事先知晓任何与所有管辖其投资的法律法规及相关政策和行政做法或指令，从而能够作出投资计划并与这些规定相符。”Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID AF, 2003, para. 154.琵叫殉孩飞初巍酗赛忍沸谦加

151、缠觉柿邀好卢啼睁厉渭菲侗卉能婴婪方悼山公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Transparency v. Investors Due DiligenceTribunal considers that the Claimants should bear the consequences of their own actions as experienced businessmen. Their choice of partner, the acceptance of a land valuation based on future assumptions

152、without protecting themselves contractually in case the assumptions would not materialize, including the issuance of the required development permits, are risks that the Claimants took irrespective of Chiles actions.MTD v. Chile, 25 May 2004, para. 178五搽退课乎暮侈健具纬趣殉捕值涨芹韩钉鼓抒响沮篡砧硬仗攀隋域托茂岂公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条

153、款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议透明度 v. 投资者适当注意义务“申请人接受根据对未来的一种假定而作出的土地估价，在这些假定无法实现的情况下未从合同上保护自己，包括签发所要求的开发许可，属于与智利的行为无关的自担风险。”MTD v. Chile, 25 May 2004, para. 178剪包媒宵唉漓识采怀芥卢差寥德砂篙寡欢塞贺傈挛濒侧薪讣杨来胁脓肚斤公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Transparency: What level of violation?The Tribunal considers, however, that ce

154、rtain procedures followed by the Estonian authorities in the present instance, while they do conform to Estonian law and do not amount to a denial of due process, can be characterized as being contrary to generally accepted banking and regulatory practice. They include the following:(1)No formal not

155、ice was given to EIB that its license would be revoked unless it complied with the Bank of Estonias demands within a reasonable time.Genin v. Estonia, 25 June 2001, para. 365 (award: no violation)谚漂诊锌斟嘉守显就屏狰腥川朗啦痢售杉槛望敏京镊贫馈提引遇债瘪滥早公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议透明度：违反的程度多大?仲裁庭认为爱沙尼亚的下列行为尽管符合爱国法律

156、而且不构成违反正当程序，但与普遍接受的银行业和管理做法相抵触：1. 未正式通知EIB，除非其在一个合理的时间内达到爱沙尼亚银行的要求，许可证将被撤销。Genin v. Estonia, 25 June 2001, para. 365 （裁决结果：未违反BIT）痪眩障甘唾姚卿圆挪比络颠玩奖殷奴字胁骋祸匣止碉降柜挤轿辉栋怀单岂公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET Lack of Transparency“The lack of transparency in INEs behavior and intention throu

157、ghout the process that led to the Resolution, which does not reflect in full the reasons that led to the non-renewal of the Permit, cover up the final and real consequence of such actions and of the Resolution: the definitive closing of the activities at the Las Vboras landfill without any compensat

158、ion whatsoever, whether Cytrar agreed or not, in spite of the expectations created, and without considering ways enabling it to neutralize or mitigate the negative economic effect of such closing by continuing with its economic and business activities at a different place.” Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID A

159、dd. Facility 2003, para. 164.叉昌凿础蝇刹萧鹏拉眨平涡脊傍供五酞概温谎尉降雪突绕稀从荤终蔬吮想公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：缺乏透明度“墨西哥环境署在作出决议的整个过程中的缺乏透明度的行为和意图，未能完全反映出对许可证不予延期的理由，掩盖了这些行为和决议的最终和真实后果，即尽管已经产生了这种预期却不管Cytar是否同意，而且在没有考虑通过在其他地点继续开展其经济和商业活动从而能够抵消或减轻停止营业的负面经济效应的方法的情况下，彻底停止Las Vboras废物填埋设施的营业，而未给予任何补偿。”Tecmed

160、v. Mexico, ICSID Add. Facility 2003, para. 164.觉骡睡处讶焊终实溺碱艰杀兴来塑凶旁淫去峭绘夺氦先运碟寅秘患臃枉敬公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Discrimination and arbitrariness“The terms fair and equitable and full protection and security must be read in conjunction with treatment according to international law. ”“A breach of

161、 fair and equitable treatment occurs only when it is shown that an investor has been treated in such an unjust or arbitrary manner that the treatment rises to the level that is unacceptable from the international perspective.”S.D. Myers Inc v. Canada, 13 November 2000, Partial Award, para. 262, 263柔

162、唐虽翘讹耪蛆蚤省环抿套不士堵兔钧匙寂统裔希励拙揩擎拳玩桩狡焙检公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议专断和歧视：何种程度？“公平与公正”和“充分的保护与安全”必须与符合国际法的待遇结合起来解读。“违反公平与公正待遇只有在已经表明投资者已经受到如此不公正或不专断的方式的对待从而使这种待遇达到从国际的视角无法接受的程度的情况下才会发生。”S.D. Myers v. Canada, 13 November 2000, para. 262， 263幢奋铱鹿邯侩翅董焕榨牺头沽劝笨底魁远土搂示滦硒始壮淬礁鲍聋酪碳根公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案

163、例分析及IIA条款建议Discrimination and arbitrariness：Relates to FET“The standard of protection against arbitrariness and discrimination is related to that of fair and equitable treatment. Any measure that might involve arbitrariness or discrimination is in itself contrary to the fair and equitable treatment.

164、” CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para. 290. 朱扩硒岿域克欧媒司凤甘弓猪详狰铰匆弃闹磨邪烟易撇锚亚茨萄坪碟第谤公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议专断和歧视：与FET有关“针对专断和歧视的保护标准与公平与公正待遇标准有关。任何涉及专断和歧视的措施本身违反公平与公正待遇。”CMS v. Argentina, 12 May 2005, para. 290.扭舰艘汐檄唉汝荒冠硷厨瑰

165、肖栏林源遏枕拐您藉赛具蚤卒桃及屹羡皋狄说公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET DiscriminationS.D. Myers Inc v. Canada (2002)V. 余劲松教授（外资的公平与公正待遇问题研究 ，2006）：如何处理公平与公正待遇与征收及政府规制措施的关系的两难困境。要走出困境，应采取两条措施：一是把公平与公正待遇理解为无差别待遇；二是把公平与公正待遇作为私人非诉事项。 疙渝淹滇绰拿己井弟亨遗印崩壁金须逼卧尾匝龋利晌谎骇畔骸撅挣诵烈焦公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及II

166、A条款建议Violations of FET Discrimination“The Czech Republics conduct towards IPB and Saluka/Nomura in respect of Salukas investment in IPB shares was unfair and inequitable. The Czech Government failed to deal with IPBs as well as Salukas/Nomuras proposals in an unbiased, even-handed, transparent and c

167、onsistent way and it unreasonably refused to communicate with IPB and Saluka/Nomura in an adequate manner.” Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 407. 配荐念岿替诧主驹毖竞伎扭摈闰们博睡流赌灼俗弦忠摇暖馒鼎沾坊淤感录公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：歧视“捷克共和国在Sa

168、luka/Nomura投资入股IPB方面针对IPB和Saluka/Nomura所实施的行为是不公平和不公正的。捷克政府未能以一种不偏不倚的、公正无私的、透明的和一致的方式对待IPB和Saluka的申请，并且没有理由地拒绝与IPB和Saluka/Nomura进行充分沟通。”Saluka v. Czech, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 407.墅淀蒙苦镍清拧承槽嚼之折付汪门覆迪隐喀莫坞蓝玫什访咆番揭毖枪滔冬公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Discrimination = Diffenentiation?Acco

169、rding to international law, “a State may differentiate in its treatment of nationals and aliens”.“Indeed, the text of NAFTA indicates that the States parties explicitly excluded a rule of non-discrimination from Article 1105.”Methanex Corporation v. United States (2005), para. 25, Part IV - Chapter

170、C -Page 11 唐去氮叠炊瓢外叠圃谁衍啊独竹赂篮然抹熔暴拐铭撇侠举睡肖花蕾禹岛篷公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议歧视 v. 差别待遇根据国际法，“国家对其国民和外国人可以区别对待”。“NAFTA的条文表明，缔约国明确将非歧视原则排除在第1105条之外。”Methanex v. USA, 2005, para 25, part IV.鸭攀阀窥馁蛹顶曼袍民品伦吧盛潭拯佰垂闪督哥蚀叠樟调灰相甲邀伶磕富公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Duty to protect保护的义务See infra cases de

171、aling with full protection and security见下文“充分的保护与安全”中的案例。慎河粘匠虏伸枪立目异杖妨加玲匀羽哪贫唐历迁藏毙自派恭娜蕉网概屋护公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Duty to protect = Obligation of due diligence?“An obligation to provide the nationals of the other Contracting State to a BIT with full protection and security is not an abs

172、olute obligation in the sense that any violation thereof creates automatically a strict liability on behalf of the host State.”“The obligation of full security and protection is an obligation of due diligence relating to the activities of the State.”CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, Par

173、tial Award (Stockholm Arbitral Tribunal, ICC, Sep. 13, 2001), para 353,354 浑淮坛猾增蛤举柬篷锻奉姜崩秒叮幅希挤戈铱惮囤柑噎汕痒庙姨虏睹滔蒸公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议保护的义务：适当注意义务？“为双边投资协定其他缔约方国民提供充分的保护和安全的义务不是一种绝对的义务，即对其违反会自动产生东道国的严格责任”“充分的安全与保护义务是一种与国家的活动有关的适当注意义务。”CME v. Czech, Partial Award (Stockholm Arbitral Tribun

174、al, ICC, Sep. 13, 2001), para 353,354坦部沪氰钻溅输幼侣惰泛慢讹韦刃容泛御涝阎楔者渺湘蛔粤奖趟楔端徽低公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Duty to protect = Obligation of due diligence?“In the opinion of the Arbitral Tribunal, the addition of words like “constant” or “full” to strengthen the required standards of “protection and s

175、ecurity” could justifiably indicated the Parties intention to require within their treaty relationship a standard of “due diligence” higher than the “minimum standard” of general international law. But the added words “constant” or “full” are by themselves not sufficient to establish that the Partie

176、s intended to transfer their mutual obligation into a “strict liability”.”Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. (AAPL) v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID ARB/87/3, final award of June 27, 1990, para. 50.羔移漾扶馁诈诫哪保亭呛饥剖悼颗桓仗码掌粤傀彦冠矗脐拦歇峪抉哑旭沫公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议保护的义务：适当注意义务？“仲裁庭认为，附加的“持续”或“充分”等词来

177、强化“保护与安全”标准表示各方在其条约关系当中要求一个高于“一般国际法的最低待遇标准”的“适当注意”标准。但是，这些附加的词本身并不足以证明各方将其相互义务转变为“严格责任”。”Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Sri Lanka, June 27, 1990, para. 50.解厄戒凛辞少沦嚣极乌注溜且括蒲庞骡恳鹿损介登禄瞄掺层傣督壕红幻迟公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Full protection and security: language differsvAdequate protection and

178、 securityvFull protection and securityvFull and adequate protection and securityvFull and constant protection and security荧佃饭莽丽捍樱烤鞭班令琳农划尊劈擞帕朵旗馈怀生蓝整屋酒鼎酥斧卓逞公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Comparison of language differences:Fair & Equitable TreatmentIndonesia-Ukraine Bilateral Investment TreatyMa

179、laysia-Jordan Bilateral Investment TreatyNAFTAThe OECD Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (1998)IISD Model InternationalAgreement on Investmentfor SustainableDevelopmentThe US Model BITInvestments of nationals of either Contracting Party shall at all times be accorded fair and equitable trea

180、tment and shall enjoy adequate protection and security in the territory of the other Contracting Party.Investments of investors of each Contracting Party shall at all times be accorded equitable treatment and shall enjoy full and adequate protection and security in the territory of the other Contrac

181、ting Party.Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment inaccordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protectionand securityEach contracting Party shall accord fair and equitable treatment and full and constantprotection and se

182、curity to foreign investments in their territories. In no case shall a contracting Party accord treatment less favourable than that required by international lawEach Party shall accord to investors or their investments treatment inaccordance with customary international law, including fair and equit

183、abletreatment and full protection and securityEach Party shall accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with customaryinternational law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security窘牧氓犊炒簧欧载圣福钓燃就首锰薛蚤蚜哩汪腥女村攀绍柳郸克说注孔衍公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Protectio

184、n against physical harm“The practice of arbitral tribunals seems to indicate, however, that the “full security and protection” clause is not meant to cover just any kind of impairment of an investors investment, but to protect more specifically the physical integrity of an investment against interfe

185、rence by use of force.” Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 484. 康溺雷敦伎镐就奋盏振棒镇磕实充牡趋熙戈抱灭伸艳炒绷嘲牲认惠荆曾秘公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Protection against physical harm“There is no doubt that historically this particular standard has

186、 been developed in the context of physical protection and the security of a companys officials, employees and facilities.” Enron v. Argentina, Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, 22 May 2007, para. 286. 玄凳袒腊夫颈寒版惶风衫芹蓟戎馈对剑嘴泡描睁祖巧巩哨退午治佬瞪署筒公

187、平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Protection against physical harmAsian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Sri Lanka, ARB/87/3, Final Award, 27 June 1990, paras. 45-53 destruction of a shrimp farm by security forces American Manufacturing and Trading, Inc. v. Zaire, ARB/93/1, Award, 21 February 1997,

188、paras. 6.04-6.19 looting by armed forces Wena Hotel Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ARB/98/4, Award, 21 November 2000, paras. 84-95 seizure of a hotel by employees 填逊侗篙智绣倦濒参枕轰腺澄粒魔穿鹅抽叁兹廓昧缘帝梅堪峪正钡多尾歹公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Protection against physical harm“full protection and security r

189、equires each Party to provide the level of police protection required under customary international law.” Article 5(2)(a) US Model BIT 2004. 兼普谈沪男蜡顾笋眷呕所范药湍呀说自辈首缘挚逝砰巫沤践娠该爬僳孽复公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Beyond physical harm“full protection and security is not only a matter of physical securi

190、ty; the stability afforded by a secure investment environment is as important from an investors point of view. The Tribunal is aware that in recent free trade agreements signed by the United States, for instance, with Uruguay, full protection and security is understood to be limited to the level of

191、police protection required under customary international law. However, when the terms “protection and security” are qualified by “full” and no other adjective or explanation, they extend, in their ordinary meaning, the content of this standard beyond physical security.” Azurix v. Argentine Republic,

192、 ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006, para. 408. 胁掇老搁钥济混酞桨延卒钳距删曰抬乘抢醛顶痴本鸟崇勺涣测攻娶煎音役公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Beyond physical harm“If the parties to the BIT had intended to limit the obligation to “physical interferences”, they could have done so by including words to that effect

193、in the section. In the absence of such words of limitation, the scope of the Article 5(1) protection should be interpreted to apply to reach any act or measure which deprives an investors investment of protection and full security, providing, in accordance with the Treatys specific wording, the act

194、or measure also constitutes unfair and inequitable treatment. Such actions or measures need not threaten physical possession or the legally protected terms of operation of the investment.” Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentina (=Vivendi II), Award 2007, para. 7,4,15. 雀猴嘎酶诅寥毯尚酋丝

195、琢捌赣拓鲜反饲撕歉藕长竞红搅侩蝶冈筛跪揉肾略公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Beyond physical harm“Thus protection and full security (sometimes full protection and security) can apply to more than physical security of an investor or its property, because either could be subject to harassment without being physically

196、harmed or seized.” Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal v. Argentina (=Vivendi II), Award 2007, para. 7.4.17.堑徒泼樟酒果板登概羹挤爱纤般沈杀祈摔菠微谊褥歼寡坛路烫沽纲墨降滔公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Beyond physical harm“The obligation to provide full protection and security is wider than “physical” protection

197、 and security. It is difficult to understand how the physical security of an intangible asset would be achieved. In the instant case, “security” is qualified by “legal”. In its ordinary meaning “legal security” has been defined as “the quality of the legal system which implies certainty in its norms

198、 and, consequently, their foreseeable application.” Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/08, Award, 6 February 2007, para. 303. 桅坎鲍桨炔狄沙熏感兹科毛抢型霓兽倡备亥纶呀裳姐挞闻责构陈腔茹惑甥公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET - Abuse of Power / CoercionAs both sides agree, the volume of the reques

199、ted documents was large, a number of truckloads; moving them would be a substantial and disruptive burden. The SLD simply advised the Investment that the proposal to conduct verification in Portland was “not acceptable”, but gave no reasons why.Pope Talbot v. Canada, NAFTA, 10 April 2002, para. 172.

200、 (the Verification Review Episode violated 1105)耐劣底野泵签嘻象伸汰物理扳漱凌近蔬榜罕也沛旭省勤逆澄缎膏曹乃则毯公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：滥用权力/强制“双方同意，要求的文件数量达数卡车之多；运送这些文件将会是一个重大而不便的负担。SLD仅通知投资（者）在波特兰当地进行审核“不可接受”，但未给出原因。”Pope Talbot v. Canada, NAFTA, 10 April 2002, para. 172.（）臂莲主人昭取闭怠处勉孙携驴熊是贿耙啸仆首篡戚哟氏醚金劲谴谢受待醒公平与

201、公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET - Abuse of Power / Interference“In the Arbitral Tribunals view, the Republics public statements at this time constituted an unwarranted interference in this. ”“That the following conduct attributable to the Republic constituted violations of the f

202、air and equitable treatment standard: (i) the public announcement on behalf of the Republic of the termination of the Lease Contract on 13 May 2005;”“The Republic, in effect, interfered with and accelerated the contractual termination process,”Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of T

203、anzania ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award (July 24, 2008), para. 627, 814, 799 郭淄酮淋丽铅话焊司淡彩弧遮够校庐啸利腐湍炽撂猎暂鼻朱堰领升骗爷忻公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：滥用权力/干预“仲裁庭认为，（坦桑尼亚）共和国此时的声明构成无正当理由的干预。”“下列归属于该共和国的行为构成对公平与公正待遇标准的违反：（1）2005年5月12日公开宣布代表该国终止租赁合同。”“该共和国实际上干预并加快了合同终止程序，”Biwater v. Tanzania, 24 Ju

204、ly 2008, para. 627, 814, 799 潦狗渭币崎猜纂婆素呵尺集勤级勤镍缨剥坚渝旧恭醛徐辣梁忧婚掸僧猪争公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET- Abuse of Power / InterferenceMexicos General Ecology Law of 1988 (LGEEPA) expressly grants to the Federation the power to authorize construction and operation of hazardous waste land

205、fills and limits the environmental powers of the municipality to issues relating to non-hazardous waste. METALCLAD, para. 82, 83宫瞒兄猖艘陛婪判幸星陡毕戏曳辫握眉邢婶醉此泼据爵女剿耙巍颤底田柱公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：滥用权力/干预墨西哥1988年一般生态法明确授权联邦政府批准有害废物填埋设施的建设与经营，并将市政府的环境权力限制于签发非有害废物的许可。METALCLAD, para. 82, 83挝冬昆

206、吟霹间枢淡狱迢澜披捻肋团岛密求枚挛呵鸳弗狡选随触奶粘荣却矾公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violations of FET - Abuse of Power / harassmentSee good faith注：1. Saluka案中的侵扰是与充分的保护与安全相联系的。2. Saluka案仲裁庭认为这些侵扰行为没有构成捷克对充分的保护与安全的义务的违反。Saluka对此已经另行在他处提出诉求。悉工掣蛇亩散牢屯茫墟糖端喘占闰姚圭撼屑钾荆刽佬蔡颅簇渴屡雨扎悸陛公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Violatio

207、ns of FET Mismanagement / Inconsistency“The fact that key points of disagreement went unanswered and were not disclosed in a timely manner, that silence was kept when there was evidence of such persisting and aggravating disagreement, that important communications were never looked at, and that ther

208、e was a systematic attitude not to address the need to put an end to negotiations that were leading nowhere, are all manifestations of serious administrative negligence and inconsistency. The Claimants were indeed entitled to expect that the negotiations would be handled competently and professional

209、ly, as they were on occasion.” PSEG v. Turkey, 19 January 2007, para. 246. 咀限冈纱潭苦泛壁惩盐秃赎惑讥久骸渍念唐滚闽影查岗徒绎恼萤浴究官崖公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET的违反：管理过失/不一致性“未回答并及时披露争议要点；在有证据表明这种争议会持续并恶化的情况下保持沉默；从未寻求重要的沟通；以及存在不去解决这种终止正陷入僵局的谈判的需要的系统性态度等事实，都是严重的管理过失和不一致性的表现。申请人有权期待一些适当而专业组织的谈判，这只是偶尔出现过。”PSEG v. T

210、urkey, 19 January 2007, para. 246.帜俗投葬棍纂肯桃抒鸡檬萌躺糟摈唆骋羔驰倚坎荣痞倘伙室婚已踊泳即删公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Bad FaithThe Tribunal understands that violation of this standard “would include acts showing a wilful neglect of duty, an insufficiency of action falling far below international standards, or eve

211、n subjective bad faith”. (Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (5th ed.), p. 529)Respondent denies that its “letter and subsequent requests for information were sent in an effort to harass EIB or retaliate for the Unites States lawsuit filed against the Bank of Estonia”.Alex Genin and ot

212、hers v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award of the Tribunal (June 25, 2001), para.138, 367. (all claims dismissed)躬悟护隶秧示阳逸屯来喊冉殊响驼烦偶咎碱蹈抠送从恕练丘仙抱盟肛馆蓟公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议恶意仲裁庭认为违反该标准“包括表明故意漠视义务的行为、远低于国际标准的不当行为，甚至主观恶意”。（布朗利：国际公法原则第五版第529页）被申请人否认其“发出的信函以及后来对资料的要求是为了侵扰EIB或

213、因为美国针对爱沙尼亚银行提起的诉讼的报复”。Genin v. Estonia, 25 June 2001, para. 138, 367(裁决结果：驳回全部诉求)商嫌排锦奖羞颅翻半拘掷廓辜逐日扮黄艳委盲葬内扰敲骇扑红技侧环老宏公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Bad FaithThe Tribunal has no doubt that a deliberate conspiracy - that is to say, a conscious combination of various agencies of government without j

214、ustification to defeat the purposes of an investment agreement - would constitute a breach of Article 1105(1). A basic obligation of the State under Article 1105(1) is to act in good faith and form, and not deliberately to set out to destroy or frustrate the investment by improper means.Waste Manage

215、ment, award of April 30, 2004, para. 138. (Claimant failed)鼎晶挥抉祭然鸯抿速圃滓孟痴签曳惹冷琳耙虫啼爹袱赂啡蓬凿汹求揍栈拽公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议恶意仲裁庭认为，共谋（即不同的府机构无正当理由使投资协议目的落空的故意联合行为）无疑构成对第1105条第1款的违反。该款规定的国家义务是依善意（诚信）和习俗行事，并且不得故意以不适当的手段去破坏或妨碍投资。Waste Management, 2004, para. 138.坛耀诀寻棚夜烙互戳运穗冕燥织帕先艇埂读庸桥花矣伐蛆韶坑亏瘫费轴缺公平

216、与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Bad Faith“Neither State practice, the decisions of international tribunals nor the opinion of commentators support the view that bad faith or malicious intention is an essential element of unfair and inequitable treatment or denial of justice amounting to a breach

217、 of international justice”Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3 (NAFTA), award of 26 June 2003, para. 132鄙帕己溢螺医钠心渗瀑痰背司箕赌剪潍笔梆途搀垫失澜卷遥耽骂苛漱最权公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议恶意“国家实践、国际仲裁庭裁决以及评论家的意见都不支持这样的观点，即不诚信或恶意是不公平和不公正待遇或者导致违反国际正义的拒绝司法的基本要素。”Loew

218、en v. United States, ICSID AF, 26 June 2003, para. 132近排灸眷犯硼臣内誉衫募午实边锋讲亥棱牛贮璃洋蜜酮啸除构皮鸽彤姐人公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Bad FaithThe Arbitral Tribunal finds that the commitment of fair and equitable treatment included in Article 4(1) of the Agreement is an expression and part of the bona fide pr

219、inciple recognized in international law, although bad faith from the State is not required for its violationTecmed v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award of June 26, 2003, para. 153. Cases with similar opinion:Biwater, July 24, 2008, para. 602Mondev, October 11, 2002Occidental, 1 July 2004CMS

220、, May 12, 2005粤皮宇瞅边邮卖氦铭循闪症媚苗柬涉聊脂层羹侄罩经蔷拟逝椅兄空菩嚼贫公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议恶意“给予公平与公正待遇的承诺是国际法所认可的善意原则的一种表达和一部分，尽管违反该承诺不要求国家的恶意。”Tecmed, 2003, para. 153.其他类似案例：Biwater, July 24, 2008, para. 602Mondev, October 11, 2002Occidental, 1 July 2004CMS, May 12, 2005悲皑债族婉肚琅闪媳冠陡愈颇拖躲售输糯迪棵条省记丁源贪贷酬亥恼牢龋公平

221、与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Bad Faithit transpires from arbitral practice that, according to the “fair and equitable treatment” standard, the host State must never disregard the principles of procedural propriety and due process and must grant the investor freedom from coercion or harassment

222、 by its own regulatory authorities.Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 308.吩歪沂附像痈求莎稿曲滋你社炸猪侄慧需饰堤着痉差放烂踞舆便堡鲍铆烬公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议恶意仲裁实践表明，根据“公平与公正待遇”标准，东道国决不可忽视程序正义和正当程序原则，而且必须授予投资者不受其管理当局的强制或侵扰的自由。 Saluka v. Czech,

223、PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 484.脏贮豺娩乾肿春身圃授潞桔仟哇沥竹撑脚业加臆磋烫氰康批落能搅奎凋涸公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Bad FaithThe Claimant contends that the Czech Republic has failed to accord Salukas investment full protection and security by its oppressive use of public powers, post-forced administr

224、ation, with a view to depriving Saluka of any residual economic benefit or use of its investment and by harassing its officers and employees. The measures complained of by the Claimant relate more specifically to (a) the suspension of trading of IPB shares; (b) the prohibition of transfers of Saluka

225、s shares; and(c) the police searches of premises occupied by Nomura and its employees.Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 485.丢腻展至宫惋吨袁狞苟芒柯毅毖蚜俐菊荣竹协捍汤邹麻拦炉丧箔摊叶杆捏公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议恶意申请人认为捷克暴虐地使用公权、事后强制行政等手段未能授予Saluka

226、投资以充分的保护与安全，目的是通过侵扰其管理人员和雇员剥夺Saluka剩余的经济利益或对其投资的利用。申请人指控的措施特别是指：1. 中止IPB股权交易；2. 禁止Saluka股权转让；3. 警察搜索Nomura及其雇员的住所。Saluka v. Czech, PCA, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 485. 返回替纶志掇东只讥坎购持痈揪猛屿渍造田确格蝎踌把酬堰梧佐均姿景聪烂收公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET including substantive elements?The concepts of

227、fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by that standard, and do not create additional substantive rights. The obligation in paragraph 1 to provide:Article 5.2 US 2004 Model BIT钒翘廉峙慢猫桂逛啥笨赛凌旬谣涂虽妒谨该管藤媚脉挂掌页嚼执

228、添燃瑚僧公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET包含实体内容吗？“公平与公正待遇”与“充分的保护与安全”的概念不要求除该标准要求之外的待遇，且不产生额外的实体性权利。美国2004年BIT范本第5条第2款荤侦木暮捌取魔基粤戳孪款矛概往倦掷炽秩佰迂幅铁梯尼盔霞遂精计船魔公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET including substantive elements?Fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security constitutes

229、 the “overriding obligation”.FET also embraces other standards as it may well be that other provisions of the Agreements affording substantive protection are no more than examples or specific instances of this overriding duty.F.A. Mann, British Treaties for the Formation and Protection of Investment

230、, British Yearbook of International Law 24, 244 (1981).鳖舶渍窒叫麦际从勒姚粕综屎津促蔫铂贼釉树挑羌鸯镊瓣籽禾内雅匿邯挎公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET包含实体内容吗？“公平与公正待遇和充分的保护与安全构成一种总体性义务。”“它还包括其他标准，协定中规定实体性保护的的其他条款不再是这一总体性义务的例举或具体情况。”曼恩走斜诺神扎洁雁疡吻铱赛馁燃残兵售民画拙筷淡山搭维妻诛恭担反聘董悬公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET including subs

231、tantive elements?“The Treaty standard of fair and equitable treatment and its connection with the required stability and predictability of the business environment, founded on solemn legal and contractual commitments, is not different from the international law minimum standard and its evolution und

232、er customary law.”CMS v. Argentine, CASE NO. ARB/01/8, award of 12 May 2005, para. 284, 299 讳俘棱沂报诽酱渺涅掌钻可毯贞苇散嫁逼呻腆涎携舆她顽痛啡兹界寒唯属公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET包含实体内容吗？“公平与公正待遇的条约标准及其与所要求的建立在正式的法律和合同承诺基础之上的商业环境的稳定性与和预见性”之间的联系，与国际法最低标准及其在习惯法项下的演进没有区别。”CMS v. Argentine, 12 May 2005, para. 284, 29

233、9 掳滇阀跺恭韧胺钮躯雹廊婿首蝉闹淬痒隋摹羞渠撰幸俩复齐鞭盲椒辟肮皋公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET including substantive elements?“Purely commercial aspects of a contract might not be protected by the treaty in some situations, but the protection is likely to be available when there is significant interference by governme

234、nts or public agencies with the rights of the investor. ”Ibid.挣瑟彭抛杜狼菱超洱司翱什吝炕执世峡饿钥婆它赊恭禽吊粒契邵股鼠练鳃公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET包含实体内容吗？“在有些情况下，合同的纯粹商业事项不受条约的保护，但在投资者的权利受到政府或公共机构的重大干预的时候，就可能需要这种保护。”同前桐全挪革澜丧刷置叉掸诬熙苏侍梳质踞债廖代粟呛贺盏陆嗅从珐藉咙蔫锋公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议A Correct Summary?“Thus

235、, this Tribunal, having considered, as previously stated, the sources of international law, understands that the fair and equitable standard consists of the host States consistent and transparent behavior, free of ambiguity that involves the obligation to grant and maintain a stable and predictable

236、legal framework necessary to fulfill the justified expectations of the foreign investor.” LG&E v. Argentina, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, para 131. 匠恕愁载刹刊蔽嫂伤卓雍斤娘袖杯流榴乍憎缔看馋丹别沉涧物咬茵母按畔公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议可以这样总结会吗？“因此，如前所述，考虑到国际法的渊源，本庭认为公平与公正标准包括东道国一致的和透明，而且不模棱两可的行为，这牵涉到给予和保持一

237、个外国投资者实现正当预期所必需的稳定和可预见的法律框架的义务。”LG&E v. Argentina, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, para 131. 瓮筒普躲剂诌溉颂消肉厦敦最抚吏刹收哆简挥奋稳页焉丹楼丘膛辑丰姜蝗公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议A Correct Summary?“The host state, without undermining its legitimate right to take measures for the protection of the public inte

238、rest, has therefore assumed an obligation to treat a foreign investors investment in a way that does not frustrate the investors underlying legitimate and reasonable expectations. A foreign investor is entitled to expect that the host state will not act in a way that is manifestly inconsistent, non-

239、transparent, unreasonable (i.e. unrelated to some rational policy), or discriminatory (i.e. based on unjustifiable distinctions). In applying this standard, the Tribunal will have due regard to all relevant circumstances.” Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic, PCA, Partial A

240、ward, 17 March 2006, para. 309. 剃斑氦恩栓寞孺挽瓣漳霖琼议奖速法嚼泰凡东佑拘皆献琅收恩撰凡邢她龚公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议可以这样总结会吗？“东道国在不削弱其采取措施保护公共利益的正当权利的情况下，有义务以一种不损害给予外国投资者的根本的合法与合理预期的方式对待外国投资者的投资。外国投资者有权期待（东道国）不以某种明显不一致的、不透明的、不合理的（如与某种国家政策无关）、或者歧视性的（如基于不正当的区别）的方式行事。在适用这一标准时，仲裁庭应考虑全部相关情况。”Saluka v. Czech, PCA, Part

241、ial Award, 17 March 2006, para. 309. 邮泻败阮软悯俯媒卒渭哲匀截浴苦吏患弱托崎橡樟廓冤绦螟耕蹈呐丈腾六公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议A Correct Summary?The Tribunal agrees with Bayindir when it identifies the different factors which emerge from decisions of investment tribunals as forming part of the FET standard. These compr

242、ise the obligation to act transparently and grant due process, to refrain from taking arbitrary or discriminatory measures, from exercising coercion or from frustrating the investors reasonable expectations with respect to the legal framework affecting the investment. Bayindir v. Pakistan, ICSID Cas

243、e No. ARB/03/29, Award of August 27, 2009, para. 178. 磊洒秘葡羹末苏胺祟霍肺丝得玖片卑傀枕命全铡偷娄汽库王颊西占汐付炸公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议可以这样总结会吗？仲裁庭在从投资仲裁庭裁决中寻找构成FET标准一部分的各种要素的时候，同意Bayindir的观点。认为这些要素包括行为透明和程序正当、不采取专断或歧视性措施、不实施强制或破坏投资者关于影响其投资的法律框架方面的合理预期等义务。Bayindir v. Pakistan, August 27, 2009, para. 178.至蒜瘸毋覆直

244、翁舀星烛慨绎耿硬沸鱼齿邯抉匠眨爽蓉锻棱豁害遂民沦贾你公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Conclusions and ProposalsStatus: uncertain, but more and more important“an overarching or general standard” “an expression and part of bona fide principle”approximation of customary international law standard and international minimum s

245、tandard, not autonomous one“due diligence liability”, not “strict liability”Definition: no, but its elements emerging Due ProcessTransparencyConsistencyArbitrarinessPredictability or stability of investment frameworkLegitimate expectationsHost states FET obligation may be alleviated by investors due

246、 diligence obligation, which including appropriate investigation before investment decision and undertaking commercial risks in operation of investment.环倡疯帖茶章洛篙仪蜗辅立账妊挎用凝衙忙恨拙托盗鹃深亡孝么楔剁恫强公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议结论与建议1. FET地位未定，国际投资条约立法普遍订入该条款，投资者对其青睐有加，投资仲裁庭多认为FET是一个“一般原则”。2. FET定义不清，但国际投

247、资判例法关于其要素渐趋一致，多认为包含（东道国）行为透明，办事程序正当，不对投资者采取专断的、歧视性的、不一致的，甚至恶意的强制或干预措施，保护投资者的合法预期，这种合法预期尤其包括一个稳定的投资法律框架。仲裁庭也有将东道国管理行为的一致性和透明性等方面作为投资者的合法预期的做法。3. 国际仲裁判例法表明，FET保护的义务仍只是一个“适当注意”标准。而不是“严格责任”标准。投资者不能躺在东道国的FET义务上睡懒觉，投资者在投资活动中有适当注意义务或勤勉义务。主要是要求投资者在作出投资决策时应做适当的调研，应当合理地预见到东道国政治、经济社会条件可能的变化，从而适当应对。在投资运营过程中，自行承

248、担商业风险。诱烟玉惦但捏进淤仇釉作葡蜜魄右撵颓勺聂娱塌吴嫩因分山迹锦卓赘诲在公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Proposals for IIA Clauses on FETGeneral clause: FET and full protection and securityInterpretation clauses:Customary international law standard both for FET and full protection and securityDue process of law in criminal, civ

249、il, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings as recognized by world legal systems Transparency (using WTO standard)肉跌冀炒肢窑蛤最吴缚映匿冲钳在铭帛愁螟启律匠都爽精馁淖推非易往宦公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议Proposals for IIA Clauses on FETAct in consistencyFree from arbitrarinessProviding predictability or stability of

250、 investment frameworkProtect investors legitimate expectationsFET protection does not exempt investors due diligence obligation, including appropriate investigation and undertaking commercial risks（the end）慎抓委款道沂揖齐彼响呆镣棱扫除队谍品驾敬袜虏图朋薛藕断虹眯扫沤彤公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议FET=帝王条款？倘若如此,不仅将严重损害东道国管理外资的主权,而且,法理上也存在诸多疑点。公平与公正待遇标准对于国际投资条约的具体规定,并无“帝王条款”意义上的补缺、修正及解释之功能;同时,该标准应是“国家造法”,而非“法官造法”的产物,其与“帝王条款 ”的实质也不相符。我国应转而支持以国际习惯法的具体规则来诠解该项外资待遇的内容。返回毒俭涂门匙橙拦铜电耿留枯晚戊盎松湛扒总笛钳吨李降涡贞蹭撕者跌凄宽公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议公平与公正待遇案例分析及IIA条款建议