徵收保障條款之演進

如前所述，徵收規範無意干預國家實施合理規制措施的空間，本章將探討國際投資 條約，作為投資爭端中可資適用的法律，其徵收條款是否提供了充足的指示，以區分間 接徵收與合理規制措施。

隨著投資條約的發展，徵收保障的用語逐漸擴張。例如 1959 年德國跟巴基斯坦簽 署的第一個現代投資條約中，只規定締約雙方不可國有化或是徵收他方投資人的財產。³ 但是到了 1990 代以降，徵收保障條款的用語開始擴張，將禁止的行為擴及至「直接或 間接徵收」、「等同徵收效力之措施」，論者以為，這是反映了國際法上財產保障，範圍 逐漸擴張的趨勢。⁴

幾個多邊投資條約的用語，即將間接徵收納入。能源憲章條約第 13 條第 1 項中規 定，「除了符合下列要件之情形外，締約國不得對其國境內的另一締約國國民之投資，

加以國有化、徵收或是對其採取效果等同於徵收之措施。」⁵

北美自由貿易協定第 11 章，1110 條第 1 項也採取相類的規範方式，「會員國不得直 接或間接，國有化或徵收其他會員國之投資人，於其領域內之投資，或對於該投資採取

3 ANDREW NEWCOMBE & LLUIS PARADELL, LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT

TREATIES:STANDARDS OF TREATMENT 332-33 (2009); UNCTAD,EXPROPRIATION:A SEQUEL 5-12 (2012). For comprehensive comment on different BIT, see CAMPBELL MCLACHLAN, ET AL., INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION:SUBSTANTIVE PRINCIPLES 269-86 (2008).

4 MCLACHLAN, ET AL., supra note 3, at 283.

5 Energy Charter Treaty, art.13.1, 26, Dec. 17, 1994, 2080 U. N. T. S. 95.

(“Investments of Investors of a Contracting Party in the Area of any other Contracting Party shall not be nationalized, expropriated or subjected to a measure or measures having effect equivalent to nationalization or expropriation (hereinafter referred to as “Expropriation”) except where such Expropriation is:

(a) for a purpose which is in the public interest;

(b) not discriminatory;

(c) carried out under due process of law; and

(d) accompanied by the payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation.”,)

66 等同國有化或徵收之措施 ……」⁶

東南亞國家協會(Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN)的投資促進與保障 條約第 6 條 1 項也提供了徵收保障條款，「任何締約國之國民或是公司所有之投資，不 得遭受徵收、國有化、或是任何等同效力之措施…」⁷，但後來在 2009 年東協各國新訂 了東協全面投資條約，在 14 條訂了新的徵收保障條款，即明文納入了間接徵收。⁸

東非、南非共同市場(Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, COMESA)所訂 定之投資條約，在第 20 條第 1 項中規定，「會員國不得對其領域內之投資進行國有化或

6 North American Free Trade Agreement, art. 1110, U.S.- Can.- Mex., Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993).

(“Article 1110: Expropriation and Compensation

1. No Party may directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of such an investment…”)

7 Agreement on Promotion and Protection of Investment in ASEAN, art.6(1), Dec. 15 1987, available at

http://www.asean.org/communities/asean-economic-community/item/the-1987-asean-agreement-f or-the-promotion-and-protection-of-investments

( “Investments of nationals or companies of any Contracting Party shall not be subject to expropriation, nationalisation or any measure equivalent thereto…”)

8 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Comprehensive Investment Agreement, art.14, Feb. 26, 2009, available at

http://

www.ASEAN.org/images/2012/Economic/AIA/Agreement/ASEAN%20Comprehensive%C20Inv estment%C20Agreement%(̈ACIA)%202012.pdf[hereinafter ASEAN investment agreement]

9 Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment Area, art. 20(1), May 22-23, 2007, available at

http://vi.unctad.org/files/wksp/iiawksp08/docs/wednesday/Exercise%20Materials/invagreecomesa .pdf. [hereinafter COMESA investment agreement]

(“1. Member States shall not nationalize or expropriate investments in their territory or adopt any other measures tantamount to expropriation of investments…”)

10 經濟部投資業務處，國際投資協定分析釋義，頁 14（2012）。

11 UK Model Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement, art.5(1), 2005.

“(1) Investments of nationals or companies of either Contracting Party shall not be nationalised,

67 資、或是採取與徵收、國有化相類似(similar measures)的措施……」¹⁴，在其和紐西蘭簽 訂的雙邊投資條約中，使用的是等同徵收之措施(equivalent to) 用語上沒有提及間接徵 收、在其與德國於 2003 年簽訂的投資條約，用語則改為「Measures tantamount to expropriation and nationalization」，並且提及直接與間接徵收。¹⁵

其他如美國、加拿大、奧地利、荷蘭、澳洲、新加坡等國，以及第三世界國家之間 締結之雙邊投資條約，雖然文字上略有不同，但是基本上也都採取此種途徑，即以「禁 止直接、間接徵收或國有化投資，或是採取效果等同之措施」以及其變形，約定徵收保 障條款。¹⁶而今日更是大多數的雙邊投資條約，都直接明示禁止直接與間接徵收。¹⁷

expropriated or subjected to measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation (hereinafter referred to as “expropriation”) in the territory of the other Contracting Party”

12 Treaty Between Federal Republic Germany and Bosnia-Herzegovina Concerning Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investments, Ger.- Bosn. & Herz., art 4(2), Oct. 18, 2001.

(“Investments by investors of either Contracting Stare shall not be directly or indirectly expropriated, nationalized or subjected to any other measure the effects of which would be tantamount to expropriation or nationalization in the territory of the other Contracting State”)

13 NORAH GALLAGHER &WENHUA SHAN,CHINESE INVESTMENT TREATIES:POLICIES AND PRACTICE

268-70 (2009). 由於中國大陸的雙邊投資協定範本並未公開，本文所用的內容亦引自同書。.

14 Id. at 434.

( “Neither Contracting Party Shall expropriate, nationalize or take other similar measure (hereinafter referred to as ‘expropriation’) against the investments of the investors of the other Contracting Party in its territory… ”)

15 Free Trade Agreement Between The Government of New Zealand And The Government of the People’s Republic of China, China-N.Z., art 145(1), Apr.7, 2008[hereinafter China-New Zealand FTA]; Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Germany on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, China-Ger., art. 4(1), Dec.1, 2003. [hereinafter China-Germany BIT]

16 See generally MCLACHLAN, ET AL., supra note 3, at 275-86.

68

不過上述的各條約，卻多半欠缺對徵收的定義，以及和合理規制措施之區分。對於 區分間接徵收與國家的合理規制權限行使，並未提供任何幫助。然而此種情況在 2003、

2004 年加拿大與美國接連採納了新的雙邊投資協定範本後，開始轉變。在這兩個雙邊投 資協定範本以及大多數其後美、加兩國締結的雙邊投資條約中，除了徵收保障條款外，

在本文或是附件中加入了直接與間接徵收的定義、判斷間接徵收的要素，以及合理規制 措施不會構成徵收的明文。其後許多新進的條約，都參酌此種規範方式，以條約明文嘗 試確保自己的規制空間。¹⁸