När en investerare vill investera utomlands finns många risker som måste beräknas, analyseras och hanteras. Utöver olika ekonomiska risker finns politiska risker. En investerare kan, för att hantera dessa politiska risker, välja att investera i en stat med vilken Sverige har ett bilateralt investeringsskyddsavtal. Dessa avtal reglerar både materiellt investeringsskydd, det vill säga hur en investerare ska behandlas, och processuellt skydd, det vill säga möjligheten för en investerare att väcka talan mot staten investeraren investerar i genom ett internationellt skiljeförfarande. Sverige har idag 66 stycken bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal i kraft, varav tolv stycken är slutna med länder inom EU. Antalet bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal slutna mellan EU-länder, intra-EU BIT, ökade avsevärt i och med att unionen utvidgades år 2004 och 2007. Sedan dess har avtalens förenlighet med EU-rätten diskuterats i litteraturen, i skiljedomstolar och nyligen även i EU- domstolen i det så kallade Achmea-målet. I uppsatsen kartläggs och analyseras argumenten i diskussionen om relationen mellan intra-EU BIT och EU-rätten. Vidare analyseras vilken del av investeringsskyddet som intra-EU BIT-förespråkare anser vara mest betydelsefull. Från resonemanget och analysen i uppsatsen dras slutsatsen att det är ISDS-systemet, tvistelösningssystemet där en investerare kan väcka talan mot en stat, som kan anses utgöra den mest betydelsefulla delen av investeringsskyddet i intra-EU BIT:en. Därefter analyseras huruvida ett investeringsskydd innehållande ett ISDS-förfarande kan vara förenligt med principen om ömsesidigt erkännande och förtroende. I uppsatsen konstateras att ISDS-förfarandet inte kan vara förenligt denna princip och att problematiken inte kan lösas genom en juridisk debatt utan måste diskuteras på en politiskt hög nivå. / When investing abroad, an investor is faced with many risks that need to be thoroughly analysed in order to be mitigated. Risks are not only financial, but also political. An investor may, to mitigate these risks, choose to invest in states with which Sweden has a bilateral investment treaty, a so called BIT. BIT do not only regulate treatment of the investor and the investment, which is the material investment protection; but also the jurisdictional possibility of the investor to raise charges against the state of in which the investment has taken place in case of violation of investment rights, procedural investment protection. Today, Sweden has 66 BITs in force, out of which twelve are concluded with EU member states, so called intra-EU BIT. The number of intra-EU BITs grew significantly as a result of the enlargement of the union in the year of 2004 and 2007. Since then, the agreements’ compatibility with the EU legislation has been a subject of discussion within literature, investment arbitrations and recently in the European Court of Justice in the Achmea case. This thesis aims to establish and analyse the context of the discussions flourishing the relationship between the intra-EU BITs and the EU legislation. Additionally, the author intends to identify which argumentation regarding investment protection, that by intra-EU BIT praisers is considered to be the most impactful. As a result, the conclusion of the thesis is that it is the ISDS-system, the investor- state dispute settlement, in which an investor can raise charges towards a state, that is the most valuable part of the investment protection given by the intra-EU BITs. Accordingly, it is analysed weather investment protection containing an ISDS-system can be compatible with the principle of mutual trust and recognition. In the thesis it is concluded that the ISDS-system cannot be considered to be compatible with the principle and that this problem should be debated on a high political level and cannot be solved through a legal debate.

Dans l’arbitrage relatif aux investissements, on entend par exceptions préliminaires les incidents de procédure par lesquels les Etats contestent la compétence du tribunal arbitral ou la recevabilité de la requête de l’investisseur. Avec le développement du contentieux arbitral, le recours à cette technique contentieuse se fait de plus en plus fréquent, mais la présentation des exceptions préliminaires par les Etats et leur traitement par les tribunaux arbitraux sont souvent sources de confusion. Notre étude propose de préciser les concepts clés du contentieux international de compétence et de recevabilité et de revenir sur leur distinction dans un domaine spécialisé du contentieux international – le contentieux arbitral fondé sur les traités de protection et de promotion des investissements. La réaffirmation de la distinction entre les questions de compétence et de recevabilité permettra d’en proposer une classification en fonction de l’objet de l’exception préliminaire et de mieux saisir la portée de la notion d’exception préliminaire qui constitue un moyen de leur mise en oeuvre dans l’arbitrage transnational. Cette classification commandera le régime qu’il convient de réserver à chaque type de défense, afin d’ordonner la présentation des exceptions préliminaires par les Etats et leur examen par les arbitres, examen qui détermine leur faculté d’exercer la fonction juridictionnelle. / In investment treaty arbitration, preliminary objections can be defined as procedural issues raised by the States in order to contest arbitral tribunal jurisdiction or admissibility of an investor claim. With the rise of investment treaty arbitration, recourse to this litigation technique is getting more and more frequent. However, the submission of preliminary objections by the States, as well as their examination by the arbitral tribunals are frequently confusing. Our research focuses on the core concepts of jurisdiction and admissibility in international litigation in order to reconsider their distinction in a specialised field of international litigation - investment treaty arbitration. On the basis of this distinction, we propose a classification of preliminary issues according to their object. This classification will order the legal regime to be applied to each type of preliminary defence, thus putting some order in the submission of preliminary objections by the States and their examination by the arbitrators, examination which relates to their capacity to exercise their jurisdictional function.

本論文目的在藉由研析美國聯邦政府採購規則、歐盟採購指令及大陸政府採購法救濟制度，並比較GPA爭端解決機制及我國政府採購救濟制度，論述政府採購協定適用主體、適用客體及其爭端解決機制，從中尋求GPA與我國政府採購救濟制度規範不一致之處，為與政府採購協定之爭端解決機制之規範一致，並建立一個公平、公正及公開爭端解決機制，以吸引更多國外廠商來台參與投標，並帶動國際貿易商機。本研究結論建議如下： 一、建立異議及申訴前之諮商制度，經由爭議廠商與採購機關之事先諮商，有助爭端事先解決，以機先解決爭議。 二、廢除異議前置失權效規定，賦予爭議廠商得直接提起申訴之權，以加速程序進行並保障採購廠商應有之權益。 三、放寬異議及申訴主體資格，廠商採購權益之相關利害關係人，即得具有提出申訴之主體資格，以擴大解決採購紛爭。 四、增加異議或申訴之原因與事由，擴及未違反法令或條約、協定，廠商政府採購權益直接或間接遭受損害，即得提起救濟，以擴大行政自我預先審查功能與範圍。 五、採公開審議程序，以維護政府採購審議公平、公開審理，並保障申訴廠商之採購權益，避免造成書面審議失去公平判斷之可能。 六、明確規範暫停採購程序事由，避免事後因無法即時改正招標機關錯誤採購行為，而影響異議人之權益。 七、改正採購爭議審議委員會審議判斷，以符合政府採購協定（GPA）救濟有效性之要求。 / The purpose of the research is to study the inconsistency between GPA and Government Procurement Act in Taiwan by analyzing the subject, object and the dispute settlement mechanism and making comparison among U.S Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), EU Procurement Directives and China Government Procurement Law dispute settlement .In order to attract more foreign firms to participate in the vendors, and promote international trade opportunities. The main conclusion of the research is as follows: 1. It is suggested to establish a consultation mechanism to assist disputing parties to discuss and resolve their differences prior to the protests and appeals. 2. It is advised to add “causes and reasons” to protest and appeal on Government Procurement Act of Taiwan to expand administrative function and the scope of self-examination in advance. 3. In consideration of the interests of the vendors, it is recommended to abolish the regulation on the loss of efficiency right without protest. 4. To ensure the interests of the complained vendors, it is advised to broaden the qualification of objections and appeals. 5. Implement a transparent and open public review process to maintain the fairness of government procurement and secure the interests of the complained vendors. 6. It is important to define suspend procurement procedure clearly to avoid jeopardizing the rights of complaining suppliers and the entity. 7. In order to comply with the effectiveness of the relief requested under Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), it is necessary to correct the review decision of the Complaint Review Board for Government Procurement (CRBGP).

The theme of this thesis is the assessment of the prerequisites for the pluralism of law and non-state justice systems to improve the possibilities of solving disputes in society. The main research question is whether non-state justice systems fulfil a social role in providing justice. The thesis should offer a descriptive analysis of the concept of legal pluralism and methodological procedures for the inclusion of non-state justice systems in the state. The outcome of the work should be an overview of the possibilities of interaction between different legal systems, whether formal or customary, of the different ways of resolving disputes in this environment, and of the contribution of such proposals to the reform of the legal environment that count on the real situation in society. The thesis of procedural pluralism and participatory methods of solving disputes that have a user, a citizen in the center of these systems is offered as a starting point for new designs. The final part of the work will therefore explore current approaches to improving legal systems that aim to increase participation of user based on their needs, and will include some cases for comparing individual programs to improve legal systems.

Dans un contexte de globalisation de l'économie, de nouveaux procédés d'autorégulation ont suscité l'intérêt des acteurs privés. Initiées par les entreprises transnationales, ces régulations volontaires visent notamment à encadrer les relations de travail et à offrir une protection des droits sociaux fondamentaux aux travailleurs des filiales. Parmi ces initiatives, l'une a émergé à la fin des années 1980 : l'accord d'entreprise transnational. Ainsi, la protection des droits sociaux fondamentaux ne relève plus uniquement de la responsabilité des États mais se révèle davantage comme appartenant à la « responsabilité sociale » des entreprises via la négociation transnationale d'entreprise. L'absence de toute règle spécifique relative à une telle négociation laisse cependant en suspens certains problèmes juridiques. Répondre à ces incertitudes juridiques nécessite de clarifier des concepts et de mesurer l'effectivité des accords dans la concrétisation des droits sociaux fondamentaux. / In a context of economic globalization, new self-regulation processes have attracted the interest of private actors. lnitiated by transnational companies, these voluntary regulations aim in particular to regulate labour relations and to provide protection of fundamental social rights for workers within subsidiaries. Among these initiatives, one emerged in the late 1980s : the transnational company agreement. Thus, the protection of fundamental social rights is no longer the exclusive concern of States (responsibility), but appears more as belonging to the "social responsibility" of companies via the transnational company bargaining. However, the lack of any specific rules regarding such negotiations leaves some legal problems open. The legal uncertainties related to the transnational company agreements require the clarification of legal concepts and the assessment of the effectiveness of the agreements in the realization of fundamental social rights within transnational companies.

A partir da década de 1990, dois processos político-econômicos alteraram o modo de produção da política externa brasileira e a relação do país com as organizações internacionais do comércio. No âmbito doméstico, igualmente influenciado pelo sistema internacional pós Guerra-Fria e de retorno gradual aos preceitos democráticos na América Latina, procedeu-se a politização da política externa por meio do fortalecimento das instituições democráticas, da organização dos grupos de interesses em associações autônomas e pela abertura de múltiplos canais de comunicação entre essas associações e as agências governamentais que, para além do Ministério das Relações Exteriores, adentraram o processo decisório de produção da política externa. No âmbito internacional, tanto regional quanto multilateral, as organizações internacionais do comércio alicerçadas em princípios não-discriminatórios avançaram a “legalização” dos seus sistemas de solução de controvérsias por meio da fixação de normas e procedimentos judiciais obrigatórios, que implicou a internacionalização da política doméstica. Esse dois processos estão vinculados pelo papel fundamental conferido às instituições democráticas na formulação da política externa do Brasil e na responsabilidade pela implementação das decisões internacionais provenientes dos órgãos de solução de controvérsias que o país participa. Os confrontos entre a indústria multinacional de pneus novos instaladas no Brasil e a indústria de pneus reformados brasileira, mercosulina e européia, cada um transcorrido em âmbitos próprios – nacional, regional e multilateral –, mas reciprocamente relacionados, põem em evidência os mecanismos de politização da política externa e de internacionalização da política doméstica, apontam as qualidades do desenho institucional das organizações internacionais em que se desenvolvem as relações internacionais econômicas contemporâneas e identificam as vicissitudes que emergem desse desenho institucional. / Since the 1990s, two political-economic processes have changed the decision making process of Brazilian foreign policy and the country’s relationship with international trade organizations. In the domestic sphere, also influenced by the international system after the Cold War and by the gradual return to democratic precepts in Latin America, led to the politicization of foreign policy by strengthening democratic institutions, organization of group of interests in autonomous associations ad by opening up multiple channels of communication between these associations and government agencies that, besides the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, entered the decision making process of foreign policy. In the international sphere, both regional and multilateral, trade organizations, based upon non-discriminatory principles, advanced the “legalization” of dispute settlement systems attached to them by setting mandatory norms and procedures, which led to the internationalization of domestic politics. These two processes are linked by the role of democratic institutions in formulating foreign policy and in the responsibility for the implementation of international decisions from the dispute settlement systems which Brazil participates. The clashes between new tires multinationals industries installed in Brazil and retreaded tires industries from Brazil, Mercosur and European Communities, each passed on their own spheres – national, regional and multilateral –, but mutually related, highlight the mechanisms of politicization of foreign policy and the internationalization of domestic politics, indicates the qualities of the institutional design in which contemporary international economic relations develops and identify the vicissitudes that emerge from this institutional design.

En tant qu’organisation qui a vocation à réguler les échanges commerciaux mondiaux et qui promeut le libre-échange, l’OMC désigne naturellement l’une des principales, voire l’unique, structure internationale capable d’incarner l’approche multilatérale qui s’impose devant la mondialisation des pratiques anticoncurrentielles et des opérations de concentration. Les règles de concurrence présentes dans son corpus juridique, ainsi que la jurisprudence issue de leur mise en œuvre, grâce notamment à l’existence d’un mécanisme contraignant de règlement des différends, forment un droit primaire de la concurrence. Toutefois, un tel droit ne régit que les comportements des acteurs étatiques et n’appréhende les agissements des particuliers que de manière indirecte. Par conséquent, il nécessite d’être complété et adapté aux nouvelles réalités procédant de la mondialisation des économies, ce par le biais d’une adoption d’un accord multilatéral portant sur la concurrence. Le système de règlement des litiges devrait aussi subir une mutation, en renforçant ses techniques de sanction et en s’ouvrant aux personnes privées / As an organization which goal is to regulate international trade exchanges and to promote free trade, the World Trade Organization refers naturally to one of the main international structures or even the only one which can embody the multilateral approach needed to face the globalization of anti-competitive practices and concentration operations. The competition rules mentioned in its legal corpus as well as the case law from their implementation, are a primary competition law thanks to the existence of a coercing mechanism to solve problems in particular. However, a such rule only governs the states actors’ behaviours and is not directly apprehensive of the acting of the individuals. Therefore, it needs to be completed and adapted to the new realities of the situation by proceeding the globalization of the economies by means of the adoption of an multilateral agreement over the competition. The settlement of dispute system would need some change, by strengthening its technical punishments and by opening its gates to the private individuals

Le but de la recherche est d'identifier la stratégie de l'Union européenne dans le cadre du règlement des différends à l'OMC et de déterminer le rôle que jouent les différends commerciaux internationaux au niveau interne communautaire. La spécificité de la participation de l'UE par rapport aux autres Etats membres de l'OMC et les raisons de sa participation sont étudiées plus particulièrement dans le cadre d'une réflexion sur la manière dont les litiges internationaux s'inscrivent dans sa politique externe. Nous analysons en outre l'apport des litiges de l'Union européenne dans le développement du droit international. Le travail est articulé autour de deux axes qui contribuent à l'étude de la cohérence de la stratégie de l'UE au sein de l'ORD. Les politiques de l'Union européenne sont fréquemment mises en cause devant l'Organe de règlement des différends de l'OMC. L'UE utilise les litiges commerciaux internationaux comme un instrument de sa politique commercial, notamment dans le but de promouvoir à l'international ses valeurs non-commerciales et les intérêts primordiaux, ainsi que pour défendre son acquis historique selon les lignes directrices de ses politiques. Ces ambitions de l'Union expliquent la particularité de ses litiges commerciaux internationaux. La première partie analyse la nature spécifique des litiges commerciaux internationaux de l'UE et vise à répondre à la question de savoir par quels moyens l'UE essaye d'imposer son expérience de libéralisation des échanges au niveau international (Partie I). Dans la seconde partie nous procédons à l'analyse du choix des modalités de règlement de différends par l'Union en fonction de différents critères. Ainsi, le mode de règlement d'un différend dépend des parties impliquées dans le conflit et des enjeux en cause. En outre, nous examinons si les conditions institutionnelles de sa participation au règlement des différends commerciaux et les mécanismes spéciaux de la PCC existant au sein de l'UE sont compatibles avec les exigences du droit de l'OMC, et s'ils sont par conséquent « rentables » pour la défense efficace des intérêts de l'UE tant commerciaux que non commerciaux (Partie II). / The main purpose of the research is to identify the European Union's strategy in the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO and to determine the role that international trade disputes play on the European level. Particularly, the EU participation specificity, compared to other Members of the WTO and the reasons for its involvement, are examined in the frame of an analysis on the manner in which international disputes inscribe into its external policy. We also analyze the EU disputes contribution to the development of international law. The research articulates around two main parts which contribute to the study of coherence of the EU strategy in the DSB. EU policies are frequently attacked in front of the DSB. The EU uses recourse to international trade disputes as an instrument to promote to the international level its non trade values and essential interests and to defend its historical acquis according to main directions of its policies. These EU ambitions explain the specificity of its international trade disputes. The first part of the research analyses the particular nature of international trade disputes of the EU and intends to answer the question to know by what means the EU tries to impose its own experience of trade liberalization onto international level (Part I). In the second part we are analyzing the EU choice of modes of dispute settlement depending on different criteria. So, the dispute settlement means depends on the parties to the conflict and the stakes of the dispute. We also examine if institutional conditions for its participation to settlement of international trade disputes and special mechanisms of Common Commercial Policy existing in the EU are compliant with WTO law requirements, and if they are consequently profitable for efficient defense of the EU trade and non trade interests (Part II).

No description available.

No description available.