過去幾年間投資人與地主國爭端仲裁案件量急遽增加，越來越多案件涉及環境、健康、公共衛生等公共利益，與投資人私人利益拉扯日益明顯，引發對ISDS制度諸多疑慮及批評，包括對國家主權之侵害、限制國家公共政策規制權、仲裁程序運作不透明等，亦出現針對ISDS機制進行改革，甚或是廢除投資協定中ISDS條款之聲音。若廢除ISDS機制，當發生國際投資爭端時，回歸舊途循外交手段如協商、調解或訴諸地主國國內法院尋求救濟，是否能有效保障投資人之投資利益不無疑問；若保留ISDS機制，則現行ISDS制度明顯存在缺失亟需改善。本論文透過文獻整理法及歸納比較法，整理比較主要國家其投資協定中ISDS機制之最新發展，發現ISDS制度仍有其存在之必要性，而目前ISDS機制亦已有相當程度變革。ISDS機制未來在短期內可持續朝向維護國家主權及公共政策規制權、改善仲裁程序，包括提升仲裁人之公正性及獨立性、提升仲裁程序透明度及設立上訴機制提升仲裁判斷之可預測性及安定性等方向進行改革；長期而言，則可將追求一全球性多邊規範為目標，雖然在各國經貿政策多以區域整合為核心之現況下，加之多邊談判涉及各國間不同利益非一蹴可幾，但或可依循當前巨型區域協定潮流，在各區域協定內部先進行溝通及妥協，進而互相交流參考彼此規範，漸進融合形成全球一致之共同標準。

伴隨著全球化潮流的來臨，國際直接投資金額大幅成長，相對的，投資爭端案件亦持續增加，國際投資人於是迫切期待一個有效而公平之國際投資爭端解決機制。台灣經過多年經濟發展，已成為全球重要對外投資國家，惟根據調查，台灣廠商發生投資爭端，並不擅於利用國際仲裁維護其本身權益。據此，本論文乃針對國際投資協定有關投資人與地主國爭端解決法制加以研析，並希望能對我政府對外談判及廠商對外投資提供具體實用之對策，惟國際間對於投資人與地主國爭端解決機制研究面向相當廣泛，本文研究主軸則以世界銀行於1965年成立之國際解決投資爭端中心(ICSID)之管轄權為中心。 本論文先自投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之發展背景介紹起，並論述1966年生效的ICSID公約主要條款與其他國際投資協定的關係，其後則進一步從ICSID管轄權角度切入，對ICSID對人(ratione personae)及對物(ratione materiae)管轄權相關法律問題逐一說明，並輔以個案加以研析之。 經過上述分析後，本文繼而對現行投資人與地主國投資爭端解決機制提出評論，在制度面方面，本文對ICSID未來運作提出放寬對物管轄範圍、檢討投資未予定義之作法、雙重國籍認定及外國控制的程度與形式等四項改革建議。此外，本文亦針對ICSID管轄權與BITs最惠國待遇條款問題、BITs不同的爭端解決機制所引發程序衝突問題，以及仲裁判斷衝突(conflicting award)問題，說明ICSID公約與BIT所產生之一些法律問題。在未來展望方面，則分析在多邊投資架構是否為解決現階段投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之新契機，以及WTO納入投資人與地主國爭端解決條款之可能性分析，本文末並對我國政府與廠商現階段利用ICSID機制提出建議。 / While the inexorable trend towards globalization has caused international direct investment to grow dramatically, it has also led to a steady increase in the number of investment disputes. International investors therefore eagerly look forward to the institution of an effective and impartial international investment dispute resolution mechanism. Although Taiwan, through its many years of economic development, has become a major source of foreign investment, surveys show that Taiwan firms are not good at using international arbitration to protect their rights and interests in investment disputes. This study accordingly analyzes the investor-State dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements(IIAs) in an effort to provide concrete, practical strategies for the government of Taiwan in international negotiations and for Taiwanese firms in their foreign investment. Since there is already extensive research literature addressing investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, this study focuses on the jurisdiction of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute(ICSID) under the aegis of the World Bank in 1965. This study first introduces investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms and their development. Next, the study discusses the main provisions of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) came into force on 1966 and its relationship to other IIAs. The study then explains the various legal issues connected with ICSID’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae, and finally, analyzes specific cases. The results of the aforementioned analysis are employed to critique existing investor-State investment dispute settlement mechanisms. This study makes four system-related recommendations, namely that the ICSID convention should: 1) liberalize the scope of ICSID’s subject-matter jurisdiction; 2) review undefined investment methods; 3) recognize dual nationalities; and 4) reform the degree and circumstances of foreign control. This study further discusses legal problems related to the ICSID Convention and bilateral investment treaties (BITs), including conflicting awards, procedural conflicts stemming from different dispute settlement forum in BITs, and problems involving ICSID's jurisdiction and most-favored nation(MFN) provisions in BITs. As for future prospects, the study analyzes whether the current multilateral investment framework can resolve the problems of the current investor-State dispute settlement mechanism, and examines the possibility of incorporating investor-State dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO. This study concludes with recommendations concerning how the government and companies of Taiwan can use the ICSID mechanism at the current stage.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law