University of Macau / Faculty of Law

The way the world creates and distributes energy is changing. In 2015 77% of the world’s new power generation installations were either wind or solar PV. These forms of energy are by their nature intermittent – the sun will never shine 24 hours a day. With the rise of these intermittent energy sources, the need to store the energy they create has also risen. Batteries are emerging as a popular choice to solve this problem, with some analysts predicting that by 2024 battery energy storage will reach a scale of 12.5 gigawatts and become an industry with $165 billion in annual revenue. The increase in electric vehicles has caused the average price of lithium-ion batteries to plummet in recent years with expectations of this trend continuing. Managing the energy stored in many, distributed batteries is difficult, but when done right has numerous benefits. This business plan outlines the way Energy Max will provide a software platform to manage battery energy storage. Energy Max plans to sell its software directly to battery energy storage system manufacturers. The company will leverage its connections in Asia in order to focus on potential customers in China and Taiwan. By pursuing this strategy, the company can become a trusted partner to these manufacturers in helping them build a more complete solution to provide end-users. In return for providing the software, customers will be required to pay a one-time integration fee as well as a $15/kWh fee for batteries utilizing the software. This business plans assumes the first year of operations will be spent both building the product and developing Energy Max’s pipeline of future customers. In Year 2 the company will have two customers, but deployment of batteries with the software platform will still be low due to the likely cautious nature of customers. Under a normal growth scenario, the company will grow to Year 5 when Energy Max will attract 18 customers and have its software on 1% of worldwide Li-ion energy storage installations. Following this plan will require $3.5 million of outside funding and positive net income after tax in Year 4.

隨著WTO爭端解決機構近年來的實踐，許多制度性問題紛紛浮現，特別是WTO爭端解決小組或上訴機構在反傾銷爭端中審查基準實踐上所引發之爭議。批評者主要認為上訴機構於反傾銷規範之法律解釋上不當適用解釋規則，並未遵循反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條之規範。另外，上訴機構實質上近乎重新審理被訴會員之法律見解，似乎違反第17.6(ii)條之規範意旨。本文嘗試整理相關經由WTO上訴機構裁決之反傾銷爭端，觀察及彙整第17.6(ii)條於現行運作中之實踐情形，並檢視上述兩項爭議之正反意見。經分析後發現，上述兩項爭議皆涉及不同之政策考量與WTO組織間的互動。易言之，除爭端解決機構對於協定條文之法律解釋外，偏重與選擇不同之政策考量做為正當性基礎，將決定著審查基準之面貌。在進一步分析並檢討在反傾銷制度下可能影響審查基準之政策價值後，本文認為WTO爭端解決機制為維繫其準司法機關之正當性與確保經由多邊架構所帶來之合作利益，有統一法律解釋與重新審理被控訴會員之法律解釋之必要。另外，反傾銷協定第17.6(ii)條審查基準之解釋上，不宜採取其立法來源—美國法Chevron doctrine—之規範內涵。同時，為避免反傾銷制度遭濫用成為貿易保護政策之工具，應賦予WTO爭端解決機構於審理反傾銷爭端時較為自主之法律解釋權力。然而，基於適度尊重WTO會員主權之考量與司法自制之要求，本文建議，WTO爭端解決機構在審理反傾銷案件時，除須正確地援引並靈活運用國際法上習慣解釋規則外，更需適度參照第17.6(ii)條之立法目的，藉由嚴格適用WTO協定，以充實其所採取審查基準之正當性基礎。 / With practices of WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the institutional issues on Standards of Review have emerged, especially on WTO Anti-dumping disputes. Contestations are focus on whether Appellate Body has mal-applied rules of interpretations on Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) as to go beyond Article 17.6(ii). Moreover, Critics query whether Appellate Body De Novo reviewed member’s legal interpretations as to disregard purpose of Article 17.6(ii). By examining relevant anti-dumping penal and appellate body reports, current modes of practices on ADA Article 17.6(ii) are concluded, and probed to its different critiques. Further, issues of such are result from policy considerations of Standards of Review under Anti-Dumping System. In other words, apart from penal and appellate body’s interpretations on ADA, different policy ends will influence current practices of Standards of Review. Consequently, the article checks on and assays on relevant policy justifications of deferential standards of review under anti-dumping system. Concluded, for retaining its institution justifications and ensuring the cooperation gains under multilateral approach, WTO dispute settlement institutes have the necessities in de novo review and leveling legal interpretations. Moreover, due to the different characters, the Chevron mode interpretations on standards of review is without analogy to ADA article 17.6(ii); meanwhile, for preventing distorting antidumping measures as trade protection tools, WTO dispute settlement institutes should have much room on discretion of reviewing members’ ADA legal interpretations. However, in respecting WTO Member’s sovereignty and the requiring of judicial restraint, when taking the standards of review on examining anti-dumping disputes, WTO dispute settlement institutes would strictly and nimbly retain customary rules of interpretation of public international law with considering purposes of ADA article 17.6(ii).

工業自動化硬體製造商的產品提供，未來會往「硬體原件銷售」（Component Products）與「整體解決方案」（Solution Products）兩大方向去經營發展，工業自動化硬體製造商若想要推廣含有其硬體原件的「整體解決方案」時，面臨的一個『Make』（自製策略：硬體製造商專精硬體的研發，而SI和VAR專精於軟體知識與整合技術）與『Buy』（外包策略：即硬體製造商專注於硬體效能提升，軟體及整合部分交給SI、VAR和軟體廠商）之選擇。本研究即以此為出發點，以研華科技為個案研究的對象，使用邱志聖博士的四C架構，分析探討工業自動化硬體製造商的不同通路合作方案對其與通路商之間交易成本的影響。 本研究以探索性研究的方式，透過實際個案公司的人員訪談，輔以文獻佐 證，進行工業自動化硬體製造商自己直接接觸最終使用者（即自製策略，Make）或使用通路商去接觸最終使用者（即外包策略，Buy）的4C分析；工業自動化硬體製造商採取的通路策略對「工業自動化硬體製造商與通路商關係」交易成本之4C分析與工業自動化硬體製造商採取的通路策略對「工業自動化硬體製造商與最終使用者關係」交易成本之4C分析。此外，考量工業自動化硬體製造商面對的顧客是來自不同產業和不同國家，因此本研究把國家差異因素納入考量作一討論，發展了六項相關命題，並給予工業自動化硬體廠商對通路商採取的通路策略之建議。總結而言，未來工業自動化硬體製造商除了繼續加強硬體原件的性能，也可以與SI和VAR一起合作提供整體解決方案，並且針對不同種類的通路商，設計不同合作方案，給予不同的激勵制度；加強建立與SI、VAR之間的專屬資產，使專屬陷入成本提高；並且也要努力下降最終使用者的道德危機成本。此外工業自動化硬體製造商應該多舉辦可以同時與「通路商」與「最終使用者」建立關係的活動，最後，工業自動化製造商在進入國際市場時，也應多善用通路商來了解當地特色，選擇最適通路經營策略，獲取利潤。

No description available.

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

面對全球化浪潮，各個產業供應鏈不斷被迫縮短，規模小的製造商、品牌商遭遇併購，貿易商在這樣的過程中，遭遇去中間化，而企業的轉型迫在眉睫。本研究旨在探討在「去中間化」危機中，企業轉型是否成為貿易商能在這波浪潮生存並且創造企業新高峰的重要因素，而貿易商如何透過內部的組織結構調整，建立新的內、外部溝通方式，以專案管理的形式與客戶維繫關係並發揮內部員工的最大效益，來完成企業轉型，再透過提供整個產業鏈其他製造商及品牌商在營運上的解決方案形式，提升企業自身價值。研究主要透過深度訪談已經營台灣自行車零組件及成車廠為業務的貿易商L公司，了解其在近四十年來，如何從貿易商的全盛時期，隨著大環境改變而轉向衰退，二代企業家決心進行企業轉型，從貿易商轉型為企業解決方案提供商，成為製造商與品牌商之間重要的價值提供者，贏得雙方的信任，奠定自身在產業鏈中的地位。研究結果指出貿易商在進行企業轉型時，透過內部的組織架構調整，從功能式組織架構調整為專案式組織架構，最後以矩陣式組織架構作為組織運作最有效率的形式。進而調整組織溝通，內部的垂直溝通轉變為水平溝通，而外部的正式溝通也增加了非正式溝通，提升效率達成客戶的需求，獲得新的市場機會。後續建議台灣貿易商在進行企業轉型時，可以透過成立子公司來將業務進行區隔，並將轉型後的企業解決方案擴展至各個產業，讓企業在更妥善的轉型規劃下，能更永續並且長期的經營。

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.

No description available.