Acknowledgement
中文摘要
Abstract
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS
List of Cases
1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the research
1.2. Statement of the research problem
1.3. Outlines of chapters
1.4. Introduction of the foreign investment
1.4.1. Definition of the investment
1.4.2. Types of investment
1.4.3. Categories of the foreign direct investment
1.4.4. Advantage and disadvantage of the foreign direct investment
2. CHAPTER 2: THE PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPROPRIATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
2.1. General Standard of Treatment and Protections of Foreign Investments and Investors in International Investment Law
2.1.1. Prohibition against expropriation
2.1.1.1. Direct Expropriation
2.1.1.1.1 SD Myers v. Government of Canada
2.1.1.1.2 National Grid plc v. The Argentine Republic
2.1.1.2. Indirect Expropriation
2.1.1.2.1 Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Tippetts, Abbett, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA
2.1.1.3. Creeping Expropriation
2.1.1.3.1 Generation Ukraine Inc v. Ukraine
2.1.1.4. Conditions for Expropriation
2.1.1.4.1 Public purpose
2.1.1.4.1.1. ADC v. Hungary
2.1.1.4.2 Non-discrimination
2.1.1.4.2.1 GAMI Investments Inc v. Mexico
2.1.1.4.2.2 ADC v. Hungary
2.1.1.4.3 Due process of law
2.1.1.4.3.1 ADC v. Hungary
2.1.1.4.4 Reasonable Compensation
2.2. Conclusion
3. CHAPTER 3: THE PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPROPRIATION IN NATIONAL LAW
3.1. Introduction of the People’s Republic of China’s investment regime
3.1.1. Current overview and legislation related to foreign direct investment
3.1.2. National Security Review System
3.2. Introduction of the Mongolia’s investment regime and protection
3.2.1. Current overview and legislation related to foreign direct investment
3.3. Overview of the People’s Republic of China’s and Mongolia’s investment regime and the prohibition against expropriation
3.4. Conclusion
4. CHAPTER 4: NATURE OF THE STATE’S RIGHT TO REGULATE
4.1. Introduction
4.2. State Sovereignty
4.3. Host state’s right to regulatory power
4.3.1. Saluka Investment BV v. Czech Republic
4.3.2. Marvin Feldman v. Mexico
4.3.3. ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. The Republic of Hungary
4.4. Measures of the right to regulate
4.4.1. Public order and morality
4.4.1.1. Aguas v. Argentina
4.4.2. Protection of the public health
4.4.2.1. Philip Morris Asia Limited and Australian case.
4.4.3. Protection of the environment
4.4.3.1. Iron Rhine Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
4.4.3.2. U.S.A – Shrimp case
4.4.4. Protection of social and economic legitimate objective
4.4.4.1. Continental Causality Company v. Argentina
4.5. “Right to regulate” in International Investment Agreement
4.6. “Right to regulate” in National law
4.6.1. “Right to regulate” in People’s Republic of China
4.6.2. “Right to regulate” in Mongolia
4.7. Conclusion
5. CHAPTER 5: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPROPRIATION AND THE HOST STATE’S RIGHT TO REGULATE
5.1. Introduction
5.2. A balance between the rights of investors and host States
5.3. Substantive Approach to Balance the Conflict between Prohibition against Expropriation and the Regulatory Power of a Host State
5.4. Procedural Approach to Balance the Conflict between Prohibition against Expropriation and the Regulatory Power of a Host State
5.4.1. Sole-Effect Doctrine
5.4.1.1. Phelps Dodge Corp v Islamic Republic of Iran
5.4.1.2. Pope&Talbot and Canada
5.4.2. Police Powers Doctrine
5.4.2.1. Saluka Investment BV v Czech Republic
5.4.2.2. Too v. Greater Modesto Insurance Associates case
5.4.2.3. Fireman’s Fund v. Mexico
5.4.2.4. Methanex Corporation v. United States of America
5.4.3. Proportionality Test
5.4.3.1. Suitability for a Legitimate Government Purpose
5.4.3.1.1 Saluka Investment BV v. Czech Republic
5.4.3.1.2 Suez InterAgua v. Argentina
5.4.3.2. Necessity
5.4.3.2.1 Korea-Beef and EC-Asbestos case
5.4.3.2.2 Cassis de Dijon case
5.4.3.2.3 Continental Casualty v Argentina
5.4.3.3. Proportionality stricto sensu – Cost-benefit analysis
5.4.3.3.1 Brazil-Retreaded Tyres case
5.5. Applying Proportionality Test in the Investment Protection Cases
5.5.1 Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A v. United Mexican States
5.5.2 Methanex Corporation v. The United States of America
5.6. Conclusion
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
Bibliography
Бүртгэлтэй бол нэвтрэх | Бүртгэлгүй бол бүртгүүлэх
ШИНЭЭР НЭМЭГДСЭН
Төмөрбаатар Бадрах Хуулиар тогтоосон хүүгийн ойлголт, онцлог
Төмөрбаатар Бадрах Төвлөрсөн шүүхээс төрөлжсөн шүүх рүү
Төмөрбаатар Бадрах Хэрэг хянан шийдвэрлэх ажиллагааг иргэдэд ойртуулах нь
Төмөрбаатар Бадрах Хуулийн этгээдэд эрүүгийн хариуцлага хүлээлгэх зарим асуудал
Пүрэвсүрэн Ганзориг Нийгмийн аж ахуй эрхлэлт- хөгжлийн асуудлыг шийдвэрлэх арга зам