Бүтээлийн нэр
THE BALANCE BETWEEN PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPROPRIATION AND THE HOST STATE’S RIGHT TO REGULATE FOR PUBLIC WELFARE (CHINA AND MONGOLIA COMPARED)
禁止征收与东道国为公共福利进行管制的权利之间的平衡（中国与蒙古的比较）
Зохиогч
Тэмдэглэл
International investment agreements include crucial protections of foreign investment. One of them is the prohibition against expropriation. The expropriation protection allows the state to protect its public interest issues with appropriate and reasonable compensation by denying the protection which was offered to the foreign investor.
Moreover, the international investment law recognizes the state sovereignty and the state right to regulate within their territory. The international investment agreements declare that if the state adopts the reasonable, necessary regulation related to protection of public health, safety, morals or welfare, or non-discriminatory, and within the commonly accepted norms and police powers of state, the state has no duty to compensation for breaching the concluded contract’s provisions related to protection of the foreign investment and prohibition against expropriation.
But, sometimes the enjoyment of state regulatory power may cause foreign investors to file a claim against a neutral third-party ruling through an arbitral tribunal, which may result in enforceable awards in favor of foreign investors with an amount of compensation. Even the state’s action of the failure is related to the protection the environment or human health, to maintain sustainable development, to cope with financial sever crises, or to provide its population with basic utilities, which may be linked with the idea of public interest or public welfare.
Thus, through this thesis, I attempt to illustrate what the state right to regulate is, how to distinguish between the indirect expropriation with compensation and without compensation, and how to draw the balancing line between the prohibition against expropriation and the state right to regulate in investment treaties and arbitral practice.
To address this problem, this thesis deals some possible solutions, which are the substantive approach, the procedural approach, including police power doctrine, sole effect doctrine, and proportionality test, and the national pre-examining mechanism.
Энэхүү магистрын дипломын ажлаар төрийн засаглал тогтоох эрх гэж юу болох, нөхөн олговортой болон нөхөн олговоргүйгээр гадаадын хөрөнгө оруулагчийн өмч, хөрөнгийг албадан хураах зохицуулалтын талаар, мөн өмч, хөрөнгийг албадан хураан авах зохицуулалт ба төрийн засаглал тогтоох эрхийн харилцан хамаарлыг олон улсын болон дотоодын эрх зүйд хэрхэн зохицуулж буйг холбогдох хууль тогтоомж, хөрөнгө оруулалтын гэрээнүүд, арбитрын практик, шүүхийн шийдвэрүүдийг дүн шинжилгээ хийх замаар тодруулсан болно.
Бүтээлийн хэлбэр
Магистрын зэрэг хамгаалсан бүтээл
Бүтээлийн товч
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
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
Түлхүүр үг
International Investment law, Protection of the foreign investment, the Right to regulate, Prohibition against expropriation
Бичигдсэн огноо
2019.06.02
Хуудсын тоо
101
Хэл
Англи
Үнэ
10000 төгрөг
Бүтээл
Байршуулсан огноо
2021-02-25
Товч мэдээлэл үзсэн
158
Бүрэн эхээр нь үзсэн
Эшлэлийн тоо
235
Энэ бүтээлийг эшлэх загвар
The Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities (OSCOLA)
Цуглуулганд нэмэх
Бүтээлийг цуглуулгандaa нэмэхийн тулд нэвтэрсэн байх шаардлагатай.
Бүртгэлтэй бол нэвтрэх | Бүртгэлгүй бол бүртгүүлэх
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
