外國人私有財產之間接徵收

Indirect Expropriation in International Law

在國際法的領域裡，外國人私有財產的公用徵收基本上可區分為直接與間接徵收兩類，前者係指資本輸入國家基於某些政策考量，而對外資企業擁有之資產，採行剝奪措施，導致外國投資者喪失其資產所有權；至於後者則是國家雖未剝奪外資企業的財產所有權，但其所採取之干預措施，卻使相關資產失去正常的經濟效益，或是外國投資者對其擁有之資產，已達無法正常使用、收益或處分的程度。在二十世紀的大部分時間中，凡涉及外國投資資產遭受徵收者，約略多屬所謂的直接徵收。惟在過去的二、三十年間，涉及間接徵收的爭端個案，被提送至國際爭端解決機制者，已有取代直接徵收個案的趨勢。參照近年間的國家實踐、學術研究和國際仲裁實務，間接徵收被認定為應該具有如下要素，亦即其屬政府行為、對於外國人之資產造成干預、導致相關資產的經濟價值遭受嚴重減損等。本論文擬探討間接徵收的概念及其於國際法制度裡的態樣、多邊或雙邊條約所界定的判斷標準、以及其與規律性措施的區別。

It has long been recognized in international law that expropriation or taking of aliens’ property can be divided into two different types: direct and indirect. While the former takes the form of nationalization, physical seizure of assets or legislated transfer of assets to the state, the latter involves total or near-total deprivation of property but without a formal transfer of title or outright seizure. Nowadays direct expropriation has become rare and expropriation of foreign-owned property comes mainly in the form of indirect expropriation. On the basis of State practice, academic research and arbitral awards in recent years, indirect expropriation is generally seen as an act attributable to the States which interferes with the property rights of aliens and causes them lose all or most of their value, even though the owner retains the legal title. This article is intended to explore the most relevant antecedents of the concept of indirect expropriation, its appearance in the international legal system, the inclusion in multilateral and bilateral treaties and the effect that the concept is having on the regulatory activity of governments.