國際投資爭端解決制度的改革：近代國家實踐的觀察

The Reform of International Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism: An Analysis of Recent State Practice

傳統上處理投資者與地主國之間投資爭端的投資者－國家爭端解決（Investor-State Dispute Settlement, ISDS）機制，在維護外國投資者由國際投資協定所賦予之權利上具有相當重要的地位。然而，由於投資者經常利用此項制度對於地主國規制權（The Right to Regulate）行使之合法性進行挑戰，加上投資仲裁制度運作上所存在各項弊病，各界對於投資爭端解決機制的批評與檢討聲浪不斷。本文旨在對於投資者──國家爭端解決機制所面臨的正當性危機進行探討，並以近年來國家通過之自由貿易協定（ Free Trade Agreements, FTAs）中的投資專章以及雙邊投資條約（Bilateral Investment Treaties, BITs）為例，分析國家如何透過不同的制度設計，回應各界對於投資者──國家爭端解決機制的批評。

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) plays an indispensable role in protecting the rights granted to foreign investors and their investments under international investment agreement (IIAs). Foreign investors can sue the host state for governmental measures which have negative impacts on the investment and require compensation under ISDS. However, as foreign investors frequently use ISDS to challenge the host state’s right to regulate for the public interest, and there are also growing concerns about the legitimacy of ISDS in reviewing governmental conduct, the mechanism receives unprecedented public attention and criticism. This article analyses the legitimate crisis that ISDS faces and further examines the procedural designs adopted in recent IIAs to explore how states respond to widespread concern about ISDS.