英文摘要 |
"In recent years,WTO dispute settlement and international investment arbitrations often come across cases concerning security exceptions and a majority of them concern non-traditional security issues. General international law frequently get adopted in the interpretation of security clauses,and they function in three major ways: tribunals consider BITs to be self-sustaining and consequently refuse to supplement it with anything;acknowledging that security exceptions could be interpreted or supplemented and find supplementary rules from customary international law,general principles or treaty interpretation rules; absorbing treaty law into customary international law and de facto negate the application of treaty law.Since it is skeptical that international investment law could ever be self-sustaining,security exceptions are primary rules of international law and special law compared to general international law, the first and third approaches are jurisprudentially faulty. As to the proper way of interpretation,international consensus include a deference to member states’designation of essential security interests and a judicial restraint upon security exceptions with an attitude of objective textualism.As to China,our judicial and treaty negotiation practices support a limited interpretation of security exception.Therefore,it is advisable to adopt such general principles as due process and non-discrimination in the interpretation of security exceptions along with customary international law." |