透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.204.196.161
  • 學位論文

論國際投資爭端中公平公正待遇原則與菸草控制公共衛生政策衝突之解決

The Legal Issues of the Conflict between Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard and Public Health Policy of Tobacco Control in International Investment Dispute

指導教授 : 羅昌發
共同指導教授 : 林彩瑜

摘要


消費菸品及暴露於菸害引起人類死亡、疾病與失能,使菸品控制成為全球公共衛生治理的重要課題。為妥善處理全球性菸品擴散之議題,世界衛生組織(World Health Organization)《菸草控制框架公約》(Framework Convention on Tobao Control,簡稱FCTC)於2005年正式生效,期待能藉由菸品管制措施之推行以降低菸草消費量。惟近年來菸商為維護其利益,藉由近來顯著增加的國際投資協定中的投資仲裁程序以挑戰地主國菸控措施的案例屢見不顯;甚至造成了FCTC締約方對於是否要採取更嚴格的菸控措施有所卻步,無形中不當限制了地主國之正當管制權限(right to regulate)。而菸商在投資仲裁的主張中,「公平公正待遇原則」(Fair and Equitable Treatment,簡稱FET)的抽象性質往往成為其用以挑戰地主國措施適法性的利器。如何妥善處理地主國在履行FCTC規定而產生與國際投資協定實體條款的規範衝突,以使地主國追求保障人民健康權之公共利益亦能在國際投資法領域被考量,使實屬一重要課題。 本文首先於第一章闡釋國際投資協定對於地主國之正負面影響,並呈現出國際投資協定與FCTC間所可能產生的規範衝突。而由於FCTC菸草控制措施係構成人權法上保障人民健康權不可或缺之一環,考量到健康權屬於最根本且重要之人權類型,本文認為當人民之健康權與菸商之經濟性權利發生衝突時,即應以保障人民健康權為優先。從而,本文將以此作為指導原則,具體探討國際投資仲裁中最常為投資人所主張之FET可能對於地主國依照FCTC所為之菸控措施造成的挑戰,以避免菸商在投資仲裁上藉由主張FET以阻礙地主國之菸控措施實施、甚至是破壞FCTC之宗旨與目的。 第二章中本文就FET之意義、類型與性質為介紹,並提出地主國依據FCTC所為之菸控措施可能被質疑違反FET的態樣,分別為:違反比例原則、違背投資人正當合理期待以及未給予投資人正當程序保障。第三章並以具體案例,即國際知名菸商Philip Morris控訴烏拉圭與澳洲案,具體呈現出同時身為FCTC與國際投資協定之締約方在面臨此種投資爭端時產生的規範衝突、以及解決此類衝突的必要性。 第四章與第五章本文則分別從解釋論與立法論的角度,提出若干本文認為有助於尊重地主國保障其國民健康權之機制。在第四章解釋論部分,本文主要將著重於仲裁庭從審理程序之始到審理程序進行中所可能運用之方式,包括「管轄權與可審理性」、「應適用法」、「條約解釋」以及「放寬審查標準」等。第五章本文則將從立法論的角度,以求能正本清源地解決地主國保障國民健康權之利益與投資人菸商利益間的衝突,同時彌補前開解釋論中可能處理的極限;在本章下本文將分別探討若干立法上可資參考之選項,包括:自始排除國際投資協定對於菸品投資之適用、排除菸商使用投資仲裁程序、重新建構公平公正待遇原則之內涵、明文將FCTC作為應適用法,以及「菸品例外」條款之設計等方式。藉由上述方式,本文認為應可有效達到避免菸商藉由在投資仲裁上主張FET以挑戰或妨礙地主國執行FCTC規範內容的效果,從而達到尊重FCTC前言中優先保障健康權之目的。

並列摘要


Since the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (“FCTC”) entered into force in 2005, tobacco industries have constantly been concerned with active tobacco control measures adopted by contracting parties, and have thus initiated legal challenges against their implementations, including WTO and investor-state arbitration. Among their claims, Fair and Equitable Treatment (“FET”) is the most beneficial substantive right for investors. FET constitutes as a prominent provision in most international investment treaties. Despite its importance and wide discussion in the literature, how to ensure that a foreign investor’s legitimate expectations would be afforded with “fair” and “equitable” treatment in the face of a host state’s changing regulatory system or governmental measures, is a long-term unsettled issue. This is partly attributed to the fact that most BITs only contain general provisions on FET. The consequence is that investment tribunals are left ample room to interpret FET clauses on their own, which increases the legal uncertainty for investors and host states. Therefore, how to deal such conflict and tension between investors’ protection under FET clauses and the host State’s right to regulate under an international investment agreement is consequently important. In author’s point of view, tobacco control is a human right protection issue, and is quite different from tobacco industry’s investment interests under international investment agreement. The author believes that the value of right to health should overrides tobacco property/investment right since the former is the fundamental human right, without health, other kinds of human right cannot fully realize. To help clarify the correct interpretation and application of FET clauses when faced with host States’ tobacco control measures under the WHO FCTC, this thesis tries to provide systematic approaches to prevent the host state’s right to protect public health from been unduly interfered by tobacco industries. Such approaches in this thesis could be divided into two parts: The first is by means of the “interpretation approach”; namely to suggest arbitral tribunal to utilize certain legal instruments to address such conflict and tension. However, due to some restraints for current legal instruments, this thesis would further argue that the most overhauling proposal is by means of “legislative approach”. This thesis analyzes these approaches, and argues that they may properly prioritize the public health interest of host states, and ultimately reach the goal of pursuing all peoples of the highest possible level of health.

參考文獻


司法院大法官釋字514號解釋理由書
司法院大法官釋字577號解釋理由書
司法院大法官釋字623號解釋理由書
司法院大法官釋字634號解釋理由書
林彩瑜(2014),〈國際投資仲裁程序與公共衛生之關聯:以菸品控制爭端為例〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,43卷3期,頁549-585。

被引用紀錄


林雅淳(2017)。菸草控制框架公約對我國菸品商標審查之影響〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201703153
郭家汝(2016)。論WTO爭端與投資仲裁之平行訴訟調和〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201603812

延伸閱讀