earticle

영어

In theory, Foreign investment in service sectors is regulated both by international investment law, especially BITs and FTAs, and International trade law, or more exactly GATS. But their corresponding provisions are not the same. In terms of national treatment, there exist textual discrepancies and different interpretation by trade and investment tribunals. National treatment in GATS applies to “like services and service suppliers” while investment treaties define national treatment as no less favorable treatment “in like circumstances”. When interpreting national treatment, GATT/WTO tribunals take a two-step approach which includes the determination of likeness and no less favorable treatment. The analysis of likeness is to determine whether products or services and service suppliers are in a competitive relationship with each other. The determination of no less favorable treatment demands a group analysis, focusing on whether the contested measures has a disproportionate effect on foreign products. Such analysis reflects the concern of trade law for market access and overall welfare. In contrast, arbitral tribunals disagree with each other on the determination of “like circumstance”. The analysis of no less favorable treatment is based on individual investor, holding that foreign investors are entitled to the most favorable treatment for domestic investors. Moreover, consideration of objective and purposes of contested measured is also permitted. With the development of economic integration, trade and investment are increasingly inseparable and the link between international trade law and investment law is growing stronger. In the context of reform of international investment regime, more and more international investment treaties incorporate such provisions as liberalization and general exceptions. The preamble of some treaties confirms that foreign investors enjoy equal competitive opportunity in domestic market. The inclusion of general exceptions will exert great influence on the jurisprudence of national treatment. At the same time, trade and investment tribunals begin to take similar approach in interpreting national treatment. The WTO appellate body in recent cases seems to open the door for consideration of objectives and purposes of governmental policy in the determination of “no less favorable treatment”, which is similar to practice of investment tribunals. Before the multilateral legislations respond to the potential conflicts between trade and investment law, the judicial dialogue and cross-fertilisation are a feasible way for harmonization of national treatment in the two regimes.

중국어

服务领域的外国直接投资，从理论上来说，既可能受国际投资法，主要是双边投资 条约和区域一体化条约的调整，也可能受国际服务贸易法尤其是GATS的约束。但是 二者的规定，并不完全相同。具体到国民待遇而言，贸易和投资领域在诸方面存在差 异：就文本规定而言，GATS国民待遇的适用对象是“相同服务和服务提供者”，而投资 条约下的国民待遇将外国投资者及其投资享受的待遇限定为“相似情形”下；就争端解 决机构对国民待遇条款的解释和适用而言，GATT/GATS国民待遇条款下的相似性分 析集中在对外国产品或服务和国内产品或服务的竞争条件的分析上，着重关注市场准 入机会和整体福利。对较低待遇的评估是基于外国相同产品或服务这一整体，而非单 一的生产者。而投资仲裁庭对相似性的分析尚未形成统一的标准，对较低待遇的分析 基于单一的外国投资者，且允许对政府措施的背景和目的予以考虑。这种规则和实践 的差异无疑会造成贸易和投资规则适用的潜在冲突。目前除部分区域贸易协定通过不 同方式解决此类冲突，明确其受贸易规则或投资规则或双重规制以外，多边层面缺乏相关规定。伴随着经济一体化的逐步深入，贸易和投资的相互融合，贸易法和投资法 之间的联系进一步增强。在国际投资体制改革的背景下，越来越多的投资条约开始纳 入投资自由化条款和一般例外条款。在投资自由化的背景下，国际投资条约同样以维 护外国投资者在东道国境内的平等竞争机会为其宗旨，而一般例外条款的增加将会对 国民待遇条款的适用法理产生重要影响。与此同时，争端解决机构在国民待遇的解释 和适用路径上也呈现出相似性。尤其从晚近WTO争端解决机构的实践来看，在确定较 低待遇时考察争议措施的目的和宗旨似乎已为WTO 上诉机构所认可。在多边立法尚 未对贸易和投资条约的适用关系予以明确之前，争端解决机构之间的深入沟通和相互 借鉴，是从实体法层面协调国际贸易法和国际投资法下国民待遇义务的现实途径。