论文部分内容阅读
2006年的“香港居民谢业深诉秘鲁政府案”和2012年的“澳门世能投资公司诉老挝政府案”使得“中国签订的双边投资协议能否自动适用于香港、澳门特别行政区?”这一问题引起了广泛的讨论。两个案件中,仲裁庭和法院基于不同的分析和理由得出了不同的结论。本文认为,根据国际法上对条约适用空间效力的规则,结合两个案例中争议双方提供的各项证据,应得出中国签订的BITs自动适用于香港、澳门的结论。如果中国在国内法上作出了相反的规定,应该采取国际法上的措施,使得“中外BITs不自动适用于香港、澳门的国内法安排”与中国承担的国际义务相一致。
2006 “Hong Kong resident Xie industry v. Peruvian government case” and “2012 Canvas Investment v. Laos government case” made it possible for China to automatically apply the bilateral investment agreement to Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions ? “This issue has aroused extensive discussion. In two cases, the arbitral tribunal and the court reached different conclusions based on different analyzes and reasons. This paper argues that according to the rules of international law on the application of space validity to treaties and the evidence provided by the two parties in the two cases, it is concluded that the BITs signed by China are automatically applicable to Hong Kong and Macao. If China makes the opposite stipulation in its domestic law, it should adopt measures in international law so that the ”domestic and foreign BITs do not automatically apply to Hong Kong and Macao in their domestic legal arrangements" are consistent with China’s international obligations.