ISDS机制下投资定义问题研究

A Study on the Definition of Investment under the ISDS Mechanism

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系：

国际法学院

作者：

沈士竣

导师：

梁爽

导师单位：

国际法学院

学位：

硕士

语种：

中文

关键词：

国际投资仲裁, 投资协定, 投资定义, ISDS, ICSID

摘要：

本文以投资者—国家争端解决机制（Investor-State Dispute Settlement，ISDS）为背景，围绕国际投资法中“投资”的法律定义及其认定标准展开系统分析。由于《关于解决国家和其他国家国民之间投资争端公约》（Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States，以下简称为“《华盛顿公约》”）未对投资作出明确界定，而统一的多边投资规则亦长期缺位，投资认定标准在制度运行过程中逐渐形成由条约文本与仲裁实践共同塑造的双重规范结构。在条约规范层面，本文通过比较双边投资协定（Bilateral Investment Treaty，BIT）、区域性投资协定（Regional Investment Agreement，RIA）以及多边投资协定（Multilateral Agreement on Investment，MAI）中的相关条款，对相关协定中投资定义条款的主要类型及其结构特点进行了系统梳理。整体来看，当前条约文本大体形成了两种基本的定义路径：一种以企业为核心，另一种以资产为核心。然而，虽然不同投资条约中的具体表述上存在一定差异，但其大多并未对投资定义的范围设定严格而明确的外部界限。这种设计一方面有助于适应不断变化且日益多样化的跨境投资形态，另一方面也使仲裁庭在解释和适用相关条约条款时保有相对较大的裁量空间。在仲裁实践层面，本文重点分析了ISDS体系中投资认定标准的形成与发展。在《华盛顿公约》未作明确定义的情况下，仲裁庭逐渐形成两种投资认定路径：一是强调当事方在投资协定中的意思自治，以条约文本为主要判断依据；二是在结合条约文本的基础上，通过归纳投资活动的一般特征，对投资的概念进行客观意义上的界定。在此背景下，广受引用的萨利尼测试（Salini Test，以下称为“Salini标准”）应运而生。该标准在一定程度上弥补了制度空白，提高了投资认定的可操作性，但由于ISDS机制下并不存在严格的先例约束原则，不同仲裁庭在后续案件中对其适用方式并不一致，实践中逐渐形成严格适用、灵活适用乃至弱化适用等多种路径。在此基础上，本文进一步考察了关于投资定义外延的若干关键问题，包括投资与贸易活动的区别、先期费用能否构成投资、判决或裁决能否构成投资、投资的国内法合法性要求以及投资活动与东道国领土之间的联系等。相关仲裁实践表明，仲裁庭通常通过综合审查案涉投资活动的特征来对这些问题进行具体判断，从而在个案层面对投资定义的外延范围作出一定限制。随着国际投资活动形态的持续演进，投资定义本身也逐步呈现出新的演变趋势。一方面，投资的涵盖范围不断扩展，各类新兴资产形态以及创新性的交易结构正逐渐进入制度讨论的视野；另一方面，可持续发展等理念的逐步兴起，也推动学界与实践界开始重新思考投资保护与公共利益之间的关系。围绕数据投资、绿色投资以及可持续发展等概念的讨论，正在对传统意义上的投资定义形成新的冲击，并促使投资定义的内容在维持开放性的同时，进一步探索与规范约束之间的平衡。在此背景下，我国需要从条约谈判、立法技术、价值导向、制度建构和规则话语权等层面，对ISDS机制下的投资定义所存在的问题作出回应。而对上述问题的系统梳理，也有助于更加深入地理解国际投资法中投资定义所承担的制度功能及其演进方向，并为未来相关规则的进一步完善提供一定的理论参考。

参考文献：

一、中文参考文献（一）著作类1.[德]鲁道夫·多尔查、[奥]克里斯托弗·朔伊尔：《国际投资法原则》，祁欢、施进译，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2014。2.陈安、蔡从燕：《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2007。3.韩立余：《国际投资法》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2018。4.余劲松：《国际投资法》，北京：法律出版社，2022。（二）论文类5.季烨：国际投资条约中投资定义的扩张及其限度，《北大法律评论》，2011年第1期。6.詹晓宁，葛顺奇：国际投资协定：“投资”和“投资者”的范围与定义，《国际经济合作》，2003年第1期。7.王晓峰，张晓敏：“一带一路”国家对“投资”的认定研究——以中亚国家仲裁实践为例，《“一带一路”法律研究》，2022年第1期。8.朱文龙：国际投资领域投资定义的发展及对中国的启示，《东方法学》，2014年第2期。9.段辉艳，陈雨晴：国际投资协定中“投资”定义的规范与风险问题探析，《商展经济》，2020年第10期。10.付汝峰：论国际投资条约中投资的定义，《法制与社会》，2016年第1期。11.肖灵敏：中欧国际投资规则中投资定义的反思——以中国与欧盟双边投资协定谈判为视角，《社会科学家》，2018年第10期。12.何芳：论ICSID仲裁中的投资定义，《河北法学》，2018年第10期。13.韦凤巧：国际投资条约中的投资定义研究，广西大学硕士论文，2011年。14.张庆麟：论国际投资协定中“投资”的性质与扩大化的意义，《法学家》，2011年第6期。15.汤霞：ICSID仲裁中投资定义的扩张及其反思——兼论中国双重身份的应对，《南京大学法律评论》，2017年第2期。16.凌晔：ICSID仲裁管辖权扩张研究，苏州大学博士论文，2021年。17.吕吉海，胡晓红：国际投资协定中“投资”定义条款的重构——以中国与“一带一路”沿线国家BITs为视角，《科学决策》，2021年第8期。18.张生：国际投资法制框架下的跨境数据流动：保护、例外和挑战，《当代法学》，2019年第5期。19.赵丹、娄卫阳：数据的投资适格性及中国因应，《社会科学家》，2022年第10期。20.黄世席：可持续发展视角下国际投资争端解决机制的革新，《当代法学》，2016年第2期。21.黄琳琳：论国际投资条约的可持续发展转变及其困境，《上海对外经贸大学学报》，2019年第4期。22.宁红玲：论可持续发展视角下的国际投资定义条款，《环境法评论》，2019年第1期。23.于文婕：双边投资协定“投资”定义之范式解析——兼论中美双边投资协定之取舍，《现代经济探讨》，2015年第2期。24.王光、卢进勇：中国双边投资协定：历史演进与发展趋势，《国际经济合作》，2019年第2期。25.黄钰：ICSID管辖的双重限制体系：本义、实践与改革，《武大国际法评论》，2024年第6期。26.徐树：国际投资仲裁庭管辖权扩张的路径、成因及应对，《清华法学》，2017年第3期。27.赵骏：国际投资仲裁中“投资”定义的张力和影响，《现代法学》，2014年第3期。28.于文婕：论“投资”定义缺失对ICSID仲裁管辖的影响——《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端的公约》第25条的正当解读，《学海》，2013年第5期。29.叶锐、高峰：数据资产的适格投资认定及中国因应，《汕头大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2024年第8期。30.张倩雯：国际投资中数据的性质判断及保护，《法学》，2024年第7期。31.张渝：国际投资法框架下数据资产的适格性研究，《电子知识产权》，2023年第2期。32.宋俊荣：国际投资协定对数据规制措施的可适用性：以适格投资为中心，《环球法律评论》，2023年第2期。二、外文参考文献（一）著作类33.Dominique Carreau, Thiebaut Flory and Patrick Juillard, Droit international économique, Paris, LGDJ, 1990.34.Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2001.35.Stephan W. Schill ed., Schreuer’s Commentary on the ICSID Convention: A Commentary on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Cambridge University Press, 2022.（二）论文类36.Alex Grabowski, “The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Convention: A Defense of Salini,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 15: No. 1, 2014.37.Georges R. Delaume, “Le Centre International pour le Règlement des Différends relatifs aux Investissements (CIRDI),” Journal du droit international, Vol. 109, 1982.38.Gaillard E, “Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in ICSID Practice,” in Binder C. et al. eds., International Investment Law for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, 2009.39.I.F.I. Shihata and A.R. Parra, “The Experience of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: ICSID Review,” Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 14, 1999.40.Susan D. Franck, “The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 73, 2005.（三）案例类41.Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction.42.Electrabel S.A. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability.43.Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/2, Award.44.FEDAX N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.45.Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction.46.GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16, Award.47.Raymond Charles Eyre and Montrose Developments (Private) Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/25, Award.48.Romak S.A. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, PCA Case No. 2007-07/AA280, Award.49.Christian Doutremepuich and Antoine Doutremepuich v. Mauritius, PCA Case No. 2018-37, Award on Jurisdiction.50.Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award.51.Poštová banka, a.s. and Istrokapital SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award.52.Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award.53.Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award.54.LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Award.55.Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award.56.Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award.57.SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.58.Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan(I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction.59.Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction.60.Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction.61.Saipem S.p.A. v. People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures.62.Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction.63.Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment.64.Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award.65.Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award.66.Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award.67.Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award.68.RSM Production Corporation and others v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award.69.Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction.70.Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Award.71.Pope & Talbot v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Interim Award.72.S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award.73.Petrobart Ltd. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No. 126/2003, Arbitral Award.74.William Nagel v. The Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 049/2002, Final Award.75.Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, Award.76.Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award.77.ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/2, Award.78.White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, UNCITRAL, Final Award.79.Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award.80.Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award.81.Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction.82.Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award.83.SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.84.Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, a.s. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.85.Bayview Irrigation District and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/1, Award.86.The Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction.87.Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et.al. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award.（四）国际组织文件88.Scope and Definition, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11 (Vol. II), 1999.

学科：

国际法学

提交日期：

2026-08-28

引用参考：

沈士竣. ISDS机制下投资定义问题研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2026.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • ISDS机制下投资定义问题研究
  • dc.title
  • A Study on the Definition of Investment under the ISDS Mechanism
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20230301091008
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 沈士竣
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2026
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 国际经济法
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 梁爽
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 国际法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 国际投资仲裁,投资协定,投资定义,ISDS,ICSID
  • dc.subject
  • International Investment Arbitration; Investment Treaties; Definition of Investment; ISDS; ICSID
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 本文以投资者—国家争端解决机制（Investor-State Dispute Settlement，ISDS）为背景，围绕国际投资法中“投资”的法律定义及其认定标准展开系统分析。由于《关于解决国家和其他国家国民之间投资争端公约》（Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States，以下简称为“《华盛顿公约》”）未对投资作出明确界定，而统一的多边投资规则亦长期缺位，投资认定标准在制度运行过程中逐渐形成由条约文本与仲裁实践共同塑造的双重规范结构。在条约规范层面，本文通过比较双边投资协定（Bilateral Investment Treaty，BIT）、区域性投资协定（Regional Investment Agreement，RIA）以及多边投资协定（Multilateral Agreement on Investment，MAI）中的相关条款，对相关协定中投资定义条款的主要类型及其结构特点进行了系统梳理。整体来看，当前条约文本大体形成了两种基本的定义路径：一种以企业为核心，另一种以资产为核心。然而，虽然不同投资条约中的具体表述上存在一定差异，但其大多并未对投资定义的范围设定严格而明确的外部界限。这种设计一方面有助于适应不断变化且日益多样化的跨境投资形态，另一方面也使仲裁庭在解释和适用相关条约条款时保有相对较大的裁量空间。在仲裁实践层面，本文重点分析了ISDS体系中投资认定标准的形成与发展。在《华盛顿公约》未作明确定义的情况下，仲裁庭逐渐形成两种投资认定路径：一是强调当事方在投资协定中的意思自治，以条约文本为主要判断依据；二是在结合条约文本的基础上，通过归纳投资活动的一般特征，对投资的概念进行客观意义上的界定。在此背景下，广受引用的萨利尼测试（Salini Test，以下称为“Salini标准”）应运而生。该标准在一定程度上弥补了制度空白，提高了投资认定的可操作性，但由于ISDS机制下并不存在严格的先例约束原则，不同仲裁庭在后续案件中对其适用方式并不一致，实践中逐渐形成严格适用、灵活适用乃至弱化适用等多种路径。在此基础上，本文进一步考察了关于投资定义外延的若干关键问题，包括投资与贸易活动的区别、先期费用能否构成投资、判决或裁决能否构成投资、投资的国内法合法性要求以及投资活动与东道国领土之间的联系等。相关仲裁实践表明，仲裁庭通常通过综合审查案涉投资活动的特征来对这些问题进行具体判断，从而在个案层面对投资定义的外延范围作出一定限制。随着国际投资活动形态的持续演进，投资定义本身也逐步呈现出新的演变趋势。一方面，投资的涵盖范围不断扩展，各类新兴资产形态以及创新性的交易结构正逐渐进入制度讨论的视野；另一方面，可持续发展等理念的逐步兴起，也推动学界与实践界开始重新思考投资保护与公共利益之间的关系。围绕数据投资、绿色投资以及可持续发展等概念的讨论，正在对传统意义上的投资定义形成新的冲击，并促使投资定义的内容在维持开放性的同时，进一步探索与规范约束之间的平衡。在此背景下，我国需要从条约谈判、立法技术、价值导向、制度建构和规则话语权等层面，对ISDS机制下的投资定义所存在的问题作出回应。而对上述问题的系统梳理，也有助于更加深入地理解国际投资法中投资定义所承担的制度功能及其演进方向，并为未来相关规则的进一步完善提供一定的理论参考。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • This thesis provides a systematic analysis of the legal definition of “investment” and the standards for its determination in international investment law within the framework of the Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. As the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (hereinafter the “ICSID Convention”) does not provide an explicit definition of investment, and a unified multilateral investment regime has long been absent, the criteria for determining investment have gradually evolved during the operation of the system into a dual normative structure jointly shaped by treaty texts and arbitral practice.At the level of treaty norms, a comparative analysis is conducted of relevant provisions contained in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), Regional Investment Agreements (RIAs), and Multilateral Agreements on Investment (MAIs) in order to systematically examine the principal types and structural features of investment definition clauses in these agreements. Overall, contemporary treaty texts have broadly developed two fundamental definitional approaches: one centered on enterprises and the other centered on assets. Although specific formulations vary among different investment treaties, most of them do not establish strict or clearly defined external limits on the scope of investment. On the one hand, such an approach allows the treaty framework to accommodate the constantly evolving and increasingly diversified forms of cross-border investment. On the other hand, it leaves arbitral tribunals with relatively broad discretion when interpreting and applying the relevant treaty provisions.At the level of arbitral practice, the analysis focuses on the formation and development of the standards for determining investment within the ISDS system. In the absence of an explicit definition in the ICSID Convention, arbitral tribunals have gradually developed two principal approaches to investment determination. The first emphasizes party autonomy in investment treaties and relies primarily on treaty provisions as the basis for determining whether a particular activity constitutes an investment. The second, while taking treaty provisions into account, seeks to define investment in an objective sense by identifying the general characteristics of investment activities. Within this context, the widely cited Salini Test emerged. To a certain extent, this test filled a normative gap and enhanced the operability of investment determination. However, because the ISDS mechanism does not operate under a strict doctrine of precedent, arbitral tribunals have not applied the test consistently in subsequent cases. As a result, different approaches have gradually developed in practice, including strict application, flexible application, and even the attenuation of the test.Building on this analysis, the study further examines several key issues concerning the outer boundaries of the concept of investment, including the distinction between investment and trade activities, whether preliminary expenditures may constitute an investment, whether judicial decisions or arbitral awards can themselves qualify as investments, the requirement of legality under domestic law, and the relationship between investment activities and the territory of the host State. Relevant arbitral practice indicates that tribunals typically address these issues through a comprehensive assessment of the characteristics of the investment activity at issue, thereby imposing certain limitations on the outer scope of the investment definition on a case-by-case basis.With the continuing evolution of international investment activities, the definition of investment itself has begun to display new developmental trends. On the one hand, the scope of investment continues to expand, as various emerging forms of assets and innovative transactional structures are gradually entering the field of institutional discussion. On the other hand, the growing prominence of concepts such as sustainable development has prompted both scholars and practitioners to reconsider the relationship between investment protection and the public interest. Discussions surrounding data investment, green investment, and sustainable development are increasingly challenging traditional understandings of investment and are encouraging further exploration of a balance between openness and normative constraints within the concept of investment.Against this backdrop, China needs to respond to the issues arising from the definition of investment under the ISDS mechanism through multiple dimensions, including treaty negotiations, legislative techniques, normative orientations, institutional design, and the shaping of rule-making discourse. A systematic examination of these issues also contributes to a deeper understanding of the institutional functions performed by the concept of investment in international investment law and its evolving trajectory, while providing theoretical references for the further development and refinement of relevant rules in the future.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-06-04
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2026-05-29
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 一、中文参考文献（一）著作类1.[德]鲁道夫·多尔查、[奥]克里斯托弗·朔伊尔：《国际投资法原则》，祁欢、施进译，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2014。2.陈安、蔡从燕：《国际投资法的新发展与中国双边投资条约的新实践》，上海：复旦大学出版社，2007。3.韩立余：《国际投资法》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2018。4.余劲松：《国际投资法》，北京：法律出版社，2022。（二）论文类5.季烨：国际投资条约中投资定义的扩张及其限度，《北大法律评论》，2011年第1期。6.詹晓宁，葛顺奇：国际投资协定：“投资”和“投资者”的范围与定义，《国际经济合作》，2003年第1期。7.王晓峰，张晓敏：“一带一路”国家对“投资”的认定研究——以中亚国家仲裁实践为例，《“一带一路”法律研究》，2022年第1期。8.朱文龙：国际投资领域投资定义的发展及对中国的启示，《东方法学》，2014年第2期。9.段辉艳，陈雨晴：国际投资协定中“投资”定义的规范与风险问题探析，《商展经济》，2020年第10期。10.付汝峰：论国际投资条约中投资的定义，《法制与社会》，2016年第1期。11.肖灵敏：中欧国际投资规则中投资定义的反思——以中国与欧盟双边投资协定谈判为视角，《社会科学家》，2018年第10期。12.何芳：论ICSID仲裁中的投资定义，《河北法学》，2018年第10期。13.韦凤巧：国际投资条约中的投资定义研究，广西大学硕士论文，2011年。14.张庆麟：论国际投资协定中“投资”的性质与扩大化的意义，《法学家》，2011年第6期。15.汤霞：ICSID仲裁中投资定义的扩张及其反思——兼论中国双重身份的应对，《南京大学法律评论》，2017年第2期。16.凌晔：ICSID仲裁管辖权扩张研究，苏州大学博士论文，2021年。17.吕吉海，胡晓红：国际投资协定中“投资”定义条款的重构——以中国与“一带一路”沿线国家BITs为视角，《科学决策》，2021年第8期。18.张生：国际投资法制框架下的跨境数据流动：保护、例外和挑战，《当代法学》，2019年第5期。19.赵丹、娄卫阳：数据的投资适格性及中国因应，《社会科学家》，2022年第10期。20.黄世席：可持续发展视角下国际投资争端解决机制的革新，《当代法学》，2016年第2期。21.黄琳琳：论国际投资条约的可持续发展转变及其困境，《上海对外经贸大学学报》，2019年第4期。22.宁红玲：论可持续发展视角下的国际投资定义条款，《环境法评论》，2019年第1期。23.于文婕：双边投资协定“投资”定义之范式解析——兼论中美双边投资协定之取舍，《现代经济探讨》，2015年第2期。24.王光、卢进勇：中国双边投资协定：历史演进与发展趋势，《国际经济合作》，2019年第2期。25.黄钰：ICSID管辖的双重限制体系：本义、实践与改革，《武大国际法评论》，2024年第6期。26.徐树：国际投资仲裁庭管辖权扩张的路径、成因及应对，《清华法学》，2017年第3期。27.赵骏：国际投资仲裁中“投资”定义的张力和影响，《现代法学》，2014年第3期。28.于文婕：论“投资”定义缺失对ICSID仲裁管辖的影响——《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端的公约》第25条的正当解读，《学海》，2013年第5期。29.叶锐、高峰：数据资产的适格投资认定及中国因应，《汕头大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2024年第8期。30.张倩雯：国际投资中数据的性质判断及保护，《法学》，2024年第7期。31.张渝：国际投资法框架下数据资产的适格性研究，《电子知识产权》，2023年第2期。32.宋俊荣：国际投资协定对数据规制措施的可适用性：以适格投资为中心，《环球法律评论》，2023年第2期。二、外文参考文献（一）著作类33.Dominique Carreau, Thiebaut Flory and Patrick Juillard, Droit international économique, Paris, LGDJ, 1990.34.Christoph H. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2001.35.Stephan W. Schill ed., Schreuer’s Commentary on the ICSID Convention: A Commentary on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Cambridge University Press, 2022.（二）论文类36.Alex Grabowski, “The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Convention: A Defense of Salini,” Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 15: No. 1, 2014.37.Georges R. Delaume, “Le Centre International pour le Règlement des Différends relatifs aux Investissements (CIRDI),” Journal du droit international, Vol. 109, 1982.38.Gaillard E, “Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in ICSID Practice,” in Binder C. et al. eds., International Investment Law for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press, 2009.39.I.F.I. Shihata and A.R. Parra, “The Experience of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes: ICSID Review,” Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 14, 1999.40.Susan D. Franck, “The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 73, 2005.（三）案例类41.Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction.42.Electrabel S.A. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability.43.Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/2, Award.44.FEDAX N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.45.Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction.46.GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16, Award.47.Raymond Charles Eyre and Montrose Developments (Private) Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/25, Award.48.Romak S.A. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, PCA Case No. 2007-07/AA280, Award.49.Christian Doutremepuich and Antoine Doutremepuich v. Mauritius, PCA Case No. 2018-37, Award on Jurisdiction.50.Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award.51.Poštová banka, a.s. and Istrokapital SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award.52.Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award.53.Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award.54.LESI, S.p.A. and Astaldi, S.p.A. v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Award.55.Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award.56.Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award.57.SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.58.Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan(I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction.59.Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction.60.Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction.61.Saipem S.p.A. v. People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures.62.Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction.63.Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment.64.Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award.65.Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award.66.Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award.67.Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award.68.RSM Production Corporation and others v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award.69.Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction.70.Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Award.71.Pope & Talbot v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Interim Award.72.S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award.73.Petrobart Ltd. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No. 126/2003, Arbitral Award.74.William Nagel v. The Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 049/2002, Final Award.75.Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, Award.76.Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award.77.ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/2, Award.78.White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, UNCITRAL, Final Award.79.Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award.80.Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award.81.Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction.82.Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award.83.SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.84.Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, a.s. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction.85.Bayview Irrigation District and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/1, Award.86.The Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction.87.Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et.al. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award.（四）国际组织文件88.Scope and Definition, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11 (Vol. II), 1999.
回到顶部