论文部分内容阅读
吸引外资时代的到来使得东道国对外资的管制极少呈现为以对财产权利的直接剥夺为表现形式的国有化,而越来越多地表现为对财产权利进行干涉和影响的间接征收与非补偿性政府管制措施。然而,两者又是存在实质差别的,它们之间的界限直接关系到政府是否需要对外国投资者进行补偿。目前来看,不论是学术界还是国际实践对于两者的界限都尚未形成统一的看法,而分歧的原因在于对如何平衡投资者利益和东道国利益上的争议,而最根本的原因在于私人财产保护理念的不同。在确定两者之间的界限时,应该充分考虑个案的具体情况,以非补偿性政府管制措施为分析起点,结合对财产权利的干涉程度和政府实施措施的背景综合考量。
The advent of the era of attracting foreign investment has made it very rare for host countries to control their foreign investment as a nationalization in the form of direct deprivation of property rights and more and more as indirect expropriation and non-compensation for the interference and impact of property rights Sexual government control measures. However, there are substantive differences between the two. The boundary between them is directly related to whether the government needs to compensate foreign investors. At present, the academic circles or international practices have not formed a unified view of the boundary between the two. The reason for the disagreement lies in the controversy over how to balance the interests of investors and host countries. The most fundamental reason is that private property protection Different ideas. In determining the boundary between the two, we should give full consideration to the specific circumstances of the case, taking non-compensatory government control measures as the starting point of analysis, combining the degree of interference with property rights and the background of government measures.