摘 要：在国际投资仲裁实践中，公平与公正待遇标准得到了最广泛的运用，并显现了极度扩张解释之势；同时，一些西方学者也将之与民商法中的诚实信用原则相提并论，实际上是尊奉该待遇标准为国际投资法中的“帝王条款”。但倘若如此，不仅将严重损害东道国管理外资的主权，而且，法理上也存在诸多疑点。公平与公正待遇标准对于国际投资条约的具体规定，并无“帝王条款”意义上的补缺、修正及解释之功能；同时，该标准应是“国家造法”，而非“法官造法”的产物，其与“帝王条款”的实质也不相符。我国应转而支持以国际习惯法的具体规则来诠解该项外资待遇的内容。 关键词： 公平与公正待遇；国际投资条约；国际投资争端；国际仲裁 Abstract: “Fair and Equitable Treatment” is now widely used in arbitrations designed to solve international investment matters and tends to be interpreted more liberally. At the same time, some western scholars compare the standard to the principle of Bona Fides in civil and commercial laws, considering it indeed an “empire clause” in international investment law. If so, it would .greatly impair the sovereignty of the host country over foreign investment. In fact, fair and equitable treatment renders no supplementation, amendment or interpretation to international investment treaties as the “empire clause” does. Furthermore, fair and equitable treatment derives from “state-making laws” rather than “judge-making laws,” which is essentially different from the “empire clause.” While fair and equitable treatment is not recognized as an “empirical clause,” it is necessary for China to interpret it under specific international customary rules concerning foreign direct investment. Key Words:fair and equitable treatment; international investment treaties; international investment disputes; international arbitration
