|Abstract: ||自2000年促參法制定以來，國內以BOT方式興辦公共工程，雖已達一定績效；但台灣高鐵、高雄捷運，甚至台北大巨蛋等大型BOT案，爭議頻頻，受到社會矚目，衝擊民間投資意願。2015年12月增訂第48條之1規定，BOT投資契約履約爭議得採協調或仲裁方式解決，相關問題乃成國內法律及政治熱門議題，本論文爰以此為研究核心。本文蒐集法律文本、仲裁判斷書及調解建議書等，兼採文義解釋、目的解釋、體系解釋、演繹推理、法律經濟及法釋義學等方法進行研究。首先，探究BOT政策與立法，包括風險、政策選擇及國內外法制發展。其次，探討投資契約的重要內容與法律性質，包括公、私法契約區分標準、私法說與公法說、公私混合說及實質認定說，本文主張應採私法契約說為原則。觀察國內BOT投資契約之所以爭議頻頻，主要是權利義務不明確及當事人雙方解讀不同，尤其是風險分擔、政治風險、法律風險、情勢變更及何者屬政府應辦或協助事項等。 2016年BOT案件招商績效不如前幾年，民間投資機構對政府信心不足，此與投資契約爭議解決效率及機制非無關連。政府、投資商與人民並不希望因履約爭議解決延宕而影響BOT政策執行、投資商資金流及民眾使用期待。然而，法院訴訟曠日廢時，本文針對協調與仲裁之適用投資契約爭議解決，探討BOT投資契約的訴訟外爭議解決機制，除了比較協調、仲裁及訴訟的制度差異及優缺點外，並論述DAB與DRB的不同，及促參法中所謂的協調等問題，並以案例分析實務。 仲裁具有迅速、專業及保密的優點，為BOT案件當事人最合意採用的爭議解決機制，本文除探BOT投資契約爭議的仲裁機制外，對衡平仲裁於投資契約爭議之適用進行研究。前者主要介紹仲裁制度、仲裁審理爭議的程序、BOT案件仲裁判斷書之作成，並比較仲裁與法院審理BOT爭議的不同。促參法第48條之1及投資契約範本第24.1.2條皆明文規定仲裁為解決BOT契約爭議的途徑之一，當應有我國仲裁法之適用。後者除了探討BOT案件衡平仲裁的適用要件外，探討衡平仲裁應遵循原則，並以高雄捷運為例，評析衡平仲裁實務。 總結本研究，對於促參法第48條之1將協調及仲裁制度入法，本文殊表贊同。但建議未來應再修法，除了應將「有益仲裁制」入法外；並建議促參司成立「單一統籌協調委員會」專責協調，或以仲裁協會的「機構協調」辦理，以擴大BOT投資契約的爭議解決途徑。|
In December 2015, Article 48-1 was added into the Act for Promotion of Private Participation in Infrastructure Projects (PPPIP), which provided that dispute of BOT Investment Contracts shall be resolved by mediation or arbitration. Since the PPPIP legislated in 2000, using the domestic BOT model to set up public construction works has reached a large amount. But many disputes, such as Taiwan High-speed Rail, Kaohsiung MRT, Taipei Big Dome and other large BOT case, caused social attention, and decrease private investment will. Therefore, dispute resolution of BOT investment contract has become domestic legal and political headline news, and which are core issues of this thesis. This thesis studies legal texts, arbitration judgments and mediation proposals mainly through literal interpretation method, purpose explanation method, system explanation method, deductive reasoning method, legal economics method. First it investigates the legislative policies of BOT, including risk, policy choices and legal developments at Taiwan and international community. Secondly, it discusses the important contents and legal nature of investment contracts, comparing the criteria to distinguish between administrative contract and private contract, legal reasoning of private law and public law, public and private mixed theory and substantially-determined theory. After through, this thesis advocates that BOT investment contracts should be belonged private law. The reason domestic BOT investment contracts were controversial frequently is mainly due to that the rights and obligations in BOT contract are not clear and the interpreted differently, especially risk sharing, political risk, legal risk, change of circumstances and confusing between government matters and government-assist matters. Furthermore, this thesis will discuss the dispute resolution mechanism of BOT investment contract. It compares the differences between mediation, arbitration and litigation, analyzes advantages and disadvantages of three mechanisms, and discusses characteristic of DAB and DRB. Additionally, Article 48-1of PPPIP is similar to DRB. It also discusses how to apply DRB mechanism in deal with investment contract disputes. Then it will use case study to analyze mediation practices. This thesis not only studies the application of arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes of investment contract, but also studies the Amiable Composition. About the former, it will introduces the arbitration system, procedure and arbitration judgment of BOT issues, and compares difference of arbitration and court litigation for BOT disputes. The Article 48-1 of PPPIP and Section 24.1.2 of the BOT Investment Contracts Model expressly provide that arbitration is a mechanism to resolve BOT contract issue, therefore the Arbitration Law of R.O.C. applies. About the latter, it will study Amiable Composition applying elements in BOT case and principles in Amiable Composition. It also takes Kaohsiung MRT as a case study to review and evaluate Amiable Composition. In summary, Article 48-1 promotes mediation and arbitration system into the PPPIP Act, which this thesis supports. But it also suggested that PPPIP Act could be amended further in the future, adding “first-mediation-secondary-arbitration” mechanism. And recommended that set up as "Single mediation committee” of Promotion of Private Participation Ministry of Finance or "Institutional mediation” of arbitration association to expand dispute resolution approach for BOT investment contract.