还需注意的是，对于“保护伞条款”，我国对外缔结的双边投资条约通常采取以下两种表达方式：一是“缔约任何一方应恪守其就缔约另一方投资者在其境内的投资所承担的任何其他义务”，如2003年中国与德国间条约第10条第2款之规定；另一种是“缔约任何一方应恪守其与缔约另一方投资者就投资所作出的任何特别承诺”，如2004年中国与芬兰间条约第11条第2款之规定。这两种规定中的“任何其他义务”或“任何特别承诺”，不但包括东道国政府与外国投资者订立的合同，还包括其对外国投资者所作的单边承诺。[25]倘若东道国政府未能履行这些单边承诺，显然不属于商事性质的行为，而是主权者的作为，其在性质上与干预“国家合同”的行为一样，极易被国际仲裁庭认定为违反了“保护伞条款”。长期以来，我国一些地方政府为了吸引外资，对外国投资者乱许诺给予优惠待遇的情形并非少见。一旦这些地方政府因违法等原因而无法兑现许诺，就会触发违反“保护伞条款”的问题。为了将单边承诺排除在“保护伞条款”的适用范围之外，可规定此类条款只针对“合同义务”。具体可采用像1985年中国与奥地利间双边投资条约第8条第2款那样的规定：“缔约任何一方应恪守其批准缔约另一方投资者在其领土内的投资所承担的合同义务。”
综上，我国在对外缔结双边投资条约时，对“保护伞条款”可作这样的规定：“缔约任何一方应遵守其与缔约另一方投资者就投资作出的合同义务。但该缔约一方就此承担的商事性质的合同义务除外”。
【作者简介】
徐崇利，厦门大学法学院教授。
【注释】K．Yannaca—Small,Interpretation of the Umbrella Clause in Investment Agreements,OECD,Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2006/3,PP．5—6,7—8,22;C．Schemer,Traveling the BIT Route:Of Waiting Periods,Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road,ne Journal of World Investment ＆Trade,Vol．5,2004,PP．250—251．
Noble Ventures v．Romania,ICSID Award of 12 October 2005．prar．48．
B．Kunoy,Singing in the Rain:Development in the Interpretation of Umbrella Clause,The Journal of World Investment & Trade．Vol．7．2006．p．275．
只不过这两个案件仲裁庭的组成人员完全相同，其首席仲裁员和申诉方指定的仲裁员也与EL Paso v．Argentina案相同，所不同的只是被申诉方指定的仲裁员。但这三个案件被申诉方分别指定的两个仲裁员没有对裁决提出异议。
K．Ballintine,How Do BITs Bite？A Comparison of SGS V．Pakistan and SGS v．Philippine:International Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties, Cambridge Student Law Review,2006,P．37．
C．Schemer,Traveling the BIT Route:Of Waiting Periods,Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the R0ad,The Journal of World Investment＆Trade．Vol．5．2004．P．255．
G．S．Tawil,The Distinction between Contract Claims and Treaty Claims:An Overview,资料来源：http://www．iccamontreal2006．ore:/english/pdf/program/presentations/Tawil．pdf,访问日期为2008年3月5日。
K．Yannaca—Small,Interpretation of the Umbrella Clause in Investment Agreements,OECD,Working Papers on International Investment,Number 2006/3,P．7．
O．E．Garcia—Bolivar,The Teleology of International Investment Law:The Role of Purpose in the Interpretation of International Investment Agreements,The Journal of World Investment＆Trade,Vol．6,2005,PP．751—771．
A．C．Sinclair,The Origins of the Umbrella Clause in the International Law of Investment protection,Arbitration International,Vol．20,2004,pp．411—434．
T．W．Walde,The“Umbrella”Clause in International Arbitration:A Comment on Original Intention and Recent Cases,The Journal of World Investment ＆ Trade, Vol．6,2005,PP．183—236．
V．Zolia,Effect and Purpose of“Umbrella Clauses”in Bilateral Investment Treaties:Unresolved Issues,Transnational Dispute Management,Vol．2,Issue 5,Nove mber,2005,PP．34—35．
J．Gill,M．Gearing ＆ G．Birt,Contractual Claims and Bilateral Investment Treaties:A Comparative Review of the SGS Cases,Journal of International Arbitra tion,Vol．21,2004,P．407．
T．W．Walde,The“Umbrella”Clause in International Arbitration:A Comment on Original Intention and Recent Ca8es,The Journal of World Investment＆Trade.V01. 6.2005．PP．197—198．
以下三种理念概括自J．Wong,Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties:Of Breaches of Contract,Treaty Violations,and the Divide Between Developing and Developed Countries in Foreign Investment Disputes,George Mason Law Re view,Vol．14,2006,PP．137—139,173—177。作者为美一伊仲裁庭前法律顾问。
J．Kurtz,The Delicate Extension of MFN Treatment to Foreign Investors: Maffezini v．Kingdom of Spain．in Weiler ed．,International Investment Law and Arbitration,Cameron May,2005．PP．534—535．
D．Ruff ＆ T．Guether,Bilateral Investment Treaties—Recent Developments, Leboeuf Lamb Newsletter,March 2006,p．2．
J．Wong,Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties:Of Breaches of Contract,Treaty Violations,and the Divide Between Developing and Developed Countries in Foreign Investment Disputes,George Mason Law Review,Val．14,2006,PP．138,176—177．
E．Gaillard,Treaty—Based Jurisdiction:Broad Dispute Resolution Clause,New York Law Journal,Vol．234,No．68,2005,P．3．
S．A．Alexandrov,Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty:The Jurisdict ion of Treaty—Based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v．Pakistan and SGS v．Philippines．The Journal of World Investment＆Trade．V01．5．2004,PP．572—576．
J．P．Gaffney ＆ J．L．Loftis,The“Effective Ordinary Meaning”of BITs and the Jurisdiction of Treaty—Based Tribunals to Hear Contract Claims,The Journal of World Investment & Trade,Vol．8,2007,P．24．
对管辖的投资争端范围之规定，2004年的《美国双边投资条约范本》第24条与《多边投资协定草案》第5条相同。
（美）劳伦·S·威森费尔德：《多边投资担保机构的十五年发展历程》，徐崇利译，载陈安主编：《国际经济法学刊》（第9卷），北京大学出版社2004年版，第194—255页。
在已公布的68个有关双边投资条约争端的国际仲裁裁决中，至少有8个涉及国家所有的并受国家控制的企业。这些裁决均主张，只要国家企业的行为可归因于国家，就可等同于国家行为。参见N．Gallus,state Enterprises as Organs of the State and BIT Claims,The Jourbal of World Investment ＆ Trade,Vol．7,2006,pp．761—779。
UNCTAD,Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid—1990s,UN Publication,199 8,p．56．
