近年来，出于保持自身影响力和保护投资者利益的考虑，解决投资争端国际中心在案件审理过程中倾向于扩大仲裁庭的管辖权。这种扩大主要通过对投资合同条款进行解释和对投资条约条款进行适用来完成。本文旨在通过仲裁庭的各类裁决研究此种扩大化现象，并在此基础上探讨其给中国带来的影响。文章正文共分为四章。第一章简要探讨了中心仲裁庭管辖权扩大化的原因及其表现形式。第二章则结合《公约》关于管辖权的构成要件，通过分析仲裁庭对投资者和东道国之间缔结的投资合同的审查实践后指出，仲裁庭事实上从“缔约国及其下属单位或机构”、“另一国国民”、“法律争议”、“投资与争议的相关性”和“同意”等构成要件的解释上入手，全方位扩大了自己的管辖权。第三章则结合双边投资条约中的一般性条款，通过分析仲裁庭对这些条款的适用情况，揭示仲裁庭通过扩大“最惠国待遇条款”、“保护伞条款”和“岔路口条款”的适用范围，进一步扩大了自己的管辖权。第四章梳理了中国对待中心管辖权态度的历史发展，分析了管辖权扩大给中国解决投资争端所带来的影响，并认为应通过改革中心管辖权机制、完善中心的法律适用规则、健全国内投资立法等方法，积极化解中心管辖权的扩大趋势给中国所可能带来的不利影响。文章结论认为，中国在今后的投资立法实践中，应更多考虑限制中心管辖权的范围，才能合理利用中心管辖权机制。这一点在考虑到中心管辖权扩大化趋势对中国所具有的不利影响时尤应如此。

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID), when dealing with the cases recently together with taking the influence-maintain and investor protection into the consideration, tends to expand the tribunal jurisdiction through the interpretation of the investment contract and the application of investment treaty clause. This Article focus on the expansion itself and its effect on China in a case study way.This Article consists four chapters. Chapter I discuss the causes and forms of the jurisdiction expansion. Chapter II points out that, proceeding with the interpretation on requirements such as “Contracting State and any constituent subdivision or agency”,“a national of another Contracting State”,“legal dispute”,“arising out of investment”and “consent”, the tribunals have expanded the jurisdiction on every side when encounter with the investment agreement between investor and the host State. Chapter III illustrates the tribunals have made the further expansion by applying the bilateral investment treaty clauses such as “Most-Favored Nation Clause”, “Umbrella Clause” and “fork-in-the-road Clause”, in a more broad way. Chapter four analyses the Chinese attitude to ICSID Jurisdiction in a historical way, and measures relating to the reformation of ICSID, completion of application rule, improvement of domestic investment legislation should be taken into considerations when trying to minimum the negative effect arising out of the expansion.The Article ended with the conclusion that restricting the scope of the jurisdiction should be considered more when drafting domestic investment statutes for the purpose of making use of the ICSID in an appropriate way. This is totally true especially when taking the negative consequences of the expansion into account.