摘要
国家豁免是国际社会公认的习惯国际法原则,具有国内法和国际法、法律和政治外交的双重对立统一性。受对等原则的制约,各国在制定本国的国家豁免政策时应综合考虑国内国外两种环境,从本国国情出发,在国际社会的国家豁免博弈中作出对本国利益最大化的政策选择。中国长期的司法和立法实践证明,除"自愿接受"和适用"对等原则"这两种情况外,中国在国家豁免问题上坚持国家在他国法院享有绝对豁免,国有企业在他国法院一般不享有豁免,即"限制的绝对豁免"。限制豁免对于保障极少数私人的诉权和市场经济下的公平竞争秩序仅具有很小的理论象征意义,无法满足中国当前所处的国际政治外交和经济环境的基本需求,不但会使中国丧失在境外主张国家豁免的国际话语权和法理基础,还可能给中国带来不必要的外交纠纷,影响"一带一路"倡议的实施,损害中国的国家尊严,给中国现行司法系统带来重大挑战。无论是同国际社会接轨,维护中国对外开放的国际形象,还是中国已签署《联合国国家及其财产管辖豁免公约》的事实,都无法成为当代中国采取限制豁免的合理理由。限制豁免是中国在国际社会国家豁免博弈中的较差选项,而中国长期以来坚持的"限制的绝对豁免"才是当代中国国家豁免政策的最优选择。中国应尽快通过立法对"限制的绝对豁免"予以确认,并通过相应的制度设计,扬长避短,使其更好地服务于当前中国的外交大局。
State immunity is a principle of customary international law recognized by the international community.It has the dual unity of opposites of both domestic law and international law,law and politics/diplomacy.Restricted by the principle of reciprocity,in formulating their own state immunity policies,countries should consider their national conditions and consider their domestic and foreign political/diplomacy environments comprehensively and choose policies which can maximize their own interests in the“game of state immunity”of the international community.China’s long-term judicial and legislative practice has proved that,except for the voluntary acceptance of jurisdiction and the application of the principle of reciprocity,China insists that the state enjoys absolute immunity in the courts of other countries and state-owned enterprises generally do not enjoy immunity.This practice and policy is also referred to as“Restricted Absolute Immunity”.As a part of China’s overall foreign policy,China’s state immunity policy should conform to the basic principles of China’s contemporary foreign policy.In analyzing China’s state immunity policy,it is found that“Restrictive Immunity”,on the one hand,only has very small theoretical and symbolic meaning to China in protecting quite few private entities’litigation rights and maintaining China’s fair market economy,while on the other hand,can barely meet China’s basic needs in its contemporary international political and economic environment.“Restrictive Immunity”not only will make China lose its international political discourse and legal bases to assert state immunity abroad,but also will bring unnecessary diplomatic disputes to China,affect China’s“Belt and Road Initiative”,damage China’s national dignity and national political security and bring major challenges to China’s current judicial system.On the contrary,it is found that neither following other countries’practice,maintaining China’s international image of opening-ups,nor the situation that China has signed the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property can constitute reasonable grounds for contemporary China’s choosing of“Restrictive Immunity”.Generally,“Restrictive Immunity”is China’s poor choice in the“game of state immunity”in international community while China’s long-standing practice of“Restricted Absolute Immunity”is the best choice for contemporary China.At present,the changes of China’s diplomatic environment make China’s state immunity legislation highly necessary and urgent.China should confirm its“Restricted Absolute Immunity”policy through legislation as soon as possible while,through corresponding system design,make best use of its advantages and bypass its disadvantages,to better serve China’s overall diplomatic situation.
出处
《国际法研究》
CSSCI
2022年第1期37-54,共18页
Chinese Review of International Law
基金
教育部重大攻关课题“对‘一带一路’沿线国家投资风险监测预警体系研究”(19JZD053)阶段性成果。
关键词
国家豁免
限制的绝对豁免
限制豁免
外交政策
对等原则
滥诉
State Immunity
Restricted Absolute Immunity
Restricted Immunity
Foreign Policy
Principle of Reciprocity
Malicious Litigation
