RCCL International Symposium on ‘The Rule of Law in Chinese Foreign Affairs’ (30 November 2020)
On 19 September 2020, China’s Ministry of Commerce formally introduced the Unreliable Entity List regime as an attempt to protect the development interests of China. Laws reshaping the Chinese foreign policy were also passed. In order to promote the rule of law in the Chinese foreign relations and deepen the understanding on how the Chinese government conduct foreign affairs, the Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law (RCCL) of the City University of Hong Kong (CityU) School of Law, in collaboration with the Fudan University Law School and the Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, held an online international symposium on ‘The Rule of Law in Chinese Foreign Affairs’ on 30 November 2020. This Symposium was actually a continuation or follow-up event of a conference previously held by Fudan University earlier this year. Twenty-three scholars from Hong Kong, mainland China and Germany were invited to participate in this closed-door symposium.
The Symposium started with Prof. Jiangyu WANG, Director of the RCCL, and Prof. Congyan CAI, Professor of the Fudan University Law School and Xiamen University Law School, delivering the opening speeches by introducing the background and purpose of this Symposium and expressing their gratitude to the participating scholars. It was followed by three panel discussions in which 11 papers were presented. During the panel discussions, each of those 11 papers — which were the revised/fine-tuning versions of the original papers presented at the Fudan University Conferene — was firstly presented by its author(s). After that, the paper was commented by an assigned commentator who gave futher comments and suggestions to the author(s) as to how to further improve the paper.
The first panel was titled ‘Extraterritoriality and Immunity in Chinese Law’. Moderated by Prof. Tao DU (East China University of Political Science and Law), speakers of this panel shared their views on the issues of extraterritoriality and diplomatic immunity.
Prof. Zhengxin HUO (China University of Political Science and Law) and Dr. Man YIP (Singapore Management University) (commented by Dr. Massiom LANDO, CityU) started the panel discussion by introducing the current Chinese system of extraterritoriality and compared it with the American model. Suggestions were also made for the future development of extraterritoriality, including that it should be based on multilateralism, instead of unilateralism, and that checks and balances should be put in place.
Dr. Peng WANG (Xi’an Jiaotong University) (commented by Dr. Mandy Meng FANG, CityU) then discussed the future transition of the Chinese foreign policy from offering absolute immunity to a more flexible doctrine of immunity based on reciprocity. However, he has also recognised that the unique Chinese model of hybrid government-market relationship may pose a challenge for this transition. Several other features and challenges, including the commercial exception to immunity, and the relationship between State organs, were also discussed.
Lastly, on the role of the executive branch in the application of extraterritorial laws, Prof. Shiping LIAO (Beijing Normal University) (commented by Dr. Stephenson Pok Yin CHOW, CityU) explained how the limited role of the Chinese judiciary has contributed to the importance of the executive branch in this regard. Also, with reference to recent cases, he observed that there is a ‘fragmented’ approach to enforcement of these laws. Lastly, suggestions on how the executive branch can apply the law in a modest and legitimate way were offered.
The second panel was titled ‘International Law and Domestic Law’. Moderated by Prof. Shiping LIAO, the speakers shared their views on the interaction between international law and the domestic law of China.
Starting the panel discussion, Dr. Yifeng CHEN (Peking University) (commented by Prof. Jiangyu WANG) introduced the relevance of the foreign relations law to domestic affairs nowadays. Although foreign relations, as a self-standing discipline, is originated in America, he proposed some ways for Chinese scholars to approach the subject. Meanwhile, he also expressed worries that foreign relations may pose dangers to international law in this time of antiglobalisation. Reflecting upon the findings, he questioned the kind of foreign relations between China and the rest of the world that we would like to see.
Prof. Congyan CAI and Ms Yifei WANG (Xiamen University) (commented by Dr. Fozia Nazir LONE, CityU) then discussed transparency as the most important value in the Chinese rule of law. They noted that China is facing both internal and external pressures for more transparency in foreign affairs. On the internal aspect, for example, they observed that, even with the freedom of information regulations in place, transparency is still not improved. The speakers concluded that China has to develop a stronger legal framework for transparency in foreign affairs.
On the other hand, Dr. Yang LIU (Renmin University of China) (commented by Dr. Peter Shucheng WANG, CityU) examined the history of the Chinese foreign relations dating back to the Republic of China (ROC) era. The main subject under review was Article 141 of the Constitution of the ROC (1946), and he discussed the drafting history of and the rationale behind this article. He opined that, although the current Constitution of the People’s Republic of China has no equivalent provision, this history may shed lights on how the People’s Republic of China should conduct its foreign affairs.
Last presenter of the second panel was Dr. Chaoyi JIANG (Fudan University) (commented by Prof. Jiangyu WANG) who shared her views on the gaps between the law and practice in the making of treaties. Differences between the configurations of the American and Chinese foreign relations laws were examined, and some gaps and mismatch of powers between the State Council and the National People’s Congress were observed. Nevertheless, she considered that inter-branch accountability is still practised through self-constraint and internal coordination.
The final panel was titled ‘The Rule of Law and China’s Foreign Policy’. The speakers discussed how the rule of law could be reflected by the Chinese foreign policy under the moderation of Prof. Congyan CAI.
Focusing on the new Chinese Civil Code, Prof. Tao DU and Dr. Xiuyan FEI (East China University of Political Science and Law) (commented by Prof. Qiao LIU, CityU) analysed the contents of the new Chinese Civil Code in three aspects: contents reflecting China’s special conditions (including the socialist values of the political system and the socialist market), contents with international characteristics (the chapter on personality rights and contracts), and contents on national and international concerns (the right of habitation and technology contracts). On these footings, the speakers considered the possible impacts of the new Chinese Civil Code, domestically and globally.
Prof. Bj?rn AHL (University of Cologne) (commented by Prof. Michael TSIMPLIS, CityU) then discussed the relationship between China and the global constitutionalism. He firstly discussed the implications of China’s Fourth Plenum decision that requires the extension of the Chinese rule-of-law-based governance model to foreign relations, and offered insights on how the Chinese scholars viewed global constitutionalism. Finally, he considered whether elements of global constitutionalism has reappeared under the guise of the Chinese concept of community of common destiny.
On the issue of unilateral sanctions, Dr. Wenjie YU (Southeast University) (commented by Prof. Jianyu WANG) discussed how China can implement unilateral sanctions while adhering to the rule of law. She firstly noted that China generally refrains from imposing such sanctions without authorisation of the United Nations or international law, and then followed by an analysis of the legal basis for such sanctions. Lastly, she considered that, since unilateral sanctions are, in essence, political tools, limits of law and domestic jurisdiction should be introduced to build a unilateral sanction scheme with the value of the rule of law.
Finally, Dr. Xinyu LENG (China University of Political Science and Law) (commented by Dr. Tianxiang HE, CityU) discussed China’s Law of Defence Mobilization. He started with the analysis of the latest amendment to the Law, which introduced a new triggering condition of ‘interest of national development’. He then considered the possible results of imposing national defence obligations on citizens during war time, and its relationship with the concept of ‘direct participation in hostilities’ under international humanitarian law. Finally, he discussed how property rights may be limited by the military under the Law, and its implications on the relevant constitutional rights.
The symposium ended with the closing speeches by Prof. Jiangyu WANG and Prof. Congyan CAI, who thanked the efforts made by the participating scholars. They also invited the authors of the 11 papers presented at the Symposium to take into consideration the valuable comments provided by the commentators during the Symposium to fine-tune their papers, and then submit their finalized papers for inclusion in a special issue of the Chinese Journal of Comparative Law which is expected to be published in March 2021.
2020 年 9 月 19 日，中國商務部正式實施「不可靠實體清單」制度，以圖維護中國的發展 利益。與此同時，一系列重塑中國對外政策的法律亦開始誕生。為宣揚中國對外關係中的 法治元素，以及加強外界對中國政府處理對外事務的手法的認識，2020 年 11 月 30 日， 由香港城市大學法律學院中國法與比較法研究中心 (以下簡稱 ‘RCCL’) 主辦、復旦大學法 學院及《中國比較法雜誌》(The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law) 協辦，名為「法治與 中國對外事務」的國際學術研討會於網上舉行。本次研討會實際上是較早前於復旦大學舉 行的研討會的延續。二十三名來自香港、中國內地及德國的學者獲邀參與了本次閉門會 議。
本次研討會開始時，先由王江雨教授（RCCL 主任）及蔡從燕教授（復旦大學法學院及廈 門大學法學院教授）致開幕辭，介紹本次會議的背景及目的，並向各參與的學者致謝。十 一份論文的作者分為三組，在研討會上就他們原於復旦大學研討會上發表，並吸納該次會 議點評人意見作出修改後的論文作出報告。在每位講者發言完畢後，一名特邀點評人都會 就有關論文的內容及研究方向等提出意見。
研討會第一節的主題為「中國法之下的域外適用及豁免問題」。在杜濤教授（華東政法 大學）主持下，與會者就域外法權及外交豁免等問題分享了他們的看法。
首位發言者是霍政欣教授（中國政法大學）及葉曼博士（新加坡管理大學）（由香港城 市大學法律學院助理教授 Massimo LANDO 博士點評）。他們先介紹了中國現行法律下 的域外法權制度，並與美國的域外法權制度進行了比較。他們亦就中國未來的域外法權發 展提供了意見，例如多邊主義的重要性（而非建基於單邊主義）、以及權力的制衡等。
其後，王鵬博士（西安交通大學）（由香港城市大學法律學院助理教授方萌博士點評） 分享了他對由絕對豁免轉型至以相互主義為本的靈活豁免原則的看法。他認為在中國獨有 的政府市場制度下，這個轉型可能會面對很多挑戰。他亦分享了其他相關的研究焦點及挑 戰，例如商業行為例外、政府機關之間的關係等。
最後，廖詩評教授（北京師範大學）（由香港城市大學法律學院助理教授周博研博士點 評）就行政機關在行駛域外法權中的角色分享了他的看法。他認為中國法院在行政案件中 有限的角色令行政機關變得尤其重要。然而，從近期的案件中，他觀察到在域外法的執行 方面出現缺乏一致性的情況。在這基礎上，他就行政機關應如何恰當地執行法律提供了建 議。
第二節的主題為「國際法與中國國內法」。在廖詩評教授的主持下，與會者分享了他們 對國際法及中國國內法之間的相互影響的意見。
陳一峰博士（北京大學）（由王江雨教授點評）先介紹了對外關係法的背景，以及它與 國內事務的關係。他指出，雖然對外關係作為一個獨立學科是以美國為起源，但中國學者 亦有方法進行相關研究。同時，他亦就對外關係法在反全球化的時代下對國際法可能會帶 來的影響表達了擔憂。最後，他就中國應與其他國家如何發展對外關係作出了反思。
蔡從燕教授及王一斐女士（廈門大學）（由香港城市大學法律學院副教授霍詩婭(Fozia Nazir LONE)博士點評）則就中國法治中最重要的元素 — 透明度 — 提出了他們的看法。 他們認為，在提升對外關係的透明度上，中國正面臨內部及外部的壓力。以內部壓力為 例，他們指出雖然中國實施了《訊息公開條例》，但透明度仍因種種原因未能提升。他們 認為在將來，中國政府有必要制訂更強而有效的法律框架，藉以提升其在對外事務方面的 透明度。
另一方面，劉洋博士（中國人民大學）（由香港城市大學法律學院副教授王書成博士點 評）探討了中國對外關係從民國時期開始的歷史。他主要的分析集中於《1946 年中華民 國憲法》有關國際條約的法律效力的第 141 條。他分析了這項條文的修訂過程，以及採納 它的原因。他認為，雖然在現行《中華人民共和國憲法》中並無類似條文，但這段對外關 係的歷史可供中國未來的對外關係發展作借鑒。
最後，蔣超翊博士（復旦大學）（由王江雨教授點評）分享了她對中國參與國際條約中 法律與實踐的差異的看法。她先分析了中國和美國在這方面的結構上的差異。其後，她指 出了在條約締結中的一些法律問題，以及國務院和全國人民代表大會在條約締結中的權力 爭議。最後，她認為雖然這些問題確是存在，但在實踐中往往可透過自我管制及內部協調 解決它們。
最後一節的主題為「法治與中國對外政策」。在蔡從燕教授的主持下，與會者分享了他 們對中國可如何透過對外政策反映法治的意見。
杜濤教授及費秀艶博士（華東政法大學）（由香港城市大學法律學院劉橋教授點評）先 從三個角度分析了中國最近通過的《民法典》：反映了中國特殊情況的內容（例如以社會 主義為基礎的政治及經濟制度）、含有國際色彩的內容（例如人格權及合同法），以及處 理國內及國際社會關注的內容（例如居住權及科技合同）。在這些基礎上，他們分析了新 《民法典》對國內及國際社會的影響。
伯陽教授（德國科隆大學）（由香港城市大學法律學院 Michael Tsimplis 教授點評）則分 享了中國如何面對國際憲政主義。他先分析了中國四中全會有關延伸法治元素至對外關係 的決定的可能影響，並分析了中國學者對國際憲政主義的看法。最後，他就國際憲政主義 的部份元素有否在中國學者對「人類命運共同體」的解析中重新出現表達了他的看法。
于文婕博士（東南大學）（由王江雨教授點評）則探討了中國政府應如何在法治的前提 下實行單邊制裁。她認為中國政府傾向不會在缺乏聯合國或國際法的授權下實施單邊制 裁。其後，她對單邊制裁的法律基礎進行了分析。最後，她認為由於單邊制裁基本上是一 種政治工具，因此在單邊制裁中應加入法律及國內司法管轄權的限制以反映法治的價值 觀。
最後，冷新宇博士（中國政法大學）（由香港城市大學法律學院助理教授何天翔博士點 評）分享了他對《中國國防動員法》的看法。他先指出及分析了在該法最近一次的修訂草 案中，增加了「發展利益遭受威脅」作為引用該法的一個條件。他亦講解了在戰爭時期對 國民強制施加國防責任的可能後果，以及這一強制責任與國際人道法下「直接參與敵對行 動」的概念的關係。最後，他分析了軍事單位在哪些情況下可限制私有物權，以及這些限 制對相關憲法權利的影響。
本研討會以王江雨教授及蔡從燕教授的閉幕辭作結。他們再次感謝各位與會者的積極參 與及在會議上提出的寶貴的意見。另外，他們亦邀請會上發表的 11 份論文的作者詳細考 慮點評人對論文提出的意見，並作出適當的修改，之後把最後定稿的論文提交《中國比較 法雜誌》，以刊載於該期刊 2021 年 3 月出版的特刊中。
