| 4,491 | 80 | 250 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
管辖权作为国家主权的核心要素和重要体现,历来具有鲜明的属地特征。不过,随着国际交往的深化和各类生产要素跨境流动的日渐频繁,国家管辖权的域外扩展,即域外管辖已成为一个普遍现象,然而相关国际法规则的发展却相对滞后。常设国际法院在"荷花号"案中首次阐述了国家管辖权的一般法理,并开启了域外管辖问题上"法无禁止即自由"和"法无授权不可为"两种法律逻辑之争。上述两种法律逻辑看似矛盾,实则建立在不同法律前提基础上,因而并无本质冲突;另外从实际效果来看,二者可谓殊途同归。
Abstract：Jurisdiction, as a key element and reflection of sovereignty, is essentially territorial in tradition. With the development of international intercourse and frequent cross-border flow of productive factors, the extraterritorial extension of jurisdiction has become a common phenomenon, while the international rules on extraterritorial jurisdiction is still underdeveloped. In the Lotus Case, PCIJ for the first time expounded the general theory of jurisdiction, and thus opened the debate between two different legal logics of extraterritorial jurisdiction, i.e., “whatever is not explicitly prohibited by international law is permitted” v. “whatever is not explicitly permitted by international law is prohibited”. As these two legal logics are established on different premises, they are not in conflict with each other. Moreover, so far as practical effects are concerned, they actually reach the same goal by different means.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey),1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10.
(2)这方面的代表性研究可参见屈文生:《从治外法权到域外规治——以管辖理论为视角》,《中国社会科学》2021年第4期;霍政欣:《国内法的域外效力:美国机制、学理解构与中国路径》,《政法论坛》2020年第2期;肖永平:《“长臂管辖权”的法理分析与对策研究》,《中国法学》2019年第6期;廖诗评:《中国法域外适用法律体系:现状、问题与完善》,《中国法学》2019年第6期;廖诗评:《国内法域外适用及其应对——以美国法域外适用措施为例》,《环球法律评论》2019年第3期;李庆明:《论美国域外管辖:概念、实践及中国因应》,《国际法研究》2019年第3期;杨永红:《次级制裁及其反制——由美国次级制裁的立法与实践展开》,《法商研究》2019年第3期。
(3)Michael Akehurst,"Jurisdiction in International Law",46 British Year Book of International Law(1972-1973),p.145.
(1)例如,英文“Jurisdiction” 一词的含义就比通常对应的中文表述(“管辖”或“管辖权”)更为宽泛。在《布莱克法律词典》中,“jurisdiction” 一词包含以下四种含义:(1)政府对其领域内的所有人和事行使权威的一般权力;(2)法院审判案件或发布命令的权力;(2)一个可以行使政治或司法权威的地理区域;(4)在地理区域中的政治或司法分区。而中文的“管辖”或“管辖权”并不包含后两种含义。See Bryan A.Garner,eds.,Black's Law Dictionary(11th ed.West Group,2019),available at (last visited on 8 July 2021).词条译文转引自李庆明:《论美国域外管辖:概念、实践及中国因应》,《国际法研究》2019年第3期,第5页脚注。
(2)Stephen Allen et al.,"Introduction:Defining State Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction in International Law",in Stephen Allen et al.,eds.,The Oxford Handbook ofJ urisdiction in International Law(Oxford University Press,20 1 9),p.5.
(3)James Crawford,Brownlie's Principles ofP ublic International Law(9th ed.Oxford University Press,20 19),p.440.
(4)Malcolm N.Shaw,International Law(8th ed.Cambridge University Press,2017),p.483.
(1)Cedric Ryngaert,"The Concept of Jurisdiction in International Law",in Alexander Orakhelashvili,ed.,Research Handb ook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law(Edward Elgar,20 1 5),p.51.
(2)[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第一卷第一分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第292页。
(3)Alex Mills,'"Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law" 84 British Yearbook of International Law(2014),p.194.
(4)See,e.g.,Bernard Oxman,"Jurisdiction of States",in Rudiger Wolfrum,ed.,Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law,available at (last visited on 8 July 2021);Oscar Schachter,"International Law in Theory and Practice"178 Recueil des Cours(1982)p.244-249;Restatement(Fourth)of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States§401(2018).除了通行的“三分法”外,也有部分学者主张“二分法”,即将管辖权分为立法管辖权和执行管辖权。在他们看来,一国的司法管辖权不过是其立法管辖权的自然延伸和实现途径,因此没有必要作特别区分。See,e.g.,Roger O'Keefe,"Universal Jurisdiction:Clarifying the Basic Concept" 2(3)Journal of International Criminal Justice(2004),p.737;F.A.Mann,The Doctrine of Jurisdiction Revisited After Twenty Years" 186 Recueil des Cours(1984),p.67.对此笔者并不赞同。这一观点在公法领域或许成立,但在私法领域,司法管辖权和立法管辖权并不完全一致,一国对某一事项有司法管辖权并不意味着一定有立法管辖权。此外,司法管辖权还受制于国际法上的豁免规则,这一点也不同于立法管辖权。
(5)See Restatement(Fourth)of The Foreign Relations Law of the United States §401(2018).
(1)F.A.Mann,"The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law" 111 Recueil des Cours(1964),p.14;Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law(2nd ed.Oxford University Press,2015),p.5.
(2)Anthony J.Colangelo,"What Is Extraterritorial Jurisdiction" 99(6)Cornell Law Review(2014),p.1312.
(3)此处的“海洋”指的是国家主权领土之外的海域。
(1)由于国际公共区域的管辖权问题有相当一部分受专门的国际法规则调整,因此除非有特别说明,本文所讨论的域外管辖一般不涉及国际公共区域。不过,在专门国际法规则不明确或缺失的场合,有关域外管辖的两种法律逻辑之争(“法无禁止即自由”和“法无授权不可为”)同样会发生在国际公共区域,而且“法无禁止即自由”可能更占优势。
(2)Antonio Cassese et al.,Cassese's International Criminal Law(3rd ed.Oxford University Press,2013),p.275,转引自李庆明:《论美国域外管辖:概念、实践及中国因应》,《国际法研究》2019年第3期,第5页。
(3)有学者将沿海国依据《联合国海洋法公约》对毗连区、专属经济区、大陆架等区域内特定事项和活动的管辖权归为一种特殊的管辖权,即“功能性管辖权”(functional jurisdiction)。See Cedric Ryngaert,"The Concept of Jurisdiction in International Law", Alexander Orakhelashvili,ed.,Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law(Edward Elgar,20 15),p.59.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey)1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,pp.18-19.
(2)Arrest Warrant of 11April 2000(Democratic Republic of the Congo v.Belgium)I.C.J.Reports 2002,Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins,Kooijmans,and Buergenthal,Arrest Warrant,p.75.
(1)参见廖诗评:《国内法域外适用及其应对——以美国法域外适用措施为例》,《环球法律评论》2019年第3期,第167-169页;李庆明:《论美国域外管辖:概念、实践及中国因应》,《国际法研究》2019年第3期,第6-8页。
(2)参见《国际法委员会年鉴》(2006),附件五,第279页。
(3)有关“治外法权”一词理解上的分歧及产生缘由,可参见李洋:《从词义到语境:“治外法权”误读、误用及误会》,《社会科学》2015年第2期;高汉成:《治外法权、领事裁判权及其他——基于语义学视角的历史分析》,《政法论坛》2017年第5期;高汉成:《中国近代“治外法权”概念的词汇史考察》,《厦门大学学报》2018年第5期;黄兴涛:《强者的特权与弱者的话语:“治外法权”概念在近代中国的传播与运用》,《近代史研究》2019年第6期。
(1)直至今日,不少主流词典依然对“治外法权”或“extraterritoriality” 一词作外交豁免权意义上的解释,参见《辞海》(第七版),《布莱克法律词典》(第11版),以及《牛津法律词典》(第8版)相关词条。
(2)参见高汉成:《治外法权、领事裁判权及其他——基于语义学视角的历史分析》,《政法论坛》2017年第5期,第111-114页。
(3)周鲠生:《领事裁判权问题》,《东方杂志》1922年第19卷第8期,第9-10页,转引自李洋:《从词义到语境:“治外法权”误读、误用及误会》,《社会科学》2015年第2期,第152页。
(4)王铁崖主编:《中华法学大辞典·国际法学卷》,中国检察出版社1996年版,第676页。
(5)康大寿:《近代外人在华“治外法权”释义》,《社会科学研究》2000年第2期,第110页。
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey)1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,pp.10-11.
(2)Ibid.,pp.11-12.
(3)《关于居住、通商条件和管辖权的洛桑公约》是1923年部分协约国成员和土耳其之间签订的《洛桑和约》的附件之一,其第15条规定,土耳其与其他缔约方之间有关管辖权的任何争议应依据国际法原则来判定。
(4)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey)1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,p.5.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey)1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,p.32.
(2)Ibid.,pp.16-17.
(3)Ibid.,p.18.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey)1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,p.18.
(2)Ibid.,pp.18-19.
(3)Stephane Beaulac,"The Lotus Case in Context:Sovereignty,Westphalia,Vattel,and Positivism",in Stephen Allen et al.,eds.,The Oxford Handbook ofJ urisdiction in International Law(Oxford University Press,20 19),p.51.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey)1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,p.19.
(2)Ibid.,p.22.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey)1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,pp.22-23.
(2)Ibid.,p.25.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey),1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,p.28.
(2)Hersch Lauterpacht,ed.,Oppenheim's International Law(Vol.Ⅰ)(5th ed.Longmans,Green & Co.,1937),p.270.
(3)Louis Henkin,"International Law:Politics,Values and Functions" 216 Recueil des Cours(1989),p.278.
(4)在“荷花号”案中,法院回避了土耳其能否以受害者国籍作为管辖依据的问题,最终以客观属地原则为基础支持了土耳其的管辖权,所以针对具体争议的判决严格意义上并未涉及域外管辖问题。此外,随着海洋法的发展,公海船舶碰撞案件的刑事管辖权问题也已经有了不同于“荷花号”案判决的结论。《联合国海洋法公约》第97条明确规定,船舶在公海上发生碰撞事故涉及船长或任何其他为船舶服务的人员的刑事责任时,对上述人员的刑事管辖权只能由其所服务之船舶的船旗国或上述人员的国籍国行使。
(5)Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law(2nd ed.Oxford University Press,20 15),p.34.
(1)Weil,"The Court Cannot Conclude Definitively...Non Liquet Revisited" 36(1)Columbia Journal of Transnational Law(1998),p.112;Hugh Handeyside,"The Lotus Principle in ICJ Jurisprudence:Was the Ship Ever Afloat?"29(1)Michigan Journal oflnternational Law(2007),p.72.
(2)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey),1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,p.18.
(3)Alex Mills,"Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law" 84 British Yearbook of International Law(2014),p.192.
(4)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey),1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,pp.18-19.
(1)Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000(Democratic Republic of the Congo v.Belgium)Counter Memorial of the Kingdom of Belgium,28 September 2001,p.95.
(2)Legality of the Threat or Use ofN uclear Weapons,Advisory Opinion 8 July 1996,I.C.J.Reports(1996),p.226;Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration oflndependence in Respect of Kosovo,Advisory Opinion,22 July 2010,I.C.J.Reports(2010),p.403.
(3)An Hertogen,"Letting Lotus Bloom" 26(4)European Journal of International Law(20 1 6),p.914.
(4)Arrest Warrant of 11April 2000(Democratic Republic of the Congo v.Belgium),I.C.J.Reports 2002,Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins,Kooij mans,and Buergenthal,Arrest Warrant,p.78.
(5)See Christian Tomuschat,'"Obligations Arising for States Without or Against Their Will" 241 Recueil des Cours(1993),pp.195-374;Bruno Simma,"From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law" 250 Recueil des Cours(1994),pp.217-384.
(1)An Hertogen,"Letting Lotus Bloom" 26(4)European Journal of International Law(2016),pp.912-913.
(2)Ole Spiermann "Lotus and the Double Structure of International Legal Argument",in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes & Philippe Sands,eds.,International Law,The International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons(Cambridge University Press,1999),p.142.
(1)S.S.Lotus(France v.Turkey),1927 P.C.I.J.Reports,Series A,No.10,Dissenting Opinion of Judge Loder,p.35;Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weiss,p.44;Dissenting Opinion of Judge Nyholm,p.2.
(2)Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law(2nd ed.Oxford University Press,20 15),p.29.
(3)An Hertogen,"Letting Lotus Bloom" 26(4)European Journal of Internationl Law(20 1 6),p.9 1 5.
(1)Robert L.Muse,"A Public International Law Critique of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the Helms-Burton Act" 30(1)George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics(1996),p.244.
(2)Perm.Ct.of Arbitration,Island of Palmas(U.S.v Netherlands),2 U.N.Rep.Int'l Arb.Awards 829,838(1928).
(3)F.A.Mann,"The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law" 111 Recueil des Cours(1964),p.47.
(1)Herve Ascensio,"Are Spanish Courts Backing Down on Universality? The Supreme Tribunal's Decision in Guatemalan Generals" 1(3)Journal of International Crim inal Justice(2003),p.699.
(2)梁西主编、曾令良修订主编:《国际法》(第三版),武汉大学出版社2012年版,第59页。
(3)Maziar Jamnejad & Michael Wood,"The Principle of Non-intervention" 22(2)Leiden Journal oflnternational Law(2009),p.348.
(4)[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订:《奥本海国际法》(第一卷第一分册),王铁崖等译,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第314-315页。
(5)UNGA,Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,24 October 1970,UN Doc.A/Res/25/2625(XXV).
(1)Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua(Nicaragua v.U.S.)Merits,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports 1986,pp.107-108.
(2)参见李伯军:《不干涉内政原则研究——国际法与国际关系分析》,博士论文,武汉大学法学院,2005年,第40页。
(1)Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law(2nd ed.Oxford University Press,20 1 5),p.155.
(2)Michael Akehurst,"Jurisdiction in International Law" 46 British Year Book of International Law(1972-1973),pp.177-182.
(3)Maurice H.Mendelson,"The Formation of Customary International Law" 272 Recueil des Cours(1998),pp.273-274.
(1)Cedric Ryngaert,Jurisdiction in International Law(2nd ed.Oxford University Press,20 15),p.29.
(1)J.L.Brierly,"The 'Lotus' Case" 44(1)Law Quarterly Review(1928),p.162.
(2)参见刘宁元:《效果标准基础上之反垄断法域外管辖的正当性分析》,《华东政法大学学报》2010年第4期,第50页。
基本信息:
中图分类号:D994
引用信息:
[1]龚宇.国家域外管辖的法律逻辑评析——对“荷花号”案的再思考[J].国际法学刊,2021,No.8(03):30-54+156.
2021-09-15
2021-09-15