國際法上的國家

1、第二章 國際法上的國家,國家概說國家、政府及其他實(shí)體的承認(rèn)國家的繼承,第一節(jié) 國家概說,一、國家的概念國家是指定居在特定的領(lǐng)土之上，并結(jié)合在一個(gè)獨(dú)立自主的權(quán)力之下的集合體。 （一）永久的人口 permanent population （二）確定的領(lǐng)土 defined territory （三）政府 government （四）主權(quán) sovereigntyA sovere

2、ign state is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is als

3、o normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecogni

4、sed states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.The word “country” is often used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, o

5、riginally, a geographic region.,二、國家類型,國家結(jié)構(gòu)形式,單一國unitary state,復(fù)合國composite,聯(lián)邦federation,邦聯(lián)Confederation,主權(quán)限制,永久中立國Permanent neutralized state,附屬國Dependent state,附庸國Vassal state,被保護(hù)國Protected state,梵蒂岡市國 The V

6、atican StateHoly See / Lateran Treaty,The Holy See The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes, "holy chair") is the episcopal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome, in which its Bishop is commonly known as the P

7、ope. It is the preeminent episcopal see of the Catholic Church, forming the central government of the Church. As such, diplomatically, and in other spheres the Holy See acts and speaks for the whole Roman Catholic Church

8、. It is also recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope, with which diplomatic relations can be maintained Although it is often referred to by the term "the Vatican

9、", the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929, while the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times. Ambassadors are officia

10、lly accredited not to the Vatican City State but to "the Holy See", and papal representatives to states and international organizations are recognized as representing the Holy See, not the Vatican City State.W

11、hile all episcopal see are "holy", the expression "the Holy See" (without further specification) is normally used in international relations, as a metonymy, (as well as in the canon law of the Catholi

12、c Church) to refer to the See of Rome viewed as the central government of the Catholic Church.,Put the pope in the dock Friday 2 April 2010Legal immunity cannot hold. The Vatican should feel the full weight of intern

13、ational lawWell may the pope defy "the petty gossip of dominant opinion". But the Holy See can no longer ignore international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a cr

14、ime against humanity. The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state – and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action – cannot stand up to scrutiny.The truly shocking finding of Judge Murphy&

15、#39;s commission in Ireland was not merely that sexual abuse was “endemic" in boys' institutions but that the church hierarchy protected the perpetrators and, despite knowledge of their propensity to reoffend, a

16、llowed them to take up new positions teaching other children after their victims had been sworn to secrecy.This conduct, of course, amounted to the criminal offence of aiding and abetting sex with minors. In legal actio

17、ns against Catholic archdioceses in the US it has been alleged that the same conduct reflected Vatican policy as approved by Cardinal Ratzinger (as the pope then was) as late as November 2002. Sexual assaults were regard

18、ed as sins that were subject to church tribunals, and guilty priests were sent on a "pious pilgrimage" while oaths of confidentiality were extracted from their victims.… …,The notion that statehood can be crea

19、ted by another country's unilateral declaration is risible: Iran could make Qom a state overnight, or the UK could launch Canterbury on to the international stage. But it did not take long for Catholic countries to s

20、upport the pretentions of the Holy See, sending ambassadors and receiving papal nuncios in return. Even the UK maintains an apostolic mission.The UN at its inception refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it

21、a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it

22、promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. This has involved the UN in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion: other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. Bu

23、t it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood – and immunity from liability.This claim could be challenged successfully in the UK and in the European Court of Human Rights. But in any event, head of state immunity

24、provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court. The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery and other similarly inhumane acts causing harm to mental or

25、 physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. It has been held to cover the recruitment of children as soldiers or sex slaves. If

26、acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that prac

27、tice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.,三、國家的基本權(quán)利和義務(wù)（一）國家的基本權(quán)利1. 獨(dú)立權(quán) right of independence 國家可以按照自己的意志獨(dú)立自主地處理國內(nèi)外事物而 不受其他國家的控制或者干涉的權(quán)利2. 平等權(quán) right of equality 國際組織和國際會(huì)議上的同等代表權(quán)和

28、投票權(quán) 對(duì)外交往使用本國語言和文字的權(quán)利 輪換制 平等的尊榮權(quán) 國家元首國旗國徽 在外國享有司法豁免權(quán) 平等地承擔(dān)國際義務(wù)和國家責(zé)任,3. 自衛(wèi)權(quán) right of self-defense4. 管轄權(quán) right of jurisdiction （1）屬地管轄 territorial jurisdiction 國家對(duì)其領(lǐng)土內(nèi)的一切人和物（豁免）享有

29、管轄的權(quán)利 （2）屬人管轄 personal/nationality jurisdiction 國家對(duì)于所有具有本國國籍的人的管轄 （3）保護(hù)性管轄 protective jurisdiction 對(duì)于外國人在本國領(lǐng)域之外、對(duì)該國國家或國民的犯罪 行為實(shí)施的管轄 （4）普遍管轄 universal jurisdiction 所

30、有國家都有權(quán)對(duì)國際法上貴的的嚴(yán)重危害國際社會(huì) 普遍利益 的國際犯罪行為實(shí)行的關(guān)系，而不論罪行發(fā) 生在何處,“春曉”開采設(shè)施，在浙江省寧波市東南350公里的浩淼海上，這個(gè)目前中國最大的海上油氣田由4個(gè)油氣田組成，占地面積達(dá)2.2萬平方公里，幾乎相當(dāng)于一個(gè)臺(tái)灣省。據(jù)日本考察，這些海域中埋藏著足夠日本消耗320年的錳、1300年的鈷、100年的鎳、100年的天然氣以及其他礦物資源和漁業(yè)資源，足以使日本從

31、天然資源貧乏國家搖身一變?yōu)椤疤烊毁Y源大國”。近日，中方派遣海監(jiān)船在我相關(guān)海域加強(qiáng)了執(zhí)法活動(dòng)，維護(hù)中國的海洋權(quán)益。中方有關(guān)部門還派遣漁政執(zhí)法船赴我相關(guān)海域巡航護(hù)漁。中方已向春曉油氣田運(yùn)送了一些器材，有可能進(jìn)行維修作業(yè)。外交部發(fā)言人姜瑜說，中方對(duì)春曉油氣田擁有完全的主權(quán)權(quán)利和管轄權(quán)，中方在春曉的活動(dòng)完全合理合法。,Universal jurisdictionUniversal jurisdiction or universality p

32、rinciple is a principle in public international law (as opposed to private international law) whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the pros

33、ecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, whi

34、ch any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that certain international norms are erga omn

35、es, or owed to the entire world community, as well as the concept of jus cogens– that certain international law obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty.According to critics, the principle

36、justifies a unilateral act of wanton disregard of the sovereignty of a nation or the freedom of an individual concomitant to the pursuit of a vendetta or other ulterior motives, with the obvious assumption that the perso

37、n or state thus disenfranchised is not in a position to bring retaliation to the state applying this principle.The concept received a great deal of prominence with Belgium's 1993 “l(fā)aw of universal jurisdiction"

38、, which was amended in 2003 in order to reduce its scope following a case before the International Court of Justice (ICC) regarding an arrest,warrant issued under the law, entitled Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 1

39、1 April 2000 [Semocratic Republic of the Congo v.Belgium]. The creation of the ICC in 2002 reduced the perceived need to create universal jurisdiction laws, although the ICC is not entitled to judge crimes committed befo

40、re 2002.According to Amnesty International, a proponent of universal jurisdiction, certain crimes pose so serious a threat to the international community as a whole, that states have a logical and moral duty to prosecut

41、e an individual responsible for it; no place should be a safe haven for those who have committed genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced disappearances.Opponents, such

42、 as Henry Kissinger, argue that universal jurisdiction is a breach on each state's sovereignty: all states being equal in sovereignty, as affirmed by the United Nations Charter, "Widespread agreement that human

43、rights violations and crimes against humanity must be prosecuted has hindered active consideration of the proper role of international courts. Universal jurisdiction risks creating universal tyranny — that of judges.“Acc

44、ording to Kissinger, as a practical matter, since any number of states could set up such universal jurisdiction tribunals, the process could quickly degenerate into politically-driven show trials to attempt to place a qu

45、asi-judicial stamp on a state's enemies or opponents.,（二）國家的基本義務(wù) 不得使用武力或者武力威脅或者其他方式侵犯他國主權(quán) 不得直接或間接干涉別國內(nèi)政 和平解決國際爭端 善意履行國際義務(wù)四、國家管轄豁免,國家豁免（ state immunity ）泛指一國的行為和財(cái)產(chǎn)不受另一國的立法、司法和行政方面的關(guān)

46、系。但通常是指一國的國家行為和財(cái)產(chǎn)不受另一國的司法管轄，即，非經(jīng)一國同意，該國的行為免受所在國法院的審判，其財(cái)產(chǎn)免受所在國法院的扣押和強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行。平等者之間無管轄權(quán) / Par in parem non habet imperium能夠代表國家主張豁免的機(jī)關(guān),,國家豁免是絕對(duì)的，國家的一切行為和財(cái)產(chǎn)都應(yīng)當(dāng)享有豁免,國家豁免是相對(duì)的或受限制的，只有國家主權(quán)行為和用于政府事務(wù)的國家財(cái)產(chǎn)才享有豁免,國家豁免,1952年 美國 泰特公函 Ta

47、te’s Letter2004年 聯(lián)合國通過《聯(lián)合國國家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)豁免公約》被訴國家在以下8種訴訟程序中不享有司法管轄豁免：一是 商業(yè)交易；二是 雇傭合同；三是 人身傷害和財(cái)產(chǎn)損害；四是 財(cái)產(chǎn)所有、占有或使用；五是 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和工業(yè)產(chǎn)權(quán)；六是 參加公司或集體機(jī)構(gòu)；七是 國家擁有或經(jīng)營的商業(yè)用途的船舶；八是 仲裁協(xié)定的效果。,《公約》不適用以下三種情況：一是《公約》不影響現(xiàn)有有關(guān)特權(quán)和豁

48、免的安排，包括國家元首、外交代表機(jī)構(gòu)、領(lǐng)事機(jī)構(gòu)、特別使團(tuán)、駐國際組織代表團(tuán)、派往國 際組織的機(jī)關(guān)或國際會(huì)議的代表團(tuán)及其人員，以及國有或國營的航空器或空間物體所享有的特權(quán)與豁免。二是《公約》不涉及刑事訴訟豁免問題，而將此問題留給習(xí)慣國際法解決。至于不涉及的原因，部分國家認(rèn)為，不同于國家在民事訴訟中只享有有限的豁免，國家在刑事訴訟中有絕對(duì)豁免，不宜適用《公約》規(guī)定的限制豁 免；但也有西方國家認(rèn)為，國家高級(jí)官員應(yīng)對(duì)國際罪行承擔(dān)刑事責(zé)任，不應(yīng)

49、享有豁免，如將該《公約》適用于刑事訴訟，可能導(dǎo)致這些官員逍遙法外。三是《公約》 不適用于軍事活動(dòng)。,我國：堅(jiān)持國家豁免原則下，對(duì)國家豁免規(guī)定了某些例外案例：仰融案仰融，中國企業(yè)家，早年參軍在對(duì)越自衛(wèi)反擊戰(zhàn)中曾經(jīng)負(fù)傷.后在西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)獲博士學(xué)位。參加改革開放后中國大陸第一家企業(yè)(華晨汽車)在美國紐約證券交易所上市工作,后接管金杯汽車。后被證實(shí)在上市時(shí)涉嫌侵吞國有資產(chǎn)。2002年，申華控股公司董事長仰融因涉嫌經(jīng)濟(jì)犯罪被遼寧省檢察院正式

50、批準(zhǔn)逮捕。隨后，仰融逃到國外，將自己說成是“受迫害的民營企業(yè)家”。遼寧官員澄清仰融案真相，稱握其侵占國有資產(chǎn)證據(jù)。他是第一個(gè)讓社會(huì)主義國家的股票在紐約證券交易所成功掛牌的人，也曾是300億資產(chǎn)的“主人”。然而，他陸續(xù)經(jīng)歷了資產(chǎn)清查、職務(wù)解除、出走 美國……直至被中國遼寧省政府刑事批捕。他越洋起訴中華人民共和國遼寧省政府和中國金融教育基金會(huì)資產(chǎn)侵權(quán)，成為新中國歷史上我國地方政府首次在國外被起訴的案例。逃美富豪仰融全球融資78億美元造汽

51、車  2009-10-09,美國地區(qū)法院和聯(lián)邦上訴法院基于《外國主權(quán)豁免法》對(duì)仰融案的分析美國《外國主權(quán)豁免法》第1605.a.2款下第三種情形的“商業(yè)行為”是適用于仰融案的，該款規(guī)定：1、（商業(yè)行為）發(fā)生在美國領(lǐng)土之外；2、與該外國國家在別處的商業(yè)行為有關(guān)；3、并且在美國產(chǎn)生了直接影響的行為。其一，仰融案中，中國遼寧省政府的行為是主權(quán)行為還是商事行為？其二，遼寧省政府行為是否在美國造成了直接影響？2006年7月7日，

52、美國聯(lián)邦法院哥倫比亞地區(qū)巡回法院就仰融訴遼寧省政府案上訴作出判決，認(rèn)為遼寧省政府的行為屬主權(quán)行為，維持了哥倫比亞地區(qū)法院因缺乏標(biāo)的管轄權(quán)而駁回仰融起訴的一審判決.仰融案在中美法律界引起極大關(guān)注，該案涉及眾多法律問題，特別是涉及國際私法、國際公法等方面的問題，如涉外案件的域外送達(dá)問題、涉外案件的管轄權(quán)問題、 國家主權(quán)豁免問題等。近年來，中國政府在國外特別在美國面臨多次被訴。在以往的案件中，中國政府堅(jiān)持絕對(duì)豁免論，并且美國國務(wù)院也會(huì)出面干

53、預(yù)此類案件中。 可在近年來的案件中，美國國務(wù)院基本不再插手此類案件，而讓中國直接出庭應(yīng)訴，例如，在仰融案件中，美國國務(wù)院就沒有對(duì)美國法院提供有關(guān)意見。這些案件涉 及問題較多，國際法專業(yè)的學(xué)生應(yīng)予特別關(guān)注。遼寧省省長薄熙來說：華晨集團(tuán)前董事長仰融是華晨國有資產(chǎn)的代理人和經(jīng)營者，不是民營企業(yè)家，遼寧接收華晨國有資產(chǎn)是執(zhí)行國家的有關(guān)文件。,Hong Kong court decides to seek national legal inte

54、rpretation over debt dispute between U.S. company, DR CongoOn 8 June 2011, in a 3-to-2 decision, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ordered that subject to the interpretation of the standing committee of China's Na

55、tional People's Congress, a February 2010 lower court ruling that allowed the US distressed-debt fund FG Hemisphere to pursue its claim was set aside. In this case, FG Hemisphere applied to enforce two ICC awards aga

56、inst the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and attach funds owed to the DRC by Chinese state-owned China Railways to satisfy the awards. The court of Final Appeal ruled that the DRC could not be sued in Hong Kong, b

57、ecause of China’s policy of absolute immunity for sovereign states.According to Articles 13 and 19 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, Hong Kong courts have no power to decide on foreign affairs and should ask the standing commit

58、tee for interpretation. Regarding this case, the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry stated that the state immunity issue came under the umbrella of ‘foreign affairs’. “The case cannot be resolved without the Chinese commit

59、tee’s interpretation of what constitutes ‘foreign affairs’ under Hong Kong’s Basic Law”, wrote the justices in the ruling. This is the first time that the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal decided to refer sections of the

60、Basic Law for interpretation.The two ICC awards, originally made in favor of a Sarajevo- based company and together worth more than US$104 million, were issued by tribunals in Zurich and Paris against the DRC. FG Hemisp

61、here later purchased the two arbitration awards.,As the DRC’s assets in Hong Kong are tied to locally listed China Railway Group Ltd. and its related companies, in 2008 FG Hemisphere applied for the enforcement of the tw

62、o arbitral awards at the Hong Kong High Court and claimed a portion of the $350 million in entry fees which China Railway units agreed to pay in exchange for mining rights in the DRC. At the end of 2008, the High Court a

63、ccepted the DRC’s objection on the basis of absolute state immunity. However in February 2010, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal set aside the decision of High Court, stating that the restrictive common law position on state

64、 immunity relied upon before Hong Kong’s hand-over to China should still apply, and that the DRC could not claim state immunity regarding its commercial activities. This decision was reversed by the Hong Kong Court of Fi

65、nal Appeal on 8 June 2011.When applying for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards against sovereign states in Hong Kong, issues of state immunity play an important role. Although China has signed the 2004 United Nation

66、s Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, it has not yet ratified it, and publicly adheres to the doctrine of absolute state immunity. The majority of Chinese commentators have taken the pos

67、ition that after Hong Kong’s return to China, the Hong Kong courts should act in conformity with the Chinese position. In this case, although the DRC concluded the arbitration clauses, it still enjoyed immunity to the Ho

68、ng Kong courts’ jurisdiction of enforcement and execution of awards.Since its hand-over to China in 1997, there has not yet been any case in which a foreign arbitral award has been enforced in Hong Kong against a sovere

69、ign state.,Absolute State Immunity Prevents Enforcement of Arbitral Award in Hong Kong The decision of the Court of Final AppealThe Court of Final Appeal had three questions to determine.First, is the state immunity a

70、vailable in the courts of Hong Kong absolute or restrictive such that it excludes commercial activities undertaken by a state?Secondly, if Congo did have immunity, had it waived that immunity by entering into an arbitra

71、tion agreement or by submitting to arbitration?Thirdly, was the Court required to refer any questions to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (Standing Committee) in Beijing? Hong Kong's cons

72、titution, known as the Basic Law, provides that if Hong Kong's courts need to interpret provisions of the Basic Law that concern affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government (CPG) or co

73、ncern the relationship between the CPG and Hong Kong, and if the interpretation will affect the judgments given, then the courts shall seek an interpretation from the Standing Committee.The majority (comprising Chan PJ,

74、 Ribeiro PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ) held that the absolute theory of immunity applied to Hong Kong, that Congo had not waived that immunity, and that four questions (set out later) should be referred to the Standing C