双语解读 | 从外国国家豁免法看我国涉外法治立法体系

日期：2023-09-20

中文版约7200字，预计阅读19分钟；

英文版约4700词，预计阅读20分钟。

引言

2023年9月1日，十四届全国人大常委会第五次会议表决通过《中华人民共和国外国国家豁免法》（以下简称：“《国家豁免法》”），将于2024年1月1日起施行。该法确立了我国的外国国家豁免制度，授权我国法院在特定情形下管辖以外国国家为被告的民事案件。这是我国统筹推进国内和涉外法治的又一里程碑[1]。

近年来，我国为全面加强涉外法治工作，先后制定和修订了《国家安全法》《香港特别行政区维护国家安全法》、《出口管制法》《反外国制裁法》《对外贸易法》（2022年修正）《对外关系法》等多部涉外法律，另外，实行了近30年的《海商法》也在积极修订中。行政法规和部门规章层面，商务部、科技部2020年第38号公告对《中国禁止出口限制出口技术目录》进行了调整，2020年9月商务部颁布了《不可靠实体清单规定》，2021年1月颁布了《阻断外国法律与措施不当域外适用办法》。上述立法工作凸显了涉外法治工作中保障安全与构建国际化、法治化营商环境的两大核心需求。

1 、关于外国国家豁免

外国国家豁免是指基于国家主权平等原则，一国司法体系不得对另一国及其财产进行司法管辖，包括对另一国的主权行为、主权财产进行审判或采取司法强制措施。而由于国家这一特殊主体越来越多地以民商事主体身份参与国际经济活动，为了保护本国利益，一些国家逐渐转向实行限制豁免原则。所谓限制豁免原则，就是以国家行为和财产是否具备主权性质为区分，对外国国家的“非主权行为”和“国家商业财产”不给予管辖豁免[2]。

《国家豁免法》颁布之前，我国法院一直采取绝对豁免政策，涉及主权豁免的法律仅有2005年《外国中央银行财产司法强制措施豁免法》。《国家豁免法》对外国主权豁免进行专门立法，标志着我国由绝对豁免原则转向国际主流的限制豁免原则。该法为我国相关民事主体根据《阻断外国法律与措施不当域外适用办法》和《反外国制裁法》等保护自身合法权益提供了司法救济途径，如通过中国法院提起阻断诉讼、反制裁诉讼，并获得损害赔偿金。在应对外国长臂管辖和制裁、域外干涉的诉讼语境下，“外国国家”将正式成为适格被告主体，接受我国法院的司法管辖。

2 、《国家豁免法》条文解读

《国家豁免法》共有23条，重点条文解读如下：

部分

重点条文

解读

第一部分

豁免原则

第三条 外国国家及其财产在中华人民共和国的法院享有管辖豁免，本法另有规定的除外。

本条在立法层面明确了我国采取限制豁免原则的立场。

第二部分

接受管辖

第四条 外国国家通过下列方式之一明示就特定事项或者案件接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖的，对于就该事项或者案件提起的诉讼，该外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免：

（一）国际条约；

（二）书面协议；

（三）向处理案件的中华人民共和国的法院提交书面文件；

（四）通过外交渠道等方式向中华人民共和国提交书面文件；

（五）其他明示接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖的方式。

该条明确了外国国家明示接受我国法院管辖的方式包括通过国际条约、书面协议、向我国法院提交书面文件、外交渠道等。

第五条 外国国家有下列情形之一的，视为就特定事项或者案件接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖：

（一）作为原告向中华人民共和国的法院提起诉讼；

（二）作为被告参加中华人民共和国的法院受理的诉讼，并就案件实体问题答辩或者提出反诉；

（三）作为第三人参加中华人民共和国的法院受理的诉讼；

（四）在中华人民共和国的法院作为原告提起诉讼或者作为第三人提出诉讼请求时，由于与该起诉或者该诉讼请求相同的法律关系或者事实被提起反诉。

外国国家有前款第二项规定的情形，但能够证明其作出上述答辩之前不可能知道有可主张豁免的事实的，可以在知道或者应当知道该事实后的合理时间内主张管辖豁免。

该条明确了视为外国国家接受我国法院管辖的情形。其中，该条第二款为外国国家有权向我国法院主张管辖豁免提供了法律依据。该规定与《联合国国家及其财产管辖豁免公约》第八条相一致，遵从了缔约国义务。

第六条 外国国家有下列情形之一的，不视为接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖：

（一）仅为主张豁免而应诉答辩；

（二）外国国家的代表在中华人民共和国的法院出庭作证；

（三）同意在特定事项或者案件中适用中华人民共和国的法律。

该条明确了外国国家不视为接受我国法院管辖的行为。

第三部分

管辖豁免的例外

第七条 外国国家与包括中华人民共和国在内的其他国家的组织或者个人进行的商业活动，在中华人民共和国领域内发生，或者虽然发生在中华人民共和国领域外但在中华人民共和国领域内产生直接影响的，对于该商业活动引起的诉讼，该外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免。

本法所称商业活动是指非行使主权权力的关于货物或者服务的交易、投资、借贷以及其他商业性质的行为。中华人民共和国的法院在认定一项行为是否属于商业活动时，应当综合考虑该行为的性质和目的。

第七条至第十二条规定了外国国家及其财产豁免的例外情形，包括外国国家与我国相关民事主体之间产生的，与商业活动、劳动合同、人身伤亡或财产损失、财产的所有权、占有和使用、知识产权，以及仲裁协议的效力等有关的争议中，该外国国家在中国的法院不享有管辖豁免。

适用管辖权豁免例外的商业活动应当同时满足如下要件，且中国法院对商业活动的性质认定有自主裁量权：

（1）并非行使主权权利的行为；

（2）行为具有商业性质、目的；

（3）商业活动的主体为外国国家和其他国家的组织或个人；

（4）该商业活动在中国领域内发生或产生直接影响。

第四部分

司法强制措施豁免及例外

第十三条 外国国家的财产在中华人民共和国的法院享有司法强制措施豁免。

外国国家接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖，不视为放弃司法强制措施豁免。

第十三条第二款和第十四条明确将管辖豁免和司法强制措施豁免进行了区分，外国国家接受中国的法院管辖，不视为放弃司法强制措施豁免；只有在外国国家以有效方式明示放弃、指定用于执行的财产，或是对位于中国境内的、与诉讼有联系的商业活动相关财产才可采取强制执行措施。

第十四条 有下列情形之一的，外国国家的财产在中华人民共和国的法院不享有司法强制措施豁免：

（一）外国国家以国际条约、书面协议或者向中华人民共和国的法院提交书面文件等方式明示放弃司法强制措施豁免；

（二）外国国家已经拨出或者专门指定财产用于司法强制措施执行；

（三）为执行中华人民共和国的法院的生效判决、裁定，对外国国家位于中华人民共和国领域内、用于商业活动且与诉讼有联系的财产采取司法强制措施。

第五部分

诉讼程序

第十七条 中华人民共和国的法院向外国国家送达传票或者其他诉讼文书，应当按照下列方式进行：

（一）该外国国家与中华人民共和国缔结或者共同参加的国际条约规定的方式；

（二）该外国国家接受且中华人民共和国法律不禁止的其他方式。

通过前款方式无法完成送达的，可以通过外交照会方式送交该外国国家外交部门，外交照会发出之日视为完成送达。

按照本条第一款、第二款规定的方式进行送达的诉讼文书，应当依照该外国国家与中华人民共和国缔结或者共同参加的国际条约的规定附上有关语言的译本，没有相关国际条约的，附上该外国国家官方语言的译本。

向外国国家送达起诉状副本时，应当一并通知该外国国家在收到起诉状副本后三个月内提出答辩状。

外国国家在对其提起的诉讼中就实体问题答辩后，不得再就诉讼文书的送达方式提出异议。

第十六条至第十九条规定了，适用于外国国家豁免案件的诉讼程序事项，除我国民事诉讼法，对国家豁免案件中的送达、缺席判决等特殊程序作了专门规定。例如，第十七条新增了可以通过外交照会方式实现送达，外交照会发出之日视为完成送达。第十八条针对缺席判决的送达和上诉期间，规定法院可以在诉讼文书送达之日的六个月以后缺席判决，自判决书送达之日起六个月为上诉期间。

第十八条 经送达完成，外国国家未在中华人民共和国的法院指定期限内出庭的，法院应当主动查明该外国国家是否享有管辖豁免。对于外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免的案件，法院可以缺席判决，但应当在诉讼文书送达之日的六个月以后。

中华人民共和国的法院对外国国家作出的缺席判决，应当按照本法第十七条的规定送达。

外国国家对中华人民共和国的法院缺席判决提起上诉的期限为六个月，从判决书送达之日起计算。

第六部分

其他规定

第二十条 本法规定不影响外国的外交代表机构、领事机构、特别使团、驻国际组织代表团、派往国际会议的代表团及上述机构的相关人员根据中华人民共和国的法律、中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约享有的特权与豁免。

本法规定不影响外国国家元首、政府首脑、外交部长及其他具有同等身份的官员根据中华人民共和国的法律、中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约以及国际习惯享有的特权与豁免。

第二十条和第二十一条从遵守国际公约外交豁免义务角度，重申了外交团体组织和人员根据我国法律、我国缔结或者参加的国际条约以及国际习惯应当享有的特权与豁免，同时坚持防御措施的对等原则（Reciprocity）。

第二十一条 外国给予中华人民共和国国家及其财产的豁免待遇低于本法规定的，中华人民共和国实行对等原则。

3 、与《民事诉讼法》（2023年修正版）的衔接

为配合《国家豁免法》的实施， 2023年9月2日修订的《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（以下简称：“《民诉法》（2023修正）”）中增加第三百零五条：“涉及外国国家的民事诉讼，适用中华人民共和国有关外国国家豁免的法律规定；有关法律没有规定的，适用本法”，为依据《国家豁免法》发起的诉讼提供了涉外诉讼程序的相应衔接机制。

结合《民事诉讼法》（2023年修正）第四编“涉外民事诉讼程序的特别规定”（简称“涉外编”）相关修订条款的分析（红色字体为重点修改或新增内容）如下：

内容

《民诉法》（2023年修正版）

《国家豁免法》有关分析

管辖

第二百七十六条 因涉外民事纠纷，对在中华人民共和国领域内没有住所的被告提起除身份关系以外的诉讼，如果合同签订地、合同履行地、诉讼标的物所在地、可供扣押财产所在地、侵权行为地、代表机构住所地位于中华人民共和国领域内的，可以由合同签订地、合同履行地、诉讼标的物所在地、可供扣押财产所在地、侵权行为地、代表机构住所地人民法院管辖。

除前款规定外，涉外民事纠纷与中华人民共和国存在其他适当联系的，可以由人民法院管辖。

专属管辖：本条明确了我国法院对依照《国家豁免法》提起的诉讼具有专属管辖权，故排除了仲裁等争议解决程序。

地域管辖：依据《国家豁免法》提起的诉讼应识别为涉外民商事诉讼案件，对地域管辖作出规定，其中，新增的“其他适当联系”为特殊地域管辖难以覆盖的反外国制裁等案件提供更多管辖链接点。

级别管辖：涉外编未有特别规定，故应按《民诉法》（2023修正版）第十九条，由中级人民法院管辖，或由最高院在各地设立的国际商事法庭审理。

送达

第二百八十三条 人民法院对在中华人民共和国领域内没有住所的当事人送达诉讼文书，可以采用下列方式：

（一）依照受送达人所在国与中华人民共和国缔结或者共同参加的国际条约中规定的方式送达；

（二）通过外交途径送达；

（三）对具有中华人民共和国国籍的受送达人，可以委托中华人民共和国驻受送达人所在国的使领馆代为送达；

（四）向受送达人在本案中委托的诉讼代理人送达；

（五）向受送达人在中华人民共和国领域内设立的独资企业、代表机构、分支机构或者有权接受送达的业务代办人送达；

（六）受送达人为外国人、无国籍人，其在中华人民共和国领域内设立的法人或者其他组织担任法定代表人或者主要负责人，且与该法人或者其他组织为共同被告的，向该法人或者其他组织送达；

（七）受送达人为外国法人或者其他组织，其法定代表人或者主要负责人在中华人民共和国领域内的，向其法定代表人或者主要负责人送达；

（八）受送达人所在国的法律允许邮寄送达的，可以邮寄送达，自邮寄之日起满三个月，送达回证没有退回，但根据各种情况足以认定已经送达的，期间届满之日视为送达；

（九）采用能够确认受送达人收悉的电子方式送达，但是受送达人所在国法律禁止的除外；

（十）以受送达人同意的其他方式送达，但是受送达人所在国法律禁止的除外。

不能用上述方式送达的，公告送达，自发出公告之日起，经过六十日，即视为送达。

关于诉讼文书的送达，《民诉法》（2023修正版）与《国家豁免法》有所区别，诸如“向受送达人在本案中委托的诉讼代理人送达”“向受送达人在中华人民共和国领域内设立的独资企业、代表机构、分支机构或者有权接受送达的业务代办人送达”“公告送达”等方式在以外国国家为被告的诉讼案件中并不适用。

此外，《民诉法》（2023修正版）并未规定通过外交途径送达的完成时间，如果通过邮寄送达的，需自邮寄之日起满三个月；公告送达的，经过六十日，即视为送达。但《国家豁免法》规定以外交照会方式送达的，发出之日视为完成送达。

《国家豁免法》生效后，必定会涌现一批以外国国家为被告的诉讼案件，而目前规定的有限的送达途径能否满足司法实务的需求，有待进一步观察。

调查取证

第二百八十四条 当事人申请人民法院调查收集的证据位于中华人民共和国领域外，人民法院可以依照证据所在国与中华人民共和国缔结或者共同参加的国际条约中规定的方式，或者通过外交途径调查收集。

在所在国法律不禁止的情况下，人民法院可以采用下列方式调查收集：

（一）对具有中华人民共和国国籍的当事人、证人，可以委托中华人民共和国驻当事人、证人所在国的使领馆代为取证；

（二）经双方当事人同意，通过即时通讯工具取证；

（三）以双方当事人同意的其他方式取证。

本条新增了人民法院对域外证据的调取途径。

《国家豁免法》并未对调查取证做出特别规定，根据民诉法第三百零六条、《国家豁免法》第十六条，在以外国国家为被告的诉讼案件中，人民法院可以采取本新增条款的方式调查取证。

人民法院可以依据1997年加入的《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的公约》，向境外申请调取证据；同时，对于外国法院在基于“长臂管辖”案件审理过程中要求我国企业和公民（包含我国企业境外分支机构）提交资料的要求，我国企业和公民亦可根据该公约第十一、十二条，根据中国法律、损害中国主权和安全为由拒绝配合提供证据，抵制外国长臂管辖和制裁。

境外判决和裁定的承认与执行

第三百条 对申请或者请求承认和执行的外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定，人民法院经审查，有下列情形之一的，裁定不予承认和执行：

（一）依据本法第三百零一条的规定，外国法院对案件无管辖权；

（二）被申请人未得到合法传唤或者虽经合法传唤但未获得合理的陈述、辩论机会，或者无诉讼行为能力的当事人未得到适当代理；

（三）判决、裁定是通过欺诈方式取得；

（四）人民法院已对同一纠纷作出判决、裁定，或者已经承认第三国法院对同一纠纷作出的判决、裁定；

（五）违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者损害国家主权、安全、社会公共利益。

新增的三百条第（五）款，对涉制裁和长臂管辖的外国法院判决、裁定坚决不予承认和执行。

此外，2021年12月31日实施的《全国法院涉外商事海事审判工作座谈会会议纪要》第46条第2款的规定，“外国法院作出的发生法律效力的判决、裁定违反中华人民共和国法律的基本原则或者国家主权、安全、社会公共利益的，不予承认和执行。”

4 、外国相关立法

从外国的立法时间来看，其他国家针对国家主权豁免这一问题也都颁布过相关立法，一贯奉行限制豁免的立场与原则，如美国早在1976年通过《外国主权豁免法案》（Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act，以下简称“《法案》”）[4]，立法思路为先确定外国国家定义以及范围，再列举不符合国家主权豁免情况即主权豁免例外，包括：外国国家放弃豁免例外、商业行为例外、非法征用例外、非商业侵权例外、执行仲裁例外以及2016年新增的恐怖主义例外，限制国家主权豁免范围，同时赋予美国法院强制执行权，只要被执行的财产与引起诉讼的商业活动有关，美国法院就可以不经外国国家同意加以强制执行。

《法案》自生效以来，已有一些美国个人或企业试图通过该法案在美国法院起诉外国国家主体，例如：CYBERsitter诉被告中国政府和联想集团、海尔集团等中国公司侵犯原告知识产权案[5]，其中涉及中国国家豁免的诉讼请求为“因中国政府通过许可、再许可和分发green Dam程序，故意盗用原告的受版权保护软件，属于商事行为，不享受国家主权豁免”。在该案中，海尔等公司主张中国政府享有主权豁免，要求法庭驳回原告起诉、撤销案件。美国法院认为，因中国政府通过许可，再许可和分发Green Dam程序，故意盗用原告的受版权保护的软件，属于商业行为，不享有国家主权豁免。后续案件和解。

在国际公约层面，联合国组织的《联合国国家及其财产管辖豁免公约》[6](以下简称“《公约》”)已于2004年通过，截至目前已有28个国家签署（包括中国）、13个国家批准，目前尚未生效；《公约》的架构思路参照上述《法案》、《豁免法》等，除列出不得援引国家豁免的诉讼外，还规定了在法院诉讼中免于强制措施的国家豁免相关条款，区分国家主体的管辖豁免和执行豁免。虽然该《公约》尚未生效，但很多国家已实际参照《公约》的规定，分别制定自己的国内法律予以颁布。比如日本颁布的《外国国家及其财产豁免法》，不仅接受了《公约》中大部分规定，同时也将部分规定模糊化，以扩大自身管辖权范围。另外各国法院在涉及豁免问题相关判决时，也会引用《公约》的某些规定，甚至认可为习惯国际法[7]。

5 、结语

《中华人民共和国外国国家豁免法》彰显我国在继续捍卫国际法为基础的国际秩序前提下，继续完善在保护我国国家安全、反制裁和阻断长臂管辖的防御性立法体系。我们将继续跟进和关注该等法律的适用和实践情况，如受理条件、举证责任、损害赔偿、免责条款等的进一步实施意见。

注释

[1]外交部条法司司长：《我国出台外国国家豁免法——涉外法治建设的里程碑》，载《人民日报》，2023年9月4日。

[2]全国人大常委会法工委负责人就外国国家豁免法答记者问，2023年9月2日。

[3]同脚注2

[4]来源：https://www.govinfo.gov/

[5]CYBERsitter, LLC v. People's Republic of China, Case No. CV 10–00038–JST (SHx)

[6]来源：https://www.un.org/zh/documents/treaty/A-RES-59-38

[7]联合国国家及其财产管辖豁免公约，Philippa Webb

Analyzing China's Foreign Rule of Law Legislative Framework through Foreign State Immunity Law

Introduction

On September 1, 2023, the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the Fourteenth National People's Congress approved the Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign State Immunity (the "Immunity Law"), which will take effect on January 1, 2024. The Law establishes China's foreign state immunity system and authorizes Chinese courts to have jurisdiction over civil cases in which a foreign state is a defendant under certain circumstances. This marks another important milestone in China's comprehensive efforts to promote both domestic and international rule of law[1].

In recent years, in order to comprehensively strengthen the rule of law in foreign affairs, China has successively enacted and amended a large number of foreign-related laws. These include the National Security Law, the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law, the Export Control Law, the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the Foreign Trade Law and the Foreign Relations Law. In addition, the Maritime Law, which has been in force for nearly 30 years, is currently undergoing active revision. At the level of administrative regulations and departmental rules, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) made adjustments to China's Catalogue of Prohibited and Restricted Export Technologies in Announcement No. 38 of 2020. In September 2020, MOFCOM promulgated the Provisions on the List of Unreliable Entities, and in January 2021, Measures to Prevent the Improper Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Laws and Measures were issued. The aforementioned legislative efforts underscore the two core requirements of foreign-related rule of law work: ensuring security and building an internationalized and rule-of-law business environment.

Ⅰ On the Immunity of Foreign States

Foreign sovereign immunity means, based on the sovereign equality of nations, that the judicial system of one country may not exercise jurisdiction over another country or its property. This includes the trial of sovereign acts and property, or the imposition of judicial enforcement measures against another country. As countries increasingly participate in international economic activities as non-sovereign entities, some nations have gradually adopted the doctrine of restrictive immunity to protect their national interests. The doctrine of restrictive immunity distinguishes between acts and property of a state with sovereign characteristics and those without, denying jurisdictional immunity to "non-sovereign acts" and "commercial property of the state" of foreign countries[2].

Prior to the enactment of the Immunity Law, China had consistently followed a policy of absolute immunity. The only law pertaining to sovereign immunity is the 2005 Foreign Central Banks Property Judicial Enforcement Measures Immunity Act. The introduction of the Immunity Law represents a shift from the principle of absolute immunity to the internationally recognized principle of restrictive immunity. This law provides a specific legal framework for foreign state immunity in China. It allows relevant civil entities in China to seek judicial remedies to protect their legitimate rights and interests under laws such as the Measures for Blocking the Improper Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Laws and Measures and the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law. These remedies include filing blocking and anti-sanction lawsuits and seeking compensation in Chinese courts. In litigation involving foreign jurisdiction, sanctions and extraterritorial interference, "foreign states" are now officially considered eligible defendants subject to the jurisdiction of Chinese courts.

Ⅱ Interpretation of the Provisions of the Immunity Law

The Immunity Law consists of 23 articles, the highlights of which are explained below:

portion

Key provisions

decode

Part I

Principle of immunity

Article 3

Unless otherwise stipulated in the present Law, foreign states and their property enjoy immunity from jurisdiction of the courts of the People's Republic of China.

Article 3 clearly articulates China's adoption of the principle of restrictive immunity in legislation.

Part II

Acceptance of jurisdiction

Article 4

A foreign State shall not enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the People’s Republic of China in proceedings instituted with regard to a particular matter or case if it has expressly submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the People’s Republic of China with regard to the matter or case:

1. in an international treaty;

2. in a written agreement;

3. in a written document filed with the court of the People’s Republic of China handling the case;

4. in a written document submitted to the People’s Republic of China through diplomatic or other channels; or

5. in other manner of express submission to the jurisdiction of the courts of the People’s Republic of China.

Article 4 provides that foreign states may expressly accept the jurisdiction of Chinese courts by means such as international treaties, written agreements, submission of written documents to Chinese courts, or diplomatic channels.

Article 5

A foreign State shall be considered as having submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the People’s Republic of China with regard to a particular matter or case if it has:

1. instituted proceedings in a court of the People’s Republic of China as a plaintiff;

2. participated in proceedings before a court of the People’s Republic of China as a defendant, and made a defense on the merits of the case or a counterclaim;

3. participated in proceedings before a court of the People’s Republic of China as a third party; or

4. been counterclaimed on the basis of the same legal relationship or facts during proceedings it instituted as a plaintiff or in the claims it made as a third party before a court of the People’s Republic of China.

Notwithstanding the provision of sub-paragraph 2 of the preceding paragraph, where a foreign State can prove that it could not have acquired knowledge of facts on which a claim to immunity can be based until after it made the defense, it can claim immunity within a reasonable period after it knew or ought to have known about those facts.

Article 5 outlines the circumstances under which a foreign state is deemed to accept the jurisdiction of Chinese courts. In particular, the second paragraph of this article provides a legal basis for a foreign state to assert jurisdictional immunity before Chinese courts. This provision is consistent with Article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property and upholds the obligations of the signing parties to the Convention.

Article 6

A foreign State will not be deemed to have accepted the jurisdiction of a court of the People's Republic of China if

1. it responds to a lawsuit or make a defense only for the purpose of claiming exemption;

2. its representatives appear as witnesses before a court of the People's Republic of China; or

3. it consents to the application of the law of the People's Republic of China in any specific matter or case.

Article 6 also clarifies that certain actions by a foreign state shall not be construed as acceptance of Chinese jurisdiction.

Part III

Exceptions to immunity from jurisdiction

Article 7

A foreign State shall not enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the People’s Republic of China in any proceedings arising out of a commercial activity between the foreign State and an organization or an individual of another State including the People’s Republic of China, which takes place in the territory of the People’s Republic of China, or takes place outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China but causes a direct effect in the territory of the People’s Republic of China.

In this Law, a commercial activity means any act of transaction of goods or services, investment, lending, or any other act of a commercial nature, which is not an exercise of sovereign authority. The courts of the People’s Republic of China, in determining whether an act is a commercial activity, shall consider all factors relating to the nature and purpose of the act.

Articles 7 to 12 provide exceptions to the immunity of a foreign state and its property. These include disputes between a foreign state and relevant Chinese civil entities relating to commercial activities, employment contracts, personal injury or death, property damage, ownership, possession and use of property, intellectual property rights, and the validity of arbitration agreements. In such cases, the foreign state does not enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the Chinese courts.

Commercial activities exempt from jurisdiction should simultaneously meet the following criteria, and Chinese courts have discretionary authority to determine the nature of such commercial activities:

(1) Acts that do not exercise sovereign rights;

(2) Acts characterized by commercial nature and purpose;

(3) The subject of the commercial activity is organizations or individuals from foreign states and other countries;

(4) The commercial activity occurs within the territory of China or has a direct impact therein.

Part IV

Immunities and exceptions to judicial measures of constraint

Article 13

The property of a foreign State enjoys immunity from compulsory judicial measures in the courts of the People’s Republic of China.

Submission by a foreign State to the jurisdiction of the courts of the People’s Republic of China shall not be considered as its waiver of immunity from compulsory judicial measures.

Articles 13(2) and 14 clearly distinguish between jurisdiction immunity and judicial enforcement measures immunity. A foreign state's acceptance of Chinese jurisdiction does not constitute a waiver of immunity from judicial enforcement measures. Enforcement measures may only be taken with respect to property expressly waived by the foreign state in an effective manner, property designated for enforcement, or property located in Chinese territory in connection with commercial activities related to a lawsuit.

Article 14

The property of a foreign State shall not enjoy immunity from compulsory judicial measures in the courts of the People’s Republic of China if:

1. the foreign State has expressly waived immunity from compulsory judicial measures by an international treaty, a written agreement, a written document filed with a court of the People’s Republic of China, or other means;

2. the foreign State has allocated or earmarked the property for the enforcement of compulsory judicial measures; or

3. the compulsory judicial measures are taken to enforce a valid judgment or ruling rendered by a court of the People’s Republic of China, and the property of the foreign State is located in the territory of the People’s Republic of China, used for a commercial activity, and connected to the proceedings.

Part V

proceedings

Article 17

The courts of the People’s Republic of China shall effect service of writs of summons or such other litigation documents on a foreign State in accordance with:

1. the means specified in international treaties to which the foreign State and the People’s Republic of China are contracting or acceding parties; or

2. other means accepted by the foreign State and not precluded by the law of the People’s Republic of China.

Where the service cannot be effected by means specified in the preceding paragraph, service may be effected by transmitting a diplomatic note to the diplomatic authorities of the foreign State, and the service shall be deemed to have been effected on the date of the issuance of the diplomatic note.

The litigation documents served by means specified in the first and second paragraphs of this Article shall be accompanied by copies of their translation into the language stipulated in the international treaties to which the foreign State and the People’s Republic of China are contracting or acceding parties, or, in the absence of such treaties, into the official language of the foreign State.

When serving a copy of the statement of claim on a foreign State, the foreign State shall, at the same time, be notified to file a defense within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the statement of claim.

A foreign State that filed a defense on the merits of the case in proceedings instituted against it shall not thereafter challenge the means by which the service of the litigation documents had been effected.

Articles 16 to 19 provide procedural guidelines for cases involving foreign sovereign immunity that supplement our Rules of Civil Procedure. They specifically address special procedures such as service of process and default judgments in cases involving sovereign immunity. For example, Article 17 introduces the possibility of service through diplomatic channels, with the date of issuance being considered the date of completion. Article 18, which deals with the service of a judgment in absentia and the time limit for appeal, states that the court may render a judgment in absentia six months after the date of service of the writ of certiorari. The appeal period begins six months after service of the judgment.

Article 18

If a foreign State on which the service of litigation documents is effected fails to appear before a court of the People’s Republic of China within the time limit specified by the court, the court shall, on its own motion, find out whether the foreign State enjoys jurisdictional immunity. The court of the People’s Republic of China may render a default judgment on a case involving a foreign State which does not enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the People’s Republic of China six months after the date on which the service of the litigation documents is effected.

A default judgment rendered by a court of the People’s Republic of China against a foreign State shall be served in accordance with Article 17 of this Law.

The time limit for a foreign State to appeal a default judgment rendered by a court of the People’s Republic of China is six months from the date on which the service of the judgment is effected.

Part VI

Other provisions

Article 20

The provisions of this Law shall not affect the privileges and immunities enjoyed by diplomatic missions, consular posts, special missions, missions to international organizations, delegations to international conferences of a foreign State and members of the foregoing missions or delegations in accordance with the law of the People’s Republic of China and the international treaties to which the People’s Republic of China is a contracting or acceding party.

The provisions of this Law shall not affect the privileges and immunities enjoyed by heads of State, heads of government, foreign ministers and other officials of equivalent status of a foreign State in accordance with the law of the People’s Republic of China, the international treaties to which the People’s Republic of China is a contracting or acceding party, and international custom.

Regarding compliance with international conventions on diplomatic immunity obligations, Article 20 and 21 reaffirms the privileges and immunities that diplomatic corps organizations and personnel should enjoy in accordance with Chinese law, relevant international treaties to which China is a party, and established international customs. This position is consistent with the principle of reciprocity in defensive measures.

Article 21

If the immunity accorded by a State to the People’s Republic of China and its property is less favorable than those provided by this Law, the People’s Republic of China applies the principle of reciprocity.

Ⅲ Interface with the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Amended in 2023)

In order to coordinate with the implementation of the Immunity Law, Article 305 was added to the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Procedure Law (Amended in 2023)”) as amended on September 2, 2023, which states: " The provisions of the laws of the People's Republic of China on foreign state immunity shall apply to civil lawsuits involving foreign states; where the relevant laws do not provide, this Law shall apply." This provision establishes a corresponding procedural framework for foreign-related litigation initiated in accordance with the Immunity Law.

Analyze the relevant amendments to Part IV of the Civil Procedure Law (Amended in 2023), "Special Provisions on Foreign-related Civil Procedures" (the "Foreign-related Part") (important changes or additions in red):

Element

Civil Procedure Code (Amended in 2023)

Analysis of the Immunities Act

Jurisdiction

Article 276

For a foreign-related civil dispute lawsuit other than the personal status relationship filed against a defendant who has no domicile within the territory of the People's Republic of China, the people's court at the place of execution of contract, the place of performance of contract, the location of the subject matter of litigation, the location of the properties available for seizure, the place of infringement act or the domicile of the representative office may have jurisdiction, if the place of execution of contract, the place of performance of contract, the location of the subject matter of litigation, the location of the properties available for seizure, the place of infringement act or the domicile of the representative office is located within the territory of the People's Republic of China.

Except as stipulated in the preceding paragraph, foreign-related civil disputes that are otherwise appropriately related to the People's Republic of China may fall under the jurisdiction of the people's court.

Exclusive Jurisdiction: This provision clarifies that Chinese courts have exclusive jurisdiction over lawsuits filed in accordance with the Immunity Law, thereby excluding other dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration.

Territorial Jurisdiction: Lawsuits filed under the Immunity Law should be recognized as foreign-related civil and commercial cases, and territorial jurisdiction should be determined accordingly. Additionally, the newly added criterion of "other appropriate connections" provides more jurisdictional links for cases involving foreign sanctions and other matters that may not be covered by specific territorial jurisdiction.

Level of Jurisdiction: There are no specific provisions in the Foreign-Related Procedural Law, so according to Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Code (Amended in 2023), these cases shall be under the jurisdiction of intermediate people's courts, or be heard by international commercial tribunals established by the Supreme People's Court in various regions.

Service of Process

Article 283

A people's court may adopt the following methods for service of litigation documents on litigants without domicile in the People's Republic of China:

(1) service by the methods stipulated in an international treaty concluded or jointly acceded to by the country of the party being served and the People's Republic of China;

(2) service through diplomatic channels;

(3) service upon the party being served with the Chinese nationality by the entrusted embassy or consulate of the People's Republic of China based in the country where the party being served resides;

(4) service on the agent ad litem entrusted by the party being served in the lawsuit;

(5) service on a wholly-owned enterprise, representative office or branch established in the People's Republic of China by the party being served or a business agent who has the right to receive service of process;

(6) service on the legal person or other organisation where the party being served is a foreigner or a Stateless person, who acts as the legal representative or key person-in-charge of a legal person or any other organisation established in the People's Republic of China, and is the co-defendant with the said legal person or other organisation;

(7) service on the legal representative or key person-in-charge where the party being served is a foreign legal person or any other organisation, and its legal representative or key person-in-charge is in the People's Republic of China;

(8) where the laws of the country where the party being served resides permit service of documents by mail, the documents may be served by mail; upon expiry of a three-month period from the date of mailing and the acknowledgement of service is not being returned, but the documents may be deemed served based on the circumstances, the service shall be deemed successful on the date of expiry of the period;

(9) service by electronic methods for which receipt by the party being served can be confirmed, except prohibited by the laws of the country where the party being served resides; and

(10) service by any other methods agreed by the party being served, except prohibited by the laws of the country where the party being served resides.

Where the documents cannot be served by any of the aforesaid methods, the documents shall be served by way of a public announcement and deemed served 60 days after the date of issuance of the public announcement."

Regarding the service of legal documents, there are differences between the Civil Procedure Law (2023 revised edition) and the Immunity Law. Methods such as "service to the litigation agent appointed by the person to be served in the case," "service to wholly-owned enterprises, representative offices, branch offices established within the territory of the People's Republic of China by the person to be served, or authorized business agents capable of accepting service," and "service by public notice" are not applicable in cases where foreign states are defendants.

Furthermore, the Civil Procedure Law (2023 revised edition) does not specify the time frame for completion of service through diplomatic channels. For service by mail, it must be deemed complete three months from the date of mailing. For service by public notice, it is considered complete after sixty days. However, the Immunity Law stipulates that service by means of diplomatic note is deemed completed on the date of issuance.

With the enactment of the Immunity Law, a wave of lawsuits involving foreign states as defendants is expected to emerge. Whether the limited methods of service currently provided can meet the needs of judicial practice remains to be further observed.

Investigation and Evidence Collection

Article 284

Where the evidence applied by a litigant to a people's court for investigation and collection is located outside the People's Republic of China, the people's court may investigate and collect evidence pursuant to the methods stipulated in the international treaties concluded or jointly acceded to by the country where the evidence is located and the People's Republic of China or through diplomatic channels.

Where the laws of the country where the evidence is located do not prohibit, the people's court may adopt the following methods to investigate and collect evidence:

(1) where a litigant or witness is of PRC nationality, the people's court may entrust the embassy or consulate of the People's Republic of China based in the country of the litigant or witness to collect evidence on its behalf;

(2) upon consent of both parties to the case, it may collect evidence through instant messaging tools; and

(3) it may collect evidence by any other method agreed by both parties to the case."

This article adds new ways for people's courts to access extraterritorial evidence.

The Immunity Law does not make special provisions for the investigation and collection of evidence, and according to Article 306 of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 16 of the Immunity Law, the people's court may investigate and collect evidence in the manner of this new article in litigation cases in which a foreign state is the defendant.

The people's courts may apply for the collection of evidence from abroad on the basis of the Convention on the Taking of Evidence from Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, to which China ratified in 1997. At the same time, when foreign courts request Chinese enterprises and citizens (including the overseas branches of Chinese enterprises) to submit information in the course of cases based on "long-arm jurisdiction", Chinese enterprises and citizens may also, in accordance with Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention, refuse to cooperate in the provision of evidence on the basis of Chinese law and on the grounds of jeopardizing China's sovereignty and security, so as to resist foreign long-arm jurisdiction and sanctions.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Decisions

Article 300

For a judgment or ruling made by a foreign court which has come into legal effect for which recognition and enforcement are applied or requested, a people's court shall rule upon examination not to recognize and enforce such judgment or ruling under any of the following circumstances:

(1) the foreign court has no jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the provisions of Article 301 of this Law;

(2) the respondent has not been legitimately summoned or the respondent has been legitimately summoned but has not been given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation and debate, or the litigant without litigation capacity has not been assigned appropriate agent;

(3) the judgment or ruling is obtained by fraud;

(4) the people's court has made a judgment or ruling on the same dispute, or has recognised the judgment or ruling made by a court of a third country for the same dispute; or

(5) it violates the basic principles of the laws of the People's Republic of China or harms the State sovereignty, security and public interest."

The new Article 300 (5) categorically excludes the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and decisions involving sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction.

In addition, Article 46 (2), of the Minutes of the National Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trial Work of Courts, which was implemented on December 31, 2021, provides that "Where a legally effective judgment or ruling made by a foreign court violates the basic principles of the laws of the People's Republic of China or violates State sovereignty, security and public interest, the judgment or ruling shall not be recognized and enforced".

Ⅳ Relevant Foreign Legislation

From the perspective of foreign legislation, other countries have also enacted relevant legislation on the issue of sovereign immunity of the state, and have consistently pursued the doctrine of Restrictive Immunity, such as the United States enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")[4]. in 1976, the legislative logic of the Act is to first determine the definition and scope of foreign states, and then enumerate the circumstances that do not meet the requirement of sovereign immunity of the state that is, sovereign immunity exceptions, including: the foreign state waiver of immunity, commercial activities, violation of international law, non-commercial tortious act or omission, the enforcement of arbitration, and the terrorism amended in 2016, together to limit the scope of the state's sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, the Act vest the U.S. courts the power to enforce without the consent of the foreign state as long as the property being enforced is related to the commercial activity.

Since the Act came into effect, some U.S. individuals or enterprises have attempted to sue some foreign states in U.S. courts, e.g., one of the famous one is CYBERsitter v. People's Republic of China, the defendants include Chinese Government, Lenovo Group, Haier Group and Other Chinese Companies. The immunity issue of the case is whether the Chinese government’s alleged infringement on Plaintiff's Intellectual Property Rights fall within commercial activity exceptions to the Act[5],. Haier Group claimed that the Chinese government is immune from this suit and asked the court to dismiss the case. The court held that since the Chinese government knowingly misappropriated the plaintiff's copyrighted software through the licensing, sublicensing, and distribution of the Green Dam program, this is a commercial act that is not entitled to state sovereign immunity. In the end the case was settled.

At the level of international law, the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property [6](hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"), adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2004, and as of today it has been signed by 28 States (including China) and ratified by 13 States, and the Convention has not yet entered into force. The Convention is embodied with the logic of the above-mentioned the Act and other Countries’ Immunity Laws. In addition to listing the actions in which state immunity may not be invoked, the Convention also provides for provisions relating to State immunity from measures of constraint in court proceedings, distinguishing between immunity from jurisdiction and immunity from execution for state subjects. Although the Convention has not yet entered into force, many countries have enacted their own domestic laws, taking into account the provisions of the Convention. For example, Japan had enacted the Law on Immunity of Foreign States and Their Property, which not only accepted most of the provisions of the Convention, but also blurred some of them in order to expand the scope of its judicial jurisdiction. In addition, some provisions of the Convention are cited by many countries’ courts in their applications on immunity issues and are even recognized as customary international law[7].

Ⅴ Conclusion

The Immunity Law demonstrates that, while continuing to safeguard the international order based on international law, China has continued to improve its defensive legislative system for the protection of its national security, counter-sanctions and the blocking of long-arm jurisdiction. We will follow up and pay attention to the application and practice of these laws, such as the conditions of admissibility, the burden of proof, damages, exemption clauses and other further implementation guidelines.

注释

[1]Director of the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "China Introduces Foreign State Immunity Law - A Milestone in the Construction of Rule of Law Related to Foreign Affairs," in People's Daily, September 4, 2023

[2]Head of the Legal Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Answers Reporters' Questions on the Foreign State Immunity Law, September 2, 2023

[3]Id.

[4]Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/
[5]CYBERsitter, LLC v. People's Republic of China, Case No. CV 10-00038-JST (SHx)
[6]Source: https://www.un.org/zh/documents/treaty/A-RES-59-38
[7]United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, Philippa Webb

律师助理刘慎勇、实习生王俊方对本文均有贡献
审稿人：宗媛、叶宝

上一篇: 强化企业合规：合规管理三道防线的协同运作下一篇: 第三方监控人履职困境、成因与标准

律师推荐

查看更多+

涉外业务
公司证券、合规与监管

新闻动态

双语解读 | 从外国国家豁免法看我国涉外法治立法体系