統籌推進國內法治和涉外法治中的“統籌”問題

“Coordination”in the Promotion of the Domestic Rule of Law and Foreign-related Rule of Law in a Coordinated Manner

2020年中央全面依法治國工作會議提出的“統籌推進國內法治和涉外法治”使得不同領域的法治實踐被有意識地強化彼此間的聯繫。統籌推進國內法治和涉外法治應當同時追求建設中國圖景中的法治中國與世界圖景中的法治中國，實現對內事務與對外事務的全面法治，平衡維護國家主權、安全與發展利益之間的需求，兼顧中國國家利益與國際社會利益。統籌推進國內法治和涉外法治，不僅涉及在制度、行為體、機制以及場所等方面進行恰當的建構、動員與選擇，而且更要解決具有根本重要性的方法論選擇問題，即涉外法治遵循正常化邏輯抑或例外主義邏輯。鑒於國內法治和涉外法治所處的社會環境不同，涉外法治並不當然要遵循與國內法治相同的標準，即不是必須採取正常化邏輯，而是可以遵循例外主義邏輯。例外主義意味著，較之國內法治，某些涉外法治實踐可以並且應當遵循較“低”的標準；同時，也意味著另一些涉外法治實踐可以並且應當遵循較“高”的標準。

Proposed at the 2020 Central Working Conference on Advancing Law-based Governance in All Areas,“coordinating the domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law”makes the connection of the rule of law in different fields consciously to be strengthened with each other. The coordinated promotion of the domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law should simultaneously pursue the construction of rule-of-law in Chinese vision and the rule-of-law in world vision, to realize the comprehensive rule of law in domestic and foreign affairs, balance the needs of safeguarding sovereignty, security and development interests, and take into account both China’s national interests and the interests of the international community. To promote the domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law in a coordinated manner, not only the proper construction, mobilization, and choice of systems, actors, mechanisms, and places are involved, the issue of methodological choice also needs to be solved, that is, should the foreign- related rule of law follow the logic of normalization or the logic of exceptionalism? Given that the domestic rule of law and the foreign-related rule of law are in different social environments, the foreign-related rule of law does not necessarily follow the same standards as the domestic rule of law. Namely, it is not necessary to follow the logic of normalization, but to follow the logic of exceptionalism. Exceptionalism means that some foreign-related rule of law practices can and should be held to a“lower”standard than domestic rule of law practices. Meanwhile, it also means that other foreign-related rule of law practices can and should be held to a“higher”standard.