One Country, Two State Immunity Doctrines: A Pluralistic Depiction of the Congo Case

「一國、兩國家豁免理論」：剛果案的多元主義觀點

本文藉由Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates LLC（剛果案）一案之案例分析，探求香港特別行政區在一國兩制下，採取不同於中國之絕對國家豁免理論，而採取限制豁免理論之可能性。在此架構下，本文試圖形塑一國兩豁免理論之解釋空間。本文首先追溯中國對外在國家豁免之長期立場，以及其近來簽署聯合國國家及其財產管轄豁免公約以及通過外國中央銀行財產司法強制措施豁免法等之政策轉變。其次，本文以非洲之外債困境以及中國在非洲影響力劇增所產生之爭議為背景，勾勒剛果案之背景，進而分析在香港初審法院，上訴法院以及終審法院對於剛果案之不同見解，最後，並檢驗在中國全國人民代表大會常務委員會對於基本法之解釋文發表後，香港終審法院之回應。本文從不同法律與政策之角度，析論一國兩豁免理論並未減損中國之主權，且與國際法不相牴觸，並符合香港之普通法傳統。就政策面而言，此項立場除有利於香港之法律與仲裁服務發展，香港之對外關係，並有助於保障中國之對外投資。

This article explores the space for a restrictive state immunity doctrine applicable in Hong Kong in light of its status as a special administrative region of China. After reviewing China’s longstanding position, its domestic legislation and its signature of the UNJISTP, it finds China’s policy shift from a conventional absolute state immunity doctrine to a restrictive one. Nonetheless, such a shift is not reflected in the Congo case. After examining the rulings of the CFI, CA and CFA, it argues that state immunity is a question of law to be interpreted by the courts. The competence to adopt a different state immunity doctrine may find its legal basis from “external affairs.” This position would neither prejudice China’s sovereignty nor run counter to Hong Kong’s status as a special administrative region. In fact, China and Hong Kong frequently adopt different state immunity doctrines；such practice is not inconsistent with public international law.