堅定維護“平等者間無管轄權”的國際法治原則──美國聯邦法院駁回密蘇里州濫訴中國案裁决述評

Firmly Upholding International Rule of Law Principle of Par in Parem Non Habet Imperium - A Legal Review of U. S. Federal Court's Ruling to Dismiss the Missouri v. China Case

新冠疫情是近百年來人類遭遇的影響範圍最廣的公共衛生安全危機。密蘇里州借疫情誣告濫訴中國是美國政客別有用心的“政治鬧劇”在任何良法善治的國家都不可能得逞。美國聯邦地區法院駁回密蘇里州對中國的誣告濫訴，在美國司法判例中具有定向標的意義。“密蘇里州濫訴案”完全沒有法律正當性，病毒起源地問題與國家責任問題無關，無論是涉及被告身份地位的屬人管轄權還是涉及爭訴事項的屬事管轄權美國法院均沒有管轄權。本案的法律問題複雜多樣，如何依法審理、公正裁判，考驗美國的司法制度和法官的法治精神。“平等者間無管轄權”的法治原則是國家間關係的重要基石之一，而依法裁判則是成熟的法治社會的重要標誌。主審法官駁回原告濫訴的裁决與中國國際法學人和國際有識之士産生同頻共振。該裁决判定，對於誣告濫訴案的司法文書，中方有權援引《海牙公約》的規定，拒絕接受送達。中國共産黨屬於美國《外國主權豁免法》意義上的“外國國家”，因而享有不受美國法院司法管轄的主權豁免地位。這是堅定維護國際法治原則的正義之舉，也是公正司法的必然結果。本文擬就該裁决涉及的國家主權豁免原則，特別是其中最為關鍵、也最具挑戰性的一個核心法律問題──中國共産黨享有不受外國司法管轄的主權豁免地位──的論證邏輯和法律適用進行深入的法理探討。

Covid-19 pandemic is the most widespread public health crisis in the last century. It is a 'political farce' that the State of Missouri used the pandemic to falsely accuse China with ulterior motives, which cannot succeed in any country with a sound legal system. The Federal District Court rejected Missouri's false accusation against China, which has the directional significance in American judicial system. The Missouri case had no legal legitimacy at all. The place of origin of the virus had no bearing on the state responsibility, and U. S. Courts have no jurisdiction, either ratione personae in relation to the status of the accused or ratione materiae in relation to the subject matter at issue. The legal issues of this case are complex and diverse. How to conduct a trial according to law and give a fair judgment will test the judicial system and the professionalism of the judges in the United States. The doctrine of par in parem non habet imperium has become a universally accepted principle of international law, being one of the important cornerstones of inter-state relations, and fair justice is an important sign of a mature society ruled by law. The decision of the judge to reject the plaintiff's abuse has firmly responded to the call for upholding international law and justice by international jurist home and abroad. The court's conclusion is that all named defendants, including CPC, WN and CAC, are deemed foreign states under the FSIA, and no exception to FSIA sovereign immunity applies. This is a just act and is an inevitable outcome of fair justice. This paper intends to discuss the principle of sovereign immunity of states involved in the ruling, in particular, the logic of argument and application of law of one of the most critical and challenging core legal issues-the Communist Party of China enjoys the status of sovereign immunity from foreign jurisdiction.