國際民商事條約“自治解釋”與“國家主義解釋”的反思與重構——以CISG為中心

Reflection and Reconstruction of“Autonomous Interpretation”and“Nationalistic Interpretation”in International Civil and Commercial Treaties: A Focus on CISG

國內法院解釋國際民商事條約主要有“自治解釋”和“國家主義解釋”兩種方法。在蒂森克虜伯案中，面對兩種方法的對立，最高人民法院採取了“自治解釋”方法。在新思潮背景下誕生的CISG第7條第1款，也被主流觀點認為採納了“自治解釋”方法。然而，“自治解釋”方法在理論上存在四個方面的問題，其中之一在實踐中更是引發了商事主體完全排除CISG的適用。此外，最近CISG解釋實踐中出現了法院援引外國法解釋CISG的現象，這已然不是“自治解釋”所認為的“國家主義解釋”就是“法院地法主義”的再現。這表明，“自治解釋”方法可能僅能在特定情況下采用，而“國家主義解釋”仍存在適用空間，並可能長期存在。因此，需要準確理解兩種方法的理論基礎，以厘清二者的適用關係，並對條約解釋方法進行重構。對此，本文提出適用“自治解釋”方法必須滿足的兩個前提條件，歸納出CISG實踐中“國家主義解釋”的三種類型，並進一步論證，在“自治解釋”適用條件不符合時，可採取“國家主義解釋”方法中的特定類型，即“國際私法解釋”。

Domestic courts primarily employ two methods for interpreting international civil and commercial treaties:“autonomous interpretation”and“nationalistic interpretation”. In the ThyssenKrupp case, faced with the confrontation between the two methods, the Supreme People’s Court opted for the“autonomous interpretation”method. Article 7(1) of the CISG, born against the backdrop of the new ideological trend, is also recognized by mainstream views as an adoption of the“autonomous interpretation”method. However, the“autonomous interpretation”theoretically has four main issues, one of which has resulted in commercial parties entirely excluding the CISG’s application in practice. Moreover, recent CISG interpretation practices have seen courts referring to foreign laws to interpret the CISG, challenging the assertion that“nationalistic interpretation”is merely a revival of“lex fori doctrine”as criticized by“autonomous interpretation”advocates. This indicates that the“autonomous interpretation”method may only be used under specific circumstances, while the“nationalistic interpretation”still has room for application and may persist in the long term. Therefore, it is necessary to precisely grasp the theoretical foundations of both methods to clarify their interplay and to reconstruct treaty interpretation methods. In this regard, this paper proposes two prerequisite conditions that must be met for the application of the“autonomous interpretation”method, and identified three types of“nationalistic interpretation”in CISG practice. Furthermore, it argues that in cases where the conditions for“autonomous interpretation”are unmet, a specific type of“nationalistic interpretation”, namely“private international law interpretation”can be adopted.