• 工作范文
  • 党团范文
  • 合同范文
  • 报告范文
  • 演讲范文
  • 心得体会
  • 条据书信
  • 论文范文
  • 口号标语
  • 节日庆典
  • 自我鉴定
  • 学生评语
  • 当前位置: 素素范文网 > 心得体会 > 正文

    【...捍卫法治》——谢锋特派员在2019年国际法论坛上的主旨演讲】 为正本清源

    时间:2019-08-16 00:04:42来源:素素范文网 本文已影响

     

    正本清源 捍卫法治

    ——谢锋特派员在2019年国际法论坛上的主旨演讲

     

    尊敬的林郑月娥行政长官,

    肯尼迪·加斯顿秘书长、郑若骅司长,

    黄进会长、梁定邦主席,

    各位来宾、各位朋友:

     

    大家上午好!很高兴再次应邀出席国际法论坛。

     

    国际法论坛连续四年在港举行,充分体现了林郑月娥行政长官领导的特区政府对法治的重视,也体现了国际社会对香港法治的高度认可。按照世界正义工程发布的“2019年法治指数”,香港法治水平在126个国家和司法辖区中位列第16位。

     

    令人痛心的是,一段时间来,一小部分激进分子不断升级暴力犯罪,不断突破法律、道德、人性底线。外国势力里应外合包庇纵容,严重冲击香港法治和社会秩序。在此时刻探讨法治议题尤具现实意义。

     

    我从事外交工作33年,本科攻读的专业是国际法,愿借此机会与大家就近期共同关心的三个问题分享一些看法。

    一、关于国际法上不干涉内政的原则

     

    主权平等和不干涉内政是最根本也是最重要的国际法原则。17世纪初,国际法鼻祖格劳秀斯提出主权平等,强调国家无论大小强弱都拥有同等权利和义务,为威斯特伐利亚以降的国际关系奠定了基石。作为主权平等的必然要求,不干涉别国内政原则应运而生。著名国际法学家瓦泰尔论述道:“国家自由与独立的必然结果,就是她们有权以其认为适当的方式进行自我管理,任何国家都没有丝毫权利去干涉别国内政。在国家的所有权利中,主权无疑是最严肃的,其他国家必须给予最诚敬的尊重。”

    主权平等和不干涉内政已成为现代国际法基本原则和国际关系基本准则。《联合国宪章》第2条第1款规定“本组织(联合国)系基于各会员国主权平等之原则”,该条第7款又规定“本宪章不得认为授权联合国干涉在本质上属于任何国家国内管辖之事件”。联合国大会于1970年通过的《国际法原则宣言》进一步明确:“每一国均有选择其政治、经济、社会及文化制度之不可移让之权利,不受他国任何形式之干涉”,“任何国家或国家集团均无权以任何理由直接或间接干涉任何其他国家之内政或外交事务”。联大通过的其他国际宣言也指出:各国有义务避免利用和歪曲人权问题,以此作为对其他国家施压,或在其他国家内部制造猜忌和混乱的手段;有义务避免从事任何旨在干涉他国内政的诽谤运动、污蔑或敌意宣传;有义务避免以任何形式或任何借口采取任何动摇或破坏另一国家稳定或其任何制度的行动或企图。1975年欧洲安全与合作会议《赫尔辛基最终法案》也规定:“成员国将避免干涉另一成员国国内管辖的内外事务,无论这种干涉是直接或间接、单独或集体行为,也无论有关成员国之间关系如何”。 国际法院在尼加拉瓜诉美国的“军事与准军事活动”案判决中指出,不干涉内政原则“是习惯国际法的一部分”。

     

    外交和领事人员是派出国在接受国的官方代表,国际法对其职能有明确规定,要求他们不得干涉接受国内政。《维也纳外交关系公约》第41条和《维也纳领事关系公约》第55条明确规定,外交和领事人员“负有尊重接受国法律规章之义务”,“并负有不干涉该国内政之义务”。国际法院在解释为何必须确立不干涉别国内政原则时说,“这是因为就事物的本质而言,(干涉别国内政)总是最强权的国家所为,会轻而易举地妨害国际正义”。一语道破干涉别国内政的霸权实质。

     

    从过去到现在,包括中国在内的许多发展中国家都深受外国强权干预之害。近期,个别国家粗暴干涉香港事务和中国内政,甚至威胁取消香港的经贸待遇、对特区政府官员进行制裁。这些国家的副总统、外长、议长、议员、驻港领事等频繁同“港独”激进势力会面,睁着眼睛说瞎话,将暴力行为说成是“美丽的风景”,颠倒黑白地诋毁诬陷香港警队,无中生有地指责北京“侵蚀港人自治和自由”,恬不知耻地声称其外交官“同世界各国反对抗议人士会面,不只在中国香港”。这些人以赤裸裸的言行,公然蔑视不干涉内政原则、公然践踏国际法和国际关系基本准则。

     

    干预别国内政的行为严重违反国际法,损害世界各国的共同利益,是世界动乱的根源。我们呼吁国际上一切爱好和平、尊重法治的正义力量团结起来,捍卫包括不干涉内政在内的国际法基本原则和国际关系基本准则,共同维护以国际法为基础的国际秩序。

     

     

    二、关于《中英联合声明》问题

     

    近期个别国家频频拿《中英关于香港问题的联合声明》说事,妄称有权据此“监督”香港事务。大家只要读一读《联合声明》,真相就会大白。

     

    首先,《联合声明》是中英间关于中国收回香港及有关过渡期安排的重要文件,其中没有任何条款赋予英方干预回归后香港事务的权利,而且涉及英方的条款均已履行完毕。

    《联合声明》共有8条正文和3个附件。第1条规定中国对香港恢复行使主权,第2条规定英国将香港交还给中国。香港回归后,这两条已同时履行完毕。第3条及附件一是关于中方对香港基本方针政策的原则阐述及具体说明,但没有任何涉及英方权利和义务的表述。第4至6条和附件二、附件三规定两国在回归过渡期的有关安排,包括双方在香港的行政管理、中英联合联络小组的设立和运作、土地契约以及批约等事项。第7、8条是关于实施和生效的条款。这些规定随着香港回归和各项后续工作的完成也都已履行完毕。

     

    第二,《联合声明》中的对香港基本方针政策及具体说明,系中方单方面政策宣示,纯属中国内政,不是双方协议内容。《联合声明》第3条明确表示,“中华人民共和国决定在对香港恢复行使主权时,根据中华人民共和国宪法第三十一条的规定,设立香港特别行政区”。这表明,在港实施“一国两制”的法律基础是中国《宪法》,并非基于《联合声明》。

     

    第三,《联合声明》更没有任何条款规定英方在香港回归后对香港承担任何责任。英方因《联合声明》产生的与香港的法律联系,最迟在中英联络小组2000年1月1日终止工作时已不复存在。英方无权再根据《联合声明》对香港提出新的权利或者责任主张。简言之,对于回归后的香港,英国一无主权、二无治权、三无“监督”权。

     

    特别需要指出的是,《联合声明》只是中英间双边文件,内容不涉及其他国家。根据一般国际法,其他国家和组织更是无权假借《中英联合声明》干涉香港事务。

     

    三、关于“一国两制”问题

     

    “一国两制”是中国政府单方面的政策宣示,是基于国际法上主权平等原则以及和平解决争端原则的主动创造性实践,是中国对国际法发展的重大贡献。全面准确理解“一国两制”,必须把握好两点:

     

    首先,要认清中国《宪法》是香港特区的“根”和“源”。实行“一国两制”的香港特区是根据中国《宪法》设立的。早在1982年,中国《宪法》就列入“国家在必要时得设立特别行政区”的规定,远远早于1984年的《中英联合声明》。《基本法》是“一国两制”的具体化和法制化。国家《宪法》和香港《基本法》共同构成香港特区的宪制基础,具有坚实的政治基础、充分的法理依据和成功的实践经验。只讲某一方面或者把二者割裂开来、对立起来,都是不完整、不准确的,也不符合香港回归以来的实际情况。

     

    第二,要把握好“一国”和“两制”的关系。“一国”是“两制”的基础与前提,“两制”是在“一国”之内的“两制”。香港《基本法》第1条就指出“香港特别行政区是中华人民共和国不可分离的部分”,第12条规定“香港特别行政区是中华人民共和国的一个享有高度自治权的地方行政区域,直辖于中央人民政府”。这说明,香港隶属于国家,是中国的香港,不是独立或半独立的政治实体;中央对香港拥有全面管治权,香港依《基本法》享有高度自治。如果“一国”原则受到冲击,“两制”就无从谈起。作为中国的一个地方行政区,香港肩负维护国家统一与领土完整、维护国家主权安全的宪制责任。任何危害国家主权安全、挑战中央权力和基本法权威、利用香港对内地进行渗透破坏的活动,都是决不能允许的。

     

    在“一国”基础上,我们尊重“两制”差异、善用“两制”之利、依法在香港实行高度自治的立场也是明确的、一贯的,从来没有也不会改变。

     

    回顾150多年的英国殖民统治,没有一任港督是由港人民主选举产生,绝大部分时间立法机构成员更是直接由港督任命。与之形成鲜明对比,香港回归以后,港人依法当家作主、自行管理特区自治范围内事务。香港居民前所未有地享有广泛的民主权利和自由,任何不抱偏见的人都会承认,这是无可否认的事实。遗憾的是,仍有一些人昧着良心地主张某些香港从未存在过的所谓“权利”,反过来栽赃中国中央政府“侵蚀”这些“权利”,这些谬论于法律无据、于事实不符,再次暴露了他们的偏见、傲慢和虚伪。

     

     

    各位朋友,

     

    法治是社会正义、安全与秩序的根基,国际法治是捍卫各国主权、维护世界和平、促进共同发展的重要制度保障。

    当前香港事态的本质绝非所谓的人权、自由与民主问题,而是一些极端暴力分子裹挟不明真相者以反修例为幌子不断升级暴力犯罪活动,严重践踏法治和社会秩序、严重威胁香港市民安全、严重破坏香港繁荣稳定;是香港反对派和极端暴力分子企图以暴力等非法手段颠覆特区合法政府、挑战中央政府权威、动摇香港“一国两制”的宪制根基;是外国干预势力践踏国际法和国际关系基本准则,粗暴干涉香港事务和中国内政、破坏香港繁荣稳定、损害中国主权与安全,企图把香港作为一枚棋子,牵制和遏制中华民族伟大复兴。

     

    当前香港面临回归22年来最危险、最严峻的局面,当务之急和压倒一切的任务,就是止暴制乱、恢复秩序。中央政府坚定支持林郑月娥行政长官领导的特区政府依法施政,坚定支持香港警队和司法机构果断执法、严正司法,坚决支持绝大多数香港同胞反暴力、护法治、撑警队的正义之举。

     

    香港是中国的香港,香港事务纯属中国内政。任何践踏香港法治、破坏香港繁荣稳定、冲击“一国两制”的暴力行径,必将遭到法律的严惩。任何外国政府、组织或个人干预香港事务的行径,必将遭到包括香港同胞在内的全体中国人民的坚决回击。任何阻挠中华民族复兴的企图,注定将遭到可耻的失败。

     

    我们相信,有“一国两制”的独特制度优势,有伟大祖国和内地同胞作为坚强后盾,有香港各界的和衷共济,有热爱和平、反对暴力、坚守法治的国际社会正义之士的理解和支持,香港一定能够克服眼前的困难,拂去一时的阴霾,“东方明珠”必将闪耀更加璀璨的光芒!

     

    最后,预祝本次论坛取得圆满成功!谢谢大家!

     

    *  *  *  *  *

     

    Get the Fundamentals Right

    and Safeguard the Rule of Law

    Keynote Speech by H.E. Mr. Xie Feng

    Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China

    in the Hong Kong SAR

    at 2019 Colloquium on International Law

    15 August 2019, Hong Kong

    The Honorable Chief Executive Carrie Lam,

    Secretary General Prof. Dr. Kennedy Gastorn,

    Secretary of Justice Teresa Cheng,

    President Huang Jin,

    Chairman Dr. Anthony Neoh,

    Distinguished Guests,

    Friends,

    Good morning. It gives me great pleasure to attend again the Colloquium on International Law.

    For the fourth consecutive year, the colloquium has been held in Hong Kong, which fully shows the importance the SAR Government led by Chief Executive Carrie Lam has attached to the rule of law, and the universal recognition of Hong Kong’s performance in this regard. According to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2019, Hong Kong ranks 16th among 126 countries and jurisdictions.

    To our great distress, however, some radical forces in Hong Kong have ramped up violent crime in recent months, which has gone beyond the limits of law, morality and humanity. To make things worse, some foreign forces have condoned and even colluded with them, seriously undermining law and order in the city. That makes our discussions here on the rule of law even more relevant.

    I’ve been in the diplomatic service for 33 years, but I was an international law major in my undergraduate years. So I’d like to take this opportunity to share with you my thoughts on three issues of common interest.

    First, on the non-intervention principle of international law.

    Sovereign equality and non-intervention are two fundamental principles of international law. In the early 17th century, Hugo Grotius, founding father of international law, proposed the principle of sovereign equality, which emphasizes that states, big or small, strong or weak, have equal rights and obligations, thus laying the foundation of post-Westphalian international relations. The non-intervention principle came into being as the necessary requirement of sovereign equality. As the renowned international lawyer Vattel argued, “It is an evident consequence of the liberty and independence of nations, that all have a right to be governed as they think proper, and that no state has the smallest right to interfere in the government of another. Of all the rights that can belong to a nation, sovereignty is, doubtless, the most serious, and that which other nations ought the most scrupulously to respect.”

    Sovereign equality and non-intervention have been established as basic principles of modern international law and norms governing international relations. For example, Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Charter of the United Nations states that “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Paragraph 7 of the same article provides that “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” The Declaration on Principles of International Law adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 1970 further clarifies that “Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State”, and that “No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.” Other declarations adopted by the UNGA also point out that States have the duties to “refrain from the exploitation and the distortion of human rights issues as a means of exerting pressure on other States or creating distrust and disorder within and among States or groups of States”, to “abstain from any defamatory campaign, vilification or hostile propaganda for the purpose of intervening or interfering in the internal affairs of other States”, and to “refrain from any action or attempt in whatever form or under whatever pretext to destabilize or to undermine the stability of another State or of any of its institutions”. The Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 also stipulates that “The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, inp>

    International law clearly defines the functions of diplomatic agents and consular officers who officially represent the sending State in the receiving State, requiring them not to interfere in the internal affairs of the receiving State. Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and Article 55 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulate that it is the duty of diplomatic agents and consular officers “to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State”, and “not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State”. And as the ICJ explained, the principle of non-intervention was established “for, from the nature of things, it would be reserved for the most powerful States, and might easily lead to perverting the administration of international justice itself”. The observation lays bare hegemony at the core of intervention.

    Throughout history, many developing countries including China have suffered a lot from intervention by foreign powers. As the most recent example, some countries have grossly interfered in Hong Kong affairs, which are China’s domestic affairs, and even threatened to cancel economic and trade privileges of Hong Kong and sanction SAR Government officials. Politicians of certain Western countries, including Vice President, Foreign Minister, House Speaker, Congressmen and consular officers in Hong Kong, have frequently met with radical activists calling for so-called “Hong Kong independence”. They have told blatant lies, applauded violence as “a beautiful sight to behold”, made unfounded allegations against the Hong Kong police, groundlessly accused Beijing of “encroaching on Hong Kong people’s autonomy and freedom”, and even boasted that their diplomats “meet with opposition protesters, not just in Hong Kong or China”. Such remarks and actions have flagrantly defied the principle of non-intervention, and trampled upon international law and basic norms governing international relations.

    Intervention is a serious violation of international law, which puts common interests of all countries at risk and breeds chaos around the globe. We call on the forces for justice in the world who cherish peace and the rule of law to unite behind the basic principles of international law and norms governing international relations, including non-intervention, and jointly uphold the international order based on international law.

    Second, on the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

    In recent months, certain countries have frequently cited the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong to justify their right to “supervise” Hong Kong affairs. But anyone who has studied the instrument knows well such claims do not hold water.

    Firstly, the Joint Declaration is an important instrument between China and the UK on China’s resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong and arrangements for the transitional period. There is no single clause in it that grants the UK any right to interfere in Hong Kong affairs after its return, and all clauses concerning the UK have been fulfilled.

    The Joint Declaration consists of eight paragraphs and three annexes. Article 1 is about China’s decision to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. In Article 2, the UK states that it will restore Hong Kong to China. These two articles have been fulfilled upon the return of Hong Kong. In Article 3 and Annex 1, China elaborates its basic policies regarding Hong Kong, yet with not the least implication of UK’s rights and obligations. Articles 4, 5 and 6 and Annexes 2 and 3 provide for relevant arrangements during the transitional period, including the administration of Hong Kong, the establishment and operation of a Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, land leases and ratification. Articles 7 and 8 are about the implementation and entry into force of the instrument. All these provisions have been fulfilled with the return of Hong Kong and the completion of ensuing work. 

    Secondly, the basic policies regarding Hong Kong elaborated in the Joint Declaration were proposed by China on its own and hence are completely China’s domestic affairs, rather than an agreement between the two sides. As Article 3 of the instrument clearly states, “The People’s Republic of China has decided to establish, in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region upon resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong.” It shows that the legal basis of implementing “One Country, Two Systems” in Hong Kong is China’s Constitution, instead of the Joint Declaration.

    Thirdly, the Joint Declaration includes no clause that provides for British obligations to Hong Kong after the city’s return. All legal relations between the UK and Hong Kong created by the instrument had terminated by 1 January 2000 at the latest, when the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group ceased operation. The UK is not entitled to claim any new rights over or obligations to Hong Kong by citing the Joint Declaration. To be brief, the UK has no sovereignty, jurisdiction or right of “supervision” over Hong Kong whatsoever after the latter returned to China.

    It needs to be emphasized that the Joint Declaration is a bilateral instrument between China and the UK and does not concern any other country. According to general international law, other countries and organizations have no right to meddle with Hong Kong affairs on the pretext of the Joint Declaration.

    Third, on “One Country, Two Systems”.

    The policy of “One Country, Two Systems” was put forward by the Chinese Government itself. It is a pioneering initiative based on the principles of sovereign equality and peaceful settlement of disputes in international law, and is a major contribution by China to developing international law. In order to fully and accurately grasp the policy, it is necessary to understand at least two points.

    Firstly, it is China’s Constitution that lays the very foundation of the HKSAR. The HKSAR where “One Country, Two Systems” is practiced was established according to China’s Constitution. As early as in 1982, two years before the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed, China’s Constitution provides that “The state may establish special administrative regions when necessary.” The Basic Law of the HKSAR codifies the “One Country, Two Systems” policy into law with concrete provisions. Therefore, the Constitution of the PRC and the Basic Law of Hong Kong together constitute the constitutional basis of the HKSAR, which is supported by solid political and legal grounds and successful practices. Focusing solely on either of the laws or separating and even confronting the two is incomplete and misleading, and inconsistent with the reality since Hong Kong’s return.

    Secondly, it is imperative to correctly understand the relationship between “One Country” and “Two Systems”. “One Country” is the foundation of and prerequisite for “Two Systems”, and “Two Systems” can only operate within the framework of “One Country”. Article 1 of the Basic Law makes it clear that “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China”, and Article 12 provides that “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People’s Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People’s Government.” It fully demonstrates that Hong Kong is part of China rather than an independent or semi-independent political entity, and that the Central Government has overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong, while Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy under the Basic Law. Should the “One Country” principle be undermined, “Two Systems” would not materialize. As a local administrative region of China, Hong Kong has the constitutional responsibility of upholding national unity and territorial integrity, and defending national sovereignty and security. Any attempt to endanger China’s sovereignty and security, challenge the power of the Central Government and the authority of the Basic Law, or use Hong Kong to carry out infiltration and sabotage activities against the mainland is absolutely impermissible.

     

    Our position is clear and consistent. We respect the differences between the “Two Systems” and well leverage their benefits on the basis of “One Country”, and ensure a high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong in accordance with law. This has not and will not change.

    Looking back at the more than 150 years when Hong Kong was under British colonial rule, one will find that no single Governor was democratically elected by the local people, and legislature members were directly appointed by the Governor most of the time. The people of Hong Kong today, by contrast, are their own masters and govern affairs within the limits of the SAR’s autonomy in accordance with law. It is an undeniable fact that Hong Kong citizens are enjoying unprecedented democratic rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, some people continue to claim “rights” that never existed in Hong Kong, and even accuse China’s Central Government of “eroding” these “rights”. Such argument is legally groundless and inconsistent with the reality, and has again exposed their prejudice, arrogance and hypocrisy.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Friends,

    The rule of law is the cornerstone for justice, security and order of any society, and international law provides vital institutional guarantee for national sovereignty, world peace and common development.

    The essential problem in Hong Kong now is not about human rights, freedoms or democracy as some claim. It is, instead, about the attempt by certain violent extremists to coerce those who do not know the truth and ramp up violent crime on the pretext of opposing the amendments of the two ordinances related to fugitive transfer, seriously trampling upon law and order, threatening the security of the citizens, and damaging Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. It is about the intention of the opposition and violent extremists to overthrow the legitimate SAR Government, challenge the Central Government’s authority, and undermine the constitutional basis of “One Country, Two Systems” in Hong Kong through illegal means such as violence. It is about gross foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs and China’s domestic affairs as a whole, violating international law and basic norms governing international relations with the aim of damaging Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability and China’s national sovereignty and security, and turning Hong Kong into a pawn to hold back China’s national rejuvenation.

    As Hong Kong is facing the most dangerous and gravest situation since its return 22 years ago, the top priority is to stop violence, end the chaos and restore order. The Central Government firmly supports the SAR Government led by Chief Executive Carrie Lam in governing according to law, firmly supports the Hong Kong police and judiciary in decisively enforcing the law and fairly administering justice, and firmly supports the majority of Hong Kong compatriots in their just cause of opposing violence, upholding the rule of law, and supporting the police.

    Hong Kong is part of China, and its affairs are completely China’s domestic affairs. Any violent act to undermine the rule of law, damage the city’s prosperity and stability, and challenge “One Country, Two Systems” will meet with severe legal punishment. Any interference in Hong Kong affairs by foreign governments, organizations or inp>

    We are fully convinced that with the unique strength of the “One Country, Two Systems” framework, with the strong backing of the motherland and the people of the mainland, with the joint efforts of our Hong Kong compatriots, and with the understanding and support of the international forces for justice, including all our friends here, who love peace, oppose violence and cherish the rule of law, Hong Kong will surely overcome the temporary difficulties, and the “Pearl of the Orient” will shine even brighter.

    In closing, I wish this colloquium a great success. Thank you.

    • 【...捍卫法治》——谢锋特派员在2019年国际法论坛上的主旨演讲】 为正本清源 相关文章: