• 您的位置: 
    首页  >   新闻动态  >   新闻  >
    处在十字路口的国际法——国际法治的理想与现实(中英文版)

    处在十字路口的国际法——国际法治的理想与现实(中英文版)

     

     

    编者按:深圳国际仲裁院理事、世界贸易组织上诉机构主席赵宏女士于2020年2月13日在第56届慕尼黑安全会议国际法论坛上以英文发表了《处在十字路口的国际法——国际法治的理想与现实》的演讲,就法治的起源和演变、国际法治存在与否、支持国际法治的意义以及世界贸易组织争端解决机制的现状等问题阐述了看法。深圳国际仲裁院经赵宏女士许可发布演讲稿中英文版,供各方参考。




    International Law at a Crossroad:

    The International Rule of Law: An Ideal and the Reality

    处在十字路口的国际法:国际法治的理想与现实

     

     

    Prof. Dr. Hong ZHAO

    Member, Chair, Appellate Body of the WTO

    The International Law Forum

    Munich Security Conference

    Literaturhaus in Munich (Salvatorplatz 1, 80333 Munich)

    February 13, 2020

    Munich, Germany


    赵宏教授

    世界贸易组织上诉机构成员、主席

    慕尼黑安全会议,国际法论坛

    2020年2月13日

    德国慕尼黑

    Winston Churchill — 'The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.'


    The history of human beings was perhaps of more than 2 million years on the 4 to 5 billion years planet Earth. The written record of Human civilization was probably of only a few thousand years. From living in a cave to a world of computers and mobile phones, the achievements of human civilization could not be regarded as less splendid or glorious during this rather short period of time in the long river of human history. For some, the skyscrapers that change the landscape and skylines of metropolitan cities, the manned space station, the artificial intelligence and the cloud computing are probably more prominent among these achievements; for others, the invisible social structures and institutional frameworks that underpin the human activities  leading to these material achievements are even more fundamental to human beings. Nobody can deny that human beings, after all, are social animals. Obviously, all the current civilizations have been achieved through social, organizational co-ordinations and collaborations.

    Therefore, the rules reflecting common values and beliefs of human beings that underpin these institutional frameworks and social structures facilitating the co-ordinations and collaborations are highly important and treasurable for all of us. These rules are known as domestic law at national level and international law in the international regime. In a nutshell, the "rule of law" is the concept lying behind all these rules and practices in both national and international domains. It has become an ideal as well as a key common value underpin the operation of modern society of mankind.

    However, after a remarkable implementation and practice in many fields of the international affairs, international law seems to have come to a critical juncture. Whither the next step? Are we moving towards a jungle world or continue our effort to go along with a world of rule of law? Will the multilateral framework and rules stick to or be sidelined by the rising unilateral actions in international trade and investment? Shall the world continue to be open to, and interactive with, each other through further collaboration, or are we turning to an era of deglobalization? All these are questions, ringing not only in people's minds but also on top of the headlines of daily newspapers.

    Perhaps this is the very reason that for the first time in all the summits of Munich Security Conferences for more than half a century, that organizers sponsor this International Law Forum. It is a great honor for me to be invited and present at this Forum. It would also be my pleasure if I could be of some help alleviating the doubts and rebuilding the confidences among the audiences on the rule of law in the international affairs. That is the reason I fly from Geneva to Munich. By the way, Munich is the city impressed me deeply for its beauty and serenity. I had visited it several times while I worked with the Joint Sino-German Legal program sponsored by GTZ (Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) and MOFCOM as the coordinator and co-trainer from the Chinese side. The Chinese legal society appreciated that program very much, they are deeply grateful for the help and assistance provided by GTZ on behalf of Germany. Let me take this opportunity to thank the organizer for inviting me and for all their efforts to make this Forum possible today. I wish it a great success.

    The topic of my lecture is "International law at a crossroad", subtitled as "International rule of law: an ideal and the reality"

    I intend to address three issues. First, the origin and evolution of the rule of law; Second, does international rule of law exist? Third, why should we uphold international rule of law? Lastly, if time permits, as the only remaining Member as well as the Chairperson of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, I will say a few words on the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO.


    温斯顿·丘吉尔你能看到多远的过去,就可能看到多远的未来。

        在起源于40-50亿年前的地球行星上,人类的历史可能超过200万年。有书面记录的人类文明可能只有几千年。从穴居山洞到计算机和手机的世界,在人类历史的长河里,人类文明所取得的成就不可不谓辉煌璀璨。对有些人而言,改变大都市景观和天际线的摩天大楼、载人空间站、人工智能和云计算是其中最卓越的成就;而另一些人则认为支撑人类社会运转并取得这些物质成就的无形社会结构和制度框架对人类更为根本。不可否认人类终究是社会动物。显然,当前所有文明都是通过社会化、组织化的协调和协作实现。
        因此,能够体现制度框架和社会结构背后的人类共同价值观和信念,并促进协调与合作的“规则”,对我们所有人都非常重要和珍贵。这些规则在国家层面被称为国内法,在国际体制中被称为国际法。简而言之,“法治”是蕴含在国家和国际层面所有规则和实践里的概念。它已成为支撑人类现代社会运作的理想和最重要共同价值。
        国际法在国际事务的许多领域取得了出色的履行和实践成果,但是,现在它似乎已进入关键时刻。下一步呢?我们是在走向丛林世界还是继续努力追求法治世界?多边框架和规则能在国际贸易和投资领域日益增多的单边行动中延续还是被搁置?是继续深化合作让世界继续保持开放和互动,还是我们将走向去全球化的时代?所有这些不仅是人们脑海中疑问,更经常占据新闻头条。
        也许正因为如此,半个多世纪以来,慕尼黑安全会议的组织方首次赞助国际法论坛。我非常荣幸被邀请出席本论坛。如果我能够帮助减轻疑虑,并重建听众对国际事务中法治的信心,我将非常高兴。这正是我从日内瓦飞至慕尼黑的原因。慕尼黑的美丽和宁静给我留下了深刻的印象。我曾担任德国技术合作公司(GTZ)和商务部共同赞助的中德联合法律项目的中方协调员和培训主讲人,在那段期间我曾多次到访慕尼黑。中国法律届高度评价该项目,并对德国技术合作公司代表德国提供的帮助和支持深表感激。我借此机会感谢组织者邀请我做主旨演讲,感谢组织者为举办本次论坛付出的努力。祝论坛取得圆满成功。
        我演讲的主题是“处在十字路口的国际法:国际法治理想与现实”。
        我演讲的主要内容包括:一、法治的起源与演变;二、国际法治是否存在?三、为什么我们要维护国际法治?最后,如果时间允许,我将就世界贸易组织的争端解决机制说几句。

    First: The origin and evolution of the rule of law.

    Academia seemed to accept the view that Aristotle was the first scholar to put forward the idea of the rule of law. Unlike Plato, who advocated the rule of philosopher kings that would be better at respecting established laws than others, Aristotle posed the question of "whether it was better to be ruled by the best man or the best law" in his well-known work Politics,  and opined that the highest officials should not be allowed to wield power, rather, "they should be appointed to be only guardians and servants of the laws." Clearly, both the two ancient Greek philosophers believed in the significance of the function of the law. Plato even stressed that "if the law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that gods shower on the State". Unlike conventional studies, in my view, Aristotle's and Plato's differences on the idea of the rule of law may be more nuanced than divergent. Interestingly, during the 3rd century BC of China, members of the school of legalism argued for using law as a tool of governance. Some believed that legalism purported the "rule by law" as opposed to the "rule of law", because that punishment for aristocrats and the emperor by "laws" was unequal to those for the commons. In contrast, during the same period of time in China, Daoism plainly rejected to rely upon harsh rules to govern a state, rather they favored to follow a natural law that everyone would be subject to. Meanwhile, Confucianism advocated a moral or ethical order in the state, clan and even family and respected the rule of morality (highest moral icon, "圣人Shengren",) as the best way to govern a State. Therefore, for more than 2000 years, in the east and the west, the better way to govern a state has become a forever topic in politics. Numerous philosophers, scholars and Chief Justices proposed various definitions of the rule of law of their own which reflected the evolution of the idea of the rule of law. Reviewing them is inspiring, particularly, in the current situation. For example, in 1215, King John of England signed the Magna Carta (i.e. the Great Charter) which made him subject to a contract that he committed to recognize and ensure that the life, liberty and property of the free subjects of the King who supported him could not be taken away without lawful judgements. Article 39 of the Great Charter could be regarded as the first sort of social contract that John Locke proposed later. According to John Locke, there existed a social contract between the sovereign and its subjects, whereas the sovereign was also a party to and was bound by the laws made under it. According to him, the supreme ruler was "bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people" (See The Second Treatise of Government, 1689). This social contract theory was epoch breaking, as the relationship between the sovereign State and its individual subjects had been clearly defined as a contractual one and Government was made accountable to individual citizens through the rationale provided by a political theory.

    This political idea of enlightenment was later reflected in the Constitutions of several States and Monarchies across the Atlantic, including Britain, France and United States of America. Now most countries in the world have incorporated the rule of law in their Constitutions. This political heritage has been widely proliferated throughout the world.

    Though in its origin, the rule of law concept meant to bind the almighty kings or sovereigns, as time went by, everyone, “individuals, legal persons and government" shall all submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by any others. Lately, in the first decade of 21st century, the Secretary General of the United Nation has described the rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards". He also emphasizes, the rule of law requires "the adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.” (Report of the Secretary-General: The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies (S/2004/616).

    From the above, we can see that the historical tradition in political theory and the key features of rule of law that evolved and developed during the past two thousand years have been carried on and firmly established in modern society and has become a core value in political governance as well as daily life of human beings in individual countries on this planet.


    一、法治(rule of law)的起源与演变
    学术界似乎已接受亚里士多德是第一个提出法治思想的哲学家这一观点。柏拉图主张“哲学王”会比其他人更好地遵守既定法律,与柏拉图不同,亚里士多德在其著名的《政治学》著作中,提出了“由最合适的人,还是最合适的法律来统治会更好”的问题,并认为最高统治者不应该被允许行使特权,相反,“他们只应该被任命为法律的守护者和臣仆”。显然,两位古希腊哲学家都相信法律作用的重要性。柏拉图甚至强调“倘若使法律成为政府的主人,使政府成为法律的奴仆,现实将充满希望,人们将享受着上帝赐予国家的一切福音”。与过往的研究有所不同,我认为亚里士多德和柏拉图在法治理念上的差异更微妙。有趣的是,在公元前3世纪的中国,法家思想主张使用法律作为治理的工具。一些人认为,法家主张的是“法制(rule by law)”,而不是“法治(rule of law)”,因为贵族和皇帝所受“法律”的惩罚与普通大众不同。相比之下,在同一时期的中国,道家思想显然拒绝依靠严酷的规则来管理一个国家,而是倾向于遵循一套每个人都会服从的自然法则。与此同时,儒家思想提倡国家、宗族甚至家庭中的道德或伦理秩序,并将“德治”(最高的道德模范,即“圣人”)作为治理国家的最佳方式。因此,两千多年来,在东西方,如何更好地治理一个国家已成为一个永远的政治话题。无数哲学家、学者和首席大法官们提出了各自对法治的不同定义,这也反映出各自法治理念的演进。特别是在当前,回顾它们备受启发和鼓舞。例如,在1215年,英国国王约翰签署了《大宪章》(Magna Carta),使他受到一份契约的约束,他承诺,承认并确保支持他的自由臣民的生命、自由和财产,未经合法审判不被剥夺。《大宪章》第三十九条可视为约翰·洛克后来提出的第一类社会契约。约翰·洛克认为,在君主和臣民之间存在着一种社会契约,而君主也是既定法律的当事人并受其约束。根据他的学说,最高统治者是“受既定的、向人民公布和广为人知的法律的约束”(见1689年《政府论下篇》)。这一社会契约理论具有划时代的意义,因为主权国家和其个体之间的关系被明确地定义为契约关系,基于政治理论的基本原理,政府对公民负责。
    这种政治启蒙思想后来反映在大西洋彼岸的许多民主共和与君主立宪制的国家宪法中,包括英国、法国和美国。现在世界上大多数国家都把法治纳入了宪法。这一政治遗产也已在全世界范围内广泛传播。
    尽管法治的初衷是约束权力无限的国王或主权者,但随着时间的推移,每一个个体包括“个人、法人和政府”都应该遵从并受法律的约束,而非其他形式的恣意妄为。晚近,在21世纪第一十年时,联合国秘书长将法治描述为这样一个治理原则:“所有人、机构和实体,无论属于公营部门还是私营部门,包括国家本身,都对公开发布、平等实施和独立裁断,并与国际人权规范和标准保持一致的法律负责”。
    他还强调,法治要求“法律至高无上、法律面前人人平等、对法律负责、公正适用法律、权力制衡、参与性决策、法律上的可靠性、避免任意性以及程序和法律透明”。(参见《秘书长关于冲突中和冲突后社会的法治和过渡司法的报告》,S/2004/616)。
    综上所述,在过去两千年中,我们可以看到不断演进、发展的政治理论传统和法治主要特征在现代社会中得到传承和牢固确立,并已成为全球各国政治治理和人类日常生活的核心价值。

    Second, Does International Rule of Law Exist?

    In my view, this question goes to the fundamentals of the role and function, if any, that international law can play in international relations. From the treaty between the rulers of Lagash and Umma in Ancient Mesopotamia ending the wars and resuming a friendly relationship around 2100 BC which represented international law practice in its early form, to the landmark Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 that laid down the fundamental principles of international law of modern times, and to the treaties establishing United Nation and its related and subsidiary organizations after the Second World War, the practice of international law has been gaining a more and more pivotal role in many fields of international relations. With the speed up of globalization since the 1990s and the first decade of 21st century, international law had achieved momentum and made tremendous progress in almost every field of human activities. The emergence of hundreds of treaties and countless international legal documents helped establish the multilateral and regional legal frameworks to maintain the Peace and Collaboration among nation states. Therefore, in general, international law has become an essential pillar of the present international order.

    However, if you look at the specifics of the essential features of the rule of law, you might come to more nuanced conclusions. When focusing on the procedural perspective of the principles of the rule of law, such as "participation in rule-making, due process and procedural and legal transparency", you will be probably more inclined to agree that international rule of law exists among its participants whereas there is an international treaty between them. While if you insist on "the supremacy of law, equality before the lawaccountability to the law, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, fairness and justice in the application of the law"as the core features of international rule of law, you may hesitate whether rule of international law exists and might say it just depends. People may have different experiences in their mind. For example, whether the super-power will abide by the treaty rules it accedes.

    As to how to assess the current situation of the rule of international law, I found the words by Professor James Leslie Brierly, a distinguished British international law scholar in his speech nearly a century ago much relevant. At his Inaugural Lecture at Oxford University in 1924, Professor Brierly stated  "whether fairly or not, the world regards international law today as in need of rehabilitation; and even those who have a confident belief in its future will probably concede that the comparatively small part that it plays in the sphere of international relations as a whole is disappointing." I guess some of you may feel somehow similar disappointment with the role that international law currently plays in international relations. No need to mention the list of the Paris Accord on Climate Change, the Iranian Nuclear Agreement, etc.…which can be added further based on the daily news headlines.

     

    Though the American scholar Prof. Louis Henkin acclaimed “Almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of the time” in his book 'How Nations Behave'the rise of unilateral actions by some states, makes people worry that hundreds and thousands of years of international rule of law tradition has become increasingly broken and fragmented. What would be the future?


    二、国际法治是否存在?

    在我看来,这个问题涉及到国际法在国际关系中发挥功能和作用的根本基础。从代表了早期国际法实践的古代美索不达米亚的拉格什(Lagash)和乌玛(Umma)统治者在公元前2100年左右结束战争并恢复友好关系的条约,到确立了现代国际法基本原则并具有里程碑意义的1648年《威斯特伐利亚和平条约》,再到第二次世界大战后建立联合国及其有关和附属组织的条约,国际法实践在国际关系的诸多领域中发挥着越来越重要的作用。随着20世纪90年代以及21世纪前十年,全球化进程不断加快,国际法几乎在人类活动的所有领域都取得了长足的发展。数百项国际条约和大量国际法律文件的出现,使维护民族国家间和平与合作的多边和区域法律框架得以建立。因此,总体而言,国际法已成为当前国际秩序的重要支柱。
    然而,如果你观察国际法治基本特征的一些细节,则可能会得出更微妙的结论。当聚焦法治原则的程序时,例如当涉及“规则制定的参与、正当程序以及程序和法律透明度”时,你可能会更倾向于认为国际法治在国际条约缔结者之间确实存在。但如果你坚持将“法律至高无上、法律面前人人平等、对法律负责、法律上的可靠性、避免任意性以及公平适用法律”作为国际法治的核心特征时,你可能会犹豫国际法治是否存在,并且可能会说这要视情况而定。在人们的意识中有着不同的经验认识。例如,超级大国是否会遵守它所加入的条约规则。
    至于如何评估国际法治的现状,我认为英国著名国际法学者詹姆斯·莱斯利·布赖尔利教授(James Leslie Brierly)在近一个世纪前的演讲正好与此相关。1924年,布赖尔利教授在牛津大学就职演讲中说到:“无论公平与否,当今世界都需要国际法的复兴;即便那些对其未来充满信心的人也会承认,在整个国际关系领域中其所发挥较小作用的范围内,国际法的作用也是令人失望的”。我想你们当中有些人可能会对目前国际法在国际关系中的作用感到类似的失望。例如,《巴黎气候变化协定》、《伊核协议》等,这个单子还可以随新闻标题不断增加。
    正如美国学者路易斯·亨金教授(Louis Henkin)在他的著作《国家如何行为》(1979,第二版)中所称,“尽管绝大多数国家在绝大多数时间都遵守着绝大多数国际法原则和履行绝大多数义务”,但某些国家单方面行为的增加,使人们担心数百年乃至数千年沉淀下来的国际法治传统正走向支离破碎。国际法治的未来将何去何从?

    Thirdly, Why We Should Uphold International Rule of Law?

    Why should we uphold the principle of international rule of law? Some might say rule of international law provides predictability, transparency and certainty that is required by business, individuals, NGOs and various stake holders in the international community. To me, it is more than that. The reason for human beings to uphold the principle of international rule of law goes to the fundamentals of why we are human beings. Since international rule of law represents the fundamental common values that we as human beings uphold throughout the history of civilization, the lost fundamental principles imply the fall of the morality and lost souls of human beings. Men are created or born equal, i.e. the equality of people, has been written into the Constitutions of many countries. "Nations, big or small, are equal" has also been incorporated in the Charter of United Nations. Equality in international relations, pacta sunt servanda, consent to be bound by the treaty acceded and good faith performance of the treaty etc., are the basis of the principles of international rule of law. It also laid down the foundations of all the basic principle of international law that can be traced back thousands of years of civilization. Does the international community allow any country to enjoy a special status?

    Are nations equal?

    That is the question left for all of you. Probably, it could be a wonderful topic for a lecture at the forum in the next year.


    三、为什么我们要维护国际法治?

     为什么我们应该维护国际法治的原则呢?有人可能认为国际法治提供了可预见性、透明度以及确定性,这些都是国际社会的参与者,包括商业主体、个人、非政府组织等等所需要的。我认为,国际法治的意义不止于此。人类维护国际法治原则的原因可以溯源到我们人之为人的根本。由于国际法治代表了人类自文明史以来所维护的根本共同价值,这些价值的丧失意味着人类道德的沦丧和灵魂的失落。人生而平等,人人平等已经被写入到很多国家的宪法中。“国家无论大小,一律平等”的理念已被纳入联合国宪章。国际关系中的平等,条约必须被遵守,同意受到所加入条约的约束,并且善意履行条约等,都是国际法治的基本原则,这些也构成了几千年文明史以来国际法基本原则的基础。国际社会允许任何一个国家享受例外吗?
    国家是否平等?这是我留给大家的问题,也许也可以是下一次国际法论坛的演讲题目。

    Lastly, the Current Situation of Dispute Settlement at the WTO.

    Some believe one of the primary reasons man enters into civil society is the resolution of conflicts between individuals. The dispute settlement mechanism is one of the key pillars of the World Trade Organization. It plays a pivotal role in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. The Appellate Body is an integral part of the dispute settlement system representing the compromise and the balance of rights and obligations among the Members of WTO since the Uruguay Round. You all know the current situation. Two days ago, USTR issued a report on the Appellate Body. To me, as far as there is genuine open dialogue and political will between the WTO Members on the issue of Appellate Body, there is a hope that current conundrum could be resolved.There is only one issue I would stress here. It is the institution of Appellate Body as a second instance dispute settlement mechanism that is worthwhile preserving. Any individual has its own limitation, but the institution which consisted of the mechanism of checks and balances could guarantee, to a certain extent, that a fair adjudication outcome could be achieved. The better the institution, the fairer the outcome.

    Nothing is perfect, let alone the Appellate Body. Yet, the institution of the Appellate Body is a remarkable achievement through the establishment of the WTO. How this institution could be maintained deserves a hard thinking by all the WTO Members.


    最后,有关世界贸易组织争端解决机制目前的情况。

    有人认为人参与到文明社会的主要原因之一便是为了解决人与人之间的冲突。争端解决机制是世界贸易组织的一个重要支柱。争端解决机制对提供多边贸易体制的稳定性和可预见性起到关键性作用。上诉机构是争端解决体系的组成部分,其代表着乌拉圭回合以来各成员方之间相互妥协与平衡权利与义务的结果。大家应该都知道目前的状况,自2019年12月10日以来,由于没有达到条约要求的法定人数,上诉机构已经不能对已受理或是新上诉的案件继续进行工作。世界贸易组织总干事在当天的新闻发布会宣布他将立即启动高级别政治磋商,以解决上诉机构的停摆问题。2020年1月24日,在达沃斯举办的小型部长级会议上,17个WTO成员签订了一个有关临时机制的声明,在上诉机构处于僵局期间,这些成员将会依据《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》第25条处理有关专家组报告上诉的情况。这被认为是一个临时解决方案。在1月27日的争端解决机构会议上,120个WTO成员继续要求启动遴选程序以补充上诉机构的空缺席位。
    同时,两天前,美国贸易谈判代表办公室发布了有关上诉机构的报告。我认为,对于上诉机构的问题,只要WTO各成员之间有真诚和开放的对话以及政治意愿,就有希望解决目前的难题。
    在此我想强调的是,上诉机构所代表的二审制度这一机制应当得到保留。任何个人都有局限性,但是一个包含制衡体系的制度可以在一定程度上保证公正裁量结果的实现。制度越完善,结果越公正。
    没有什么是完美的,上诉机构亦如此。但是,上诉机构的制度本身是建立世界贸易组织以来的重大成就。这一制度如何持续是值得所有WTO成员认真思考的问题。

    To summarize, we have to confess that the development of international law is at a crossroad. Comparing with the development of rule of law in domestic regimes in individual countries, the establishment of international rule of law is perhaps still at its early stage or a starting point.

    From the enlightenment idea to widely accepted principles, the road leading to the establishment of the rule of law in domestic affairs was neither short nor smooth. To transform the idea of international rule of law into the reality of international relations could be presumably more challenging. It requires a high sense of morality and self-discipline of each of the state players in the international communities. Fortunately, mankind has accumulated an abundance of theories, academic works, tremendous international treaties and legal documents in almost all the areas of international law. We may still need more cross-border rules, the spirit, belief and good faith to respect and implement these rules by relevant stake holders may be even more significant nowadays.

    Ever since human beings began to organize their common life in political communities, the need of some system of rules has been sensed and explored. Throughout the history of human civilization, we have established a bounty of experience in negotiation, drafting, implementation and adjudication of international rules for the sake of maintaining peace and enhancing collaboration. The journey has been embarked on and there is no reason to stop the long march towards a better world with the guarantee of international rule of law.

    Aim at heart, road in the foot.  

    The future is in everyone's hands.

    Thanks for your attention.


    总而言之,我们不得不承认国际法的发展正处于一个十字路口。与各国国内法治的发展情况相比,国际法治仍处在发展早期甚至是刚刚开始。
    从最初的启蒙观念到成为被广泛接受的原则,国内事务语境下法治的建立经历了长期、曲折的过程。将国际法治从理念转换为国际关系的现实则理应更富挑战性。这个过程的实现需要各主权参与者具有较高的道德感和自律精神。值得庆幸的是,在国际法的几乎每一个方面,我们人类都已经积累了丰富的理论和学术研究成果,以及大量的国际条约和法律文件。我们可能还需要更多的国际规则,但相关各方尊重以及履行这些规则的精神、信念和善意对于当下可能是更为重要的。
    自人类开始以政治共同体的方式组织其生活,对于规则体系的需求就开始被感知和探索。在人类文明的发展史上,为实现和平和加强合作,我们已经积累了大量的谈判、起草、执行以及裁量国际法律规则的经验。这一旅程已经开启,在追求国际法治支撑的一个更好的世界的道路上,我们没有理由停下脚步。
    目标在心,路在脚下。
    未来取决于每一个人。
    谢谢!
    (中文翻译:彭德雷,丁如,范亚云)

    Biography 

     

    Prof.Hong ZHAO is currently the Member and Chairperson of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization. Professor Hong ZHAO is a guest professor at several universities including the University of Peking, Fudan University and the University of International Business and Economics.

    Previously she served as Vice President of the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, Deputy Director General of the Anti-Monopoly Bureau in the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and as Assistant Trade Representative at the Office of International Trade Negotiations in the Chinese Ministry of Commerce. She also served as Minister Counsellor in charge of legal affairs at China’s mission to the WTO, during which she served as Chair of the WTO’s Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).  Prof. Hong ZHAO then served as Commissioner for Trade Negotiations at the Chinese Ministry of Commerce’s Department for WTO Affairs.  Prof. Hong ZHAO helped formulate many important Chinese legislative acts on economic and trade issues adopted since the 1990s and has experience in China’s judiciary system, serving as Juror at the Economic Tribunal of the Second Intermediate Court of Beijing between 1999 and 2004. She is also a Council Member of Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) and serves as arbitrator at the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). She has taught and supervised law students on international economic law, WTO law and intellectual property rights (IPR), at Universities in China and has been invited to give lectures at the University of London, the University of Barcelona, the University of Bern (WTI) and the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.