摘要
美国单边主义制裁法在国际社会引发了较多争议,尤其是在国际商事合同法律适用的领域。厘清美国制裁法对合同准据法是否有影响以及有什么影响这个问题,需要解读制裁法与准据法的关系。美国制裁法与合同准据法的来源关系可以分为三类:当事人约定适用制裁法、准据法与制裁法非同一国以及准据法与制裁法源于同一国。无论在哪种类型中,美国制裁法并不在准据法范围内,约定适用制裁法不是有效的意思自治条款,美国制裁法不应对合同准据法产生影响。美国制裁法是外国的直接适用的法,因为公法性质,属于公法禁忌的范畴。美国制裁法不能经冲突规范指引适用,也不能以外国直接的法方式适用。因此美国制裁法的公私法效果应做区分,制裁法不应对合同的法律适用产生影响。我国的阻断法令是拒绝适用美国制裁法的有力依据。
US unilateral sanctions laws have aroused many disputes in the international community, especially in regard of international commercial contract.It is necessary to understand the relationship between the sanctions laws and the substantive law.To clarify whether there is and what is the influence of the US sanctions on the substantive law of contract, the relationship between them can be divided into three categories: the parties agree to apply US sanctions laws, the two are not from the same country, and they are from the same country.In all of the cases, the sanctions laws are not within the scope of substantive law.The parties’ choice is not a valid autonomy of will clause, and the US sanctions should not affect the contract.US sanctions laws are foreign mandatory rules, because of the nature of public law, which belong to the public law taboo.US sanctions laws cannot be applied by means of conflict rules, nor can it be applied as foreign mandatory rules.Therefore, the public and private legal effects of US sanctions laws should be distinguished and not affect that of the contract.China’s blocking statutes are strong tools to reject the application of US sanctions laws.
出处
《财经法学》
CSSCI
2022年第2期176-192,共17页
Law and Economy
基金
国家社科基金项目“域外管辖理论体系研究”(20BFX206)的阶段性成果。
关键词
直接适用的法
公法禁忌
阻断法令
mandatory rules
public law taboo
blocking statutes
