第一部分 Part I

有关CISG在香港的适用问题，由于历史原因，在1997年回归中国政府之前，香港地区长期处于英国的管制下，香港的条约缔结和适用地位也由英国政府负责决定。由于英国不是CISG缔约国，1997年之前CISG不适用于香港（除非当事人自己选择）。1997年之后，香港在CISG适用上的法律地位与英国的非缔约国地位没有了法律渊源但与香港的普通法仍然有关，同时又与中国是缔约国的地位产生了法律渊源。基于香港特殊的法律地位，公约目前在香港适用的情况一直没有明文规定。在国际司法实践中，有的国家有些法院承认CISG公约适用于香港地区，有的国家的另一些法院则否认CISG在香港的适用。

The applicability of CISG dates back to history. Prior to 1997 when Hong Kong returned to China, Hong Kong was long administered under British governance. Treaty accession and applicability of treaties depend on the decisions of the British Government. United Kingdom is not a contracting party to the CISG. As such, there is no legal source from the UK on the issue of applicability of CISG to Hong Kong (except for the parties' express choice). Post 1997, the issue is related to Hong Kong’s common law, as well as the fact that China is a contracting party to CISG, and as such, there seems to be legal source from China on the applicability of CISG to Hong Kong. Due to the unique legal position of Hong Kong SAR, whether CISG applies to Hong Kong currently remains an interesting question. From international perspective, some courts in some countries recognize the applicability of CISG to Hong Kong, while some other courts in some other countries deny such applicability.

美国的案例 The United State Case1

在美国CAN国际诉广东科龙电器控股有限公司和科龙国际（香港）伊利诺伊州北区法院（「法院」）民事裁定书(案号：05C5734)(2000年4月10日）经过两审，最终由联邦上诉法院作出判决，在判决理由中，法官明确认定了CISG公约适用于香港地区。在该案中，原告方主张香港是中国领土的管辖范围之内，香港作为中国领土的一部分，理应属于公约的适用范围。被告则主张在香港回归前夕，中国中央人民政府向联合国秘书长提交了一份“1997年7月1日后继续在香港适用的条约的声明”，本项声明中所列明的条约并不包括《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》。最终，法官支持了原告的诉求。

In CNA International v. Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings, et al, No. 05C5734 (April 10,2000), the Court in Northern District of Illinois ruled that CISG applied to the case in which a Hong Kong party is involved. In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that Hong Kong is part of the territory of China, and CISG should govern Hong Kong. The Defendant alleges that prior to the resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the Central Government of China deposited a diplomatic note with the Secretary General of the United Nations. In the diplomatic note, the list of treaties that will apply to Hong Kong does not include the CISG. Finally, the Court in the case ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

法国的案例 French Court Case2

区别于美国的判例，法国在公约对香港地区的适用问题上采取截然相反的态度。上诉法院判决原告可以依据香港的法律获得部分损失及利息的赔偿，原告认为本案应适用公约，因此提起上诉。法国的最高法院对案件的法律问题进行了审理，最终认定本案不应适用公约的规定，于是驳回了原告的上诉请求。法国最高法院作出该判决时所依据的是公约的第93条第（2）款。根据公约第93条，任何缔约国都可以将公约适用于本国的一个或多个领土单位，只要这一个或多个领土单位分属不同的法律关系，并且该缔约国向联合国秘书长提交一份有关适用本公约的明确声明。中国政府在香港回归前向联合国提交了一份有关回归后继续在香港适用的条约中并不包括公约在内。法院认为，中国做出的此项声明有等同于公约第93条第2款的效力。鉴于香港在回归前不适用公约，在回归后，适用公约的声明也不包括CISG在内，所以公约不适用于香港特别行政区。

By contrast, the French court takes a rather different view about the applicability of CISG to Hong Kong. In a case involving the Plaintiff’s remedy for partial damages and interest claims under common law in Hong Kong, the Plaintiff was not happy with the appeal court judgment.  Believing CISG should apply to the case, the Plaintiff took the case to the Supreme Court in France. The Supreme Court in France determined, after hearing the case, that CISG should not apply to Hong Kong. The Supreme Court made the determination based on Article 93 (2) of the CISG. Article 93 provides that if a Contracting State has two or more territorial units in which, according to its constitution, different systems of law are applicable in relation to the matters dealt with in this Convention, the Contracting State may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that this Convention is to extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them, and may amend its declaration by submitting another declaration at any time. The Chinese Government made a declaration about the treaties to be applicable to Hong Kong at the time of resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, such declaration did not include the treaty of CISG. The Supreme Court in France considers that such declaration as notified to the depositary does not state expressly the territorial units to which the Convention extends. Since CISG does not apply to Hong Kong before 1997 and since the declaration from the Chinese government on treaties applicable to Hong Kong does not include the reference to CISG, therefore, CISG does not apply to Hong Kong.

从公约的规则角度, 我们看到以上两个案件中所述的《公约》第 93 条总共有 4 个条款，规定如下：

第九十三条

（1）如果缔约国具有两个或两个以上的领土单位，而依照该国宪法规定、各领土单位对本公约所规定的事项适用不同的法律制度，则该国得在签字、批准、接受、核准或加入时声明本公约适用于该国全部领土单位或仅适用于其中的一个或数个领土单位，并且可以随时提出另一声明来修改其所做的声明。

（2）此种声明应通知保管人，并且明确地说明适用本公约的领土单位。

（3）如果根据按本条做出的声明，本公约适用于缔约国的一个或数个但不是全部领土单位，而且一方当事人的营业地位于该缔约国内，则为本公约的目的，该营业地除非位于本公约适用的领土单位内，否则视为不在缔约国内。

（4）如果缔约国没有按照本条第（1）款做出声明，则本公约适用于该国所有领土单位。

From the CISG itself, we see the relevant four provisions under Article 93 , which provides as follows:

(1) If a Contracting State has two or more territorial units in which, according to its constitution, different systems of law are applicable in relation to the matters dealt with in this Convention, it may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that this Convention is to extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them, and may amend its declaration by submitting another declaration at any time.

(2) These declarations are to be notified to the depositary and are to state expressly the territorial units to which the Convention extends.

(3) If, by virtue of a declaration under this article, this Convention extends to one or more but not all of the territorial units of a Contracting State, and if the place of business of a party is located in that State, this place of business, for the purposes of this Convention, is considered not to be in a Contracting State, unless it is in a territorial unit to which the Convention extends.

(4) If a Contracting State makes no declaration under paragraph (1) of this article, the Convention is to extend to all territorial units of that State.

This theme relates to how a treaty is to be interpreted. Under the Vienna Convention on International Treaties, these provisions appear to be relevant: Article 16 (deposit with depository), Article 29 (entire territory application) and Article 31 (interpretation).

这个题目涉及公约的适用和解释。《维也纳条约法公约》的下列条款看起来有关联性（第16条（deposit with depository），第29条（entire territory application）和第31条 (interpretation)）：

第十六条 批准书、接受书、赞同书或加入书之交换或交存
除条约另有规定外，批准书、接受书、赞同书或加入书依下列方式确定一国承受条约拘束之同意：
（甲）由缔约国互相交换；
（乙）将文书交存保管机关；或
（丙）如经协议，通知缔约国或保管机关。

第二十九条 条约之领土范围
除条约表示不同意思，或另经确定外，条约对每一当事国之拘束力及于其全部领土。

第三十一条 解释之通则
一、条约应依其用语按其上下文并参照条约之目的及宗旨所具有之通常意义，善意解释之。
二、就解释条约而言，上下文除指连同弁言及附件在内之约文外，并应包括：
（甲）全体当事国间因缔结条约所订与条约有关之任何协定；
（乙）一个以上当事国因缔结条约所订并经其他当事国接受为条约有关文书之任何文书。
三、应与上下文一并考虑者尚有：
（甲）当事国嗣后所订关于条约之解释或其规定之适用之任何协定；
（乙）嗣后在条约适用方面确定各当事国对条约解释之协定之任何惯例。
（丙）适用于当事国间关系之任何有关国际法规则。
四、倘经确定当事国有此原意，条约用语应使其具有特殊意义。

Article 16. Exchange or Deposit of Instruments of Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession.

Unless the treaty otherwise provides, instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession establish the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty upon:

a) Their exchange between the contracting States;

b) Their deposit with the depositary; or

c) Their notification to the contracting States or to the depositary, if so agreed.

Article 29. Territorial Scope of Treaties.
Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.

Article 31, General Rules of Interpretation

1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:

a)  Any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty;

b)  Any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

a)  Any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;

b)  Any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;

c)  Any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

我们在此提出的问题是：美国法院有“肯定说”的适用法，法国法院有“否定说” 的适用法。归根到底触及条约的合理适用和解释的问题。你们从中国法律的视角来看会是什么样的观点和立场呢？

We would like to raise a question in this segment. While some US court has the “positive view” of CISG applying to Hong Kong, some French court takes the “negative view” that CISG does not apply to Hong Kong. What is the reasonable view and position from your Chinese legal perspective?

我们先提出这个问题，请大家思考。We would like to raise the question for your consideration first.

（未完待续）(To be continued).

  1、 There are some other courts in the US that have not supported the view in the case CNA International v. Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings. It shows that there are controversies over this issue, depending on the facts of the cases.

2、See the French Telecommunications products case (2 April 2008), the Supreme Court of France.