2024年2月17日星期六

Nye: American greatness and decline

 


Thu 2024-02-15 00:34

American Greatness and Decline


Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 


 


Feb 1, 2024  


https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/with-trump-american-decline-becomes-self-fulfilling-prophecy-by-joseph-s-nye-2024-02


 


If Donald Trump wins back the White House in November, this year could mark a turning point for American power. Finally, the fear of decline that has preoccupied Americans since the colonial era would be justified.


 


CAMBRIDGE – With most Americans believing that the United States is in decline, Donald Trump claims he can “Make America Great Again.” But Trump’s premise is simply wrong, and it is his proposed remedies that pose the biggest threat to America.


 


Americans have a long history of worrying about decline. Shortly after the founding of the Massachusetts Bay colony in the seventeenth century, some Puritans lamented the loss of an earlier virtue. In the eighteenth century, the founding fathers studied Roman history when considering how to sustain a new American republic. In the nineteenth century, Charles Dickens observed that if Americans are to be believed, their country “always is depressed, and always is stagnated, and always is at an alarming crisis, and never was otherwise.” On a 1979 magazine cover about national decline, the Statue of Liberty has a tear rolling down her cheek. But while Americans have long been drawn to what I call the “golden glow of the past,” the US has never had the power many imagine it did. Even with preponderant resources, America has often failed to get what it wants. Those who think that today’s world is more complex and tumultuous than in the past should remember a year like 1956, when the US was unable to prevent Soviet repression of a revolt in Hungary; and when our allies Britain, France, and Israel invaded the Suez. To paraphrase the comedian Will Rogers, “hegemony ain’t what it used to be and never was.” Periods of “declinism” tell us more about popular psychology than about geopolitics. Still, the idea of decline clearly touches a raw nerve in American politics, making it reliable fodder for partisan politics. Sometimes, anxiety about decline leads to protectionist policies that do more harm than good. And sometimes, periods of hubris lead to overreaching policies such as the Iraq War. There is no virtue in either understatement or overstatement of American power.


 


When it comes to geopolitics, it is important to distinguish between absolute and relative decline. In a relative sense, America has been in decline ever since the end of World War II. Never again would it account for half the world economy and hold a monopoly on nuclear weapons (which the Soviet Union acquired in 1949). The war had strengthened the US economy and weakened everyone else’s. But as the rest of the world recovered, America’s share of global GDP fell to one-third by 1970 (roughly its share on the eve of WWII). President Richard Nixon saw that as a sign of decline and took the dollar off the gold standard. But the greenback remains preeminent a half-century later, and America’s share of global GDP is still about one-quarter. Nor did America’s “decline” prevent it from prevailing in the Cold War.


 


Nowadays, China’s rise is often cited as evidence of American decline. Looking strictly at US-China power relations, there has indeed been a shift in China’s favor, which can be portrayed as American decline, in a relative sense. But in absolute terms, the US is still more powerful and is likely to remain so. China is an impressive peer competitor, but it has significant weaknesses. When it comes to the overall balance of power, the US has at least six long-term advantages. One is geography. The US is surrounded by two oceans and two friendly neighbors, while China shares a border with 14 countries and is engaged in territorial disputes with several, including India. A second is relative energy independence, whereas China depends on imports. Third, the US derives power from its large transnational financial institutions and the international role of the dollar. A credible reserve currency must be freely convertible and rooted in deep capital markets and the rule of law – all of which China lacks. Fourth, the US has a relative demographic advantage as the only major developed country that is currently projected to hold its place (third) in the global population ranking. Seven of the world’s 15 largest economies will have a shrinking workforce over the next decade; but the US workforce is expected to increase, while China’s peaked in 2014. Fifth, America has long been at the forefront in key technologies (bio, nano, information). China is investing heavily in research and development – it now scores well in terms of patents – but by its own metrics, its research universities still rank behind US institutions. Lastly, international polls show the US outranking China in the soft power of attraction. All told, the US holds a strong hand in the twenty-first-century great-power competition. But if Americans succumb to hysteria about China’s rise, or to complacency about its “peak,” the US could play its cards poorly. Discarding high-value cards – including strong alliances and influence in international institutions – would be a serious mistake. Far from making America great again, it could greatly weaken it. Americans have more to fear from the rise of populist nationalism at home than they do from the rise of China. Populist policies, such as refusing to support Ukraine or withdrawing from NATO, would do great damage to US soft power. If Trump wins the presidency in November, this year could be a turning point for American power. Finally, the sense of decline might be justified. Even if its external power remains dominant, a country can lose its internal virtue and attractiveness to others. The Roman empire lasted long after it lost its republican form of government. As Benjamin Franklin remarked about the form of American government created by the founders: “A republic if you can keep it.” To the extent that American democracy is becoming more polarized and fragile, it is that development that could cause American decline.


--

2024年1月7日星期日

Navigating South China Sea Security in 2024

 


Fri 2024-01-05 18:08

Navigating South China Sea Security in 2024


 


By Sophie Wushuang Yi


 


The Diplomat, 4 January 2024


Navigating South China Sea Security in 2024 – The Diplomat


 


The strategic dynamics of the South China Sea in 2023 have been marked by a complex interplay of diplomatic efforts, military posturing, regional cooperation, and legal disputes. Against this backdrop, China’s recent appointment of Admiral Dong Jun as the new defense minister has introduced a notable shift in leadership, posing potential implications for the ongoing China-U.S. strategic competition in the blue waters.


During a recent meeting in San Francisco in November, the leaders of China and the United States concurred on the resumption of high-level military communication, including the China-U.S. Defense Policy Coordination Talks and the China-U.S. Military Maritime Consultative Agreement meetings. They also agreed to facilitate telephone conversations between theater commanders. 


A significant development occurred on December 21 when General Liu Zhenli, chief of the Joint Staff Department of the Central Military Commission (CMC), engaged in a video call with General Charles Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. military. The discussion encompassed the implementation of crucial military-related consensus from the San Francisco meeting and delved into various shared concerns. The video call resulted in positive and constructive outcomes. Beijing anticipated that Washington would collaborate in fostering the China-U.S. military-to-military relationship, adhering to principles of equality and respect. Specific exchange programs are currently under discussion between the defense authorities of both nations, a positive signal for 2024. 


 


South China Sea Security Landscape: An Overview


2023 started out fairly promising in terms of the South China Sea. In January 2023, China and the Philippines engaged in diplomatic efforts, emphasizing the resolution of maritime issues through amicable negotiations. The highlight was Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s visit to Beijing. Both nations expressed a commitment to peaceful dispute resolution in the ensuing joint statement. The establishment of direct communication mechanisms through the respective foreign ministries underscored a diplomatic channel to manage maritime concerns.


Yet quickly the warm dynamics were marred. In February 2023, the Philippines accused a China Coast Guard ship of using a military-grade laser against a Philippine Coast Guard vessel near the Second Thomas Shoal. Run-ins near the disputed shoal, which hosts a permanent Philippine troop presence aboard a ground naval vessel, would continue and escalate toward the end of 2023, with the latest incident in December involving water cannons and a collision. 


Meanwhile, the United States continued to demonstrate a military presence in the South China Sea, conducting activities such as carrier deployments, joint exercises, and agreements with regional partners, including the Philippines. The U.S. reaffirmed its commitment to the region, addressing concerns related to the South China Sea and emphasizing its strategic interests. Multinational joint exercises, such as Cobra Gold 2023, reflected a shared focus on humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and regional security. 


Meanwhile, ASEAN member states engaged in discussions with China on implementing the “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea” and negotiating a “Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.”


A significant legal development involved the Philippine Supreme Court declaring the maritime seismic agreement between the Philippines, China, and Vietnam unconstitutional and invalid. This ruling underscored the ongoing legal dimension in addressing territorial and maritime disputes.


 


Philippine Strategic Posture: A Multifaceted Approach


The Philippines strengthened military ties with the United States by continuing to expand implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, showcasing collaborative efforts in the defense domain. Additionally, Manila’s discussions with Australia indicated a willingness to seek support from multiple sources for regional affairs.


Proposed legislation in the Philippines aimed at establishing marine protected areas around the Kalayaan Islands and Scarborough Shoal demonstrated a commitment to preserving marine ecosystems and resources.


Marcos emphasized the resolution of South China Sea issues through amicable negotiations. The prospect of a fisheries partnership with China suggested a cooperative approach to address maritime challenges.


Joint military exercises with the United States, such as the Balikatan exercise, showcased a heightened level of cooperation. The release of the Bilateral Defense Guidelines emphasized a joint commitment to the defense of the South China Sea.


The Philippines expressed intentions to conduct joint patrols in the South China Sea with countries including the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada, France, India, and Singapore. This plan aimed at reinforcing maritime security through collaborative efforts. The Philippines also enhanced its presence in the South China Sea by establishing a coast guard station on Thitu Island, reinforcing monitoring capabilities.


 


Projections for 2024: Navigating Challenges


The South China Sea is likely to witness sustained tensions, with frequent joint military exercises, navigation challenges, and territorial disputes. The dynamic interplay between China and the United States may contribute to an environment marked by strategic competition.


Collaborative efforts among regional actors, including ASEAN countries and extraregional partners, will play a crucial role in shaping the South China Sea landscape. Discussions on the Code of Conduct and joint initiatives may evolve, influencing regional stability.


Legal avenues may continue to be pursued by claimant states to address maritime disputes. International legal mechanisms will remain essential in defining the legitimacy of claims and fostering adherence to established norms.


The selection of Admiral Dong Jun as China’s new defense minister is a significant move, bringing a seasoned navy veteran with a deep understanding of maritime affairs to the forefront of China’s defense apparatus. As the former top commander of China’s navy, Dong played a pivotal role in advancing President Xi Jinping’s vision of a modern oceangoing navy capable of safeguarding China’s interests beyond its immediate waters.


Dong’s role as China’s defense minister introduces a maritime perspective to the top echelons of China’s defense apparatus. His experience overseeing naval forces in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait positions him uniquely to address maritime challenges, potentially impacting the strategic balance in the blue waters.


His appointment holds broader implications for China-U.S. relations, as it follows the first formal talks between Washington and Beijing’s military leadership in 16 months. The choice of Dong may facilitate top-level military dialogues, seen as crucial for stabilizing relations between the two major powers. Although the official communication channel between China and the U.S. military is yet to be resumed, the high-level meetings indicated positive signals easing the tensions. 


In conclusion, the South China Sea remains a focal point of geopolitical dynamics, characterized by diplomatic intricacies, military assertiveness, and legal complexities. The appointment of Dong adds a new dimension to China’s defense leadership, warranting careful observation of its implications on regional stability and the ongoing China-U.S. strategic competition in the maritime domain. As 2024 unfolds, navigating the challenges of the South China Sea will require nuanced diplomacy, collaborative regional efforts, and a commitment to upholding international norms.


 


Kind regards,


 


Sophie 


 


Miss Sophie Wushuang Yi 易吴霜


PhD Candidate, Lau China Institute, King's College London


伦敦国王学院 中国研究所


 


Twitter: https://twitter.com/Sophiews_yi 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sophie-wushuang-yi-b89789138/

2023年9月26日星期二

No, the World Is Not Multipolar

 

No, the World Is Not Multipolar

The idea of emerging power centers is popular but wrong—and could lead to serious policy mistakes.

By Jo Inge Bekkevold, a senior China fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies.

 

September 22, 2023

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/22/multipolar-world-bipolar-power-geopolitics-business-strategy-china-united-states-india/

One of the most persistent arguments put forward by politicians, diplomats, and observers of international politics is that the world is or soon will be multipolar. In recent months, this argument has been made by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, French President Emmanuel Macron, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Josep Borrell, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, argues that that the world has been a system of “complex multipolarity” ever since the 2008 global financial crisis.

The idea is also being popularized in the business world: Morgan Stanley, the investment bank, recently issued a strategy paper for “navigating a multipolar world,” while INSEAD, a respected European business school, is concerned about leadership skills in such a world.

But despite what politicians, pundits, and investment bankers tell us, it is simply a myth that today’s world is anywhere close to multipolar.

The reasons are straightforward. Polarity simply refers to the number of great powers in the international system—and for the world to be multipolar, there have to be three or more such powers. Today, there are only two countries with the economic size, military might, and global leverage to constitute a pole: the United States and China. Other great powers are nowhere in sight, and they won’t be any time soon. The mere fact that there are rising middle powers and nonaligned countries with large populations and growing economies does not make the world multipolar.

The absence of other poles in the international system is evident if we look at the obvious candidates. In 2021, fast-growing India was the third-largest spender on defense, which is one indicator to measure power. But according to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, its military budget is only one-quarter of China’s. (And China’s numbers may be even higher than commonly believed.) Today, India is still largely concentrated on its own development. It has an undersized foreign service, and its navy—an important yardstick for leverage in the Indo-Pacific—is small compared to China’s, which has launched five times more naval tonnage over the past five years. India may one day be a pole in the system, but that day belongs in the distant future.

Economic wealth is another indicator for the ability to wield power. Japan has the third-largest economy in the world, but according to the latest figures from the International Monetary Fund, its GDP is less than one-quarter of China’s. Germany, India, Britain, and France—the next four largest economies in the world—are even smaller.

Nor is the European Union a third pole, even if that argument has been tirelessly advanced by Macron and many others. European states have varying national interests, and their union is prone to rifts. For all the apparent unity in the European Union’s support for Ukraine, there is simply no unified European defense, security, or foreign policy. There is a reason that Beijing, Moscow, and Washington converse with Paris and Berlin—and rarely seek out Brussels.

Russia is, of course, a potential candidate for great-power status based on its land area, massive natural resources, and huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. The country certainly has an impact beyond its borders—it is waging a major European war and drove Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Nonetheless, with an economy smaller than Italy’s and a military budget equaling only one-quarter of China’s at most, Russia does not qualify as a third pole in the international system. At most, Russia can play a supporting role for China.

A widespread argument among those who believe in multipolarity is the rise of the global south and the shrinking position of the West. However, the presence of old and new middle powers—India, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia are often named as additions to the roster—does not make the system multipolar, since none of these countries has the economic power, military might, and other forms of influence to be a pole of its own. In other words, these countries lack ability to vie with the United States and China.

And while it is true that the United States’ share of the global economy has been receding, it retains a dominant position, especially when considered together with China. The two great powers account for half of the world’s total defense spending, and their combined GDP roughly equals the 33 next-largest economies added together.

The expansion of the BRICS forum at its summit in Johannesburg last month (previously, the block included only Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) is interpreted as a sign that the multipolar order is here or at least being advanced. However, blocs are too heterogeneous to function as poles—and they can easily fall apart. BRICS is nowhere near a coherent bloc, and while member states may share views on the international economic order, they have widely divergent interests in other areas. In security policy—the strongest indicator of alignment—the two largest members, China and India, are at odds. Indeed, Beijing’s rise is driving New Delhi to align itself more closely with the United States.

So, if the world is not multipolar, why is the multipolarity argument so popular? In addition to the lazy way that it ignores facts and concepts about international relations, three obvious explanations stand out.

First, for many people who advance the idea of multipolarity, it is a normative concept. It is another way of saying—or hoping—that the age of Western dominance is over and that power is or should be diffuse. Guterres regards multipolarity as a way to fix multilateralism and bring equilibrium to the world system. For many European leaders, multipolarity is seen as a preferred alternative to bipolarity, because the former is believed to better enable a world governed by rules, allow for global partnerships with diverse actors, and prevent the emergence of new blocs.

Indeed, the multilateral framework is certainly not working the way it is supposed to, and many in the West view the idea of multipolarity as a fairer system, a better way to revive multilateralism, and an opportunity to repair the growing disconnect with the global south. In other words, belief in a multipolarity that does not exist is part of an entire bouquet of hopes and dreams for the global order.

A second reason that the idea of multipolarity is in vogue is that, after three decades of globalization and relative peace, there is a great deal of reluctance among policymakers, commentators, and academics to accept the realities of an intense, all-encompassing, and polarizing bipolar rivalry between the United States and China. In this regard, belief in multipolarity is a kind of intellectual avoidance—and an expression of the wish that there not be another cold war.

Third, talk about multipolarity is often part of a power play. Beijing and Moscow see multipolarity as a way of curtailing U.S. power and advancing their own position. As far back as 1997, when the United States was the dominant power by far, Russia and China signed the Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order. Even though China is a great power today, it still views the United States as its main challenge; together with Moscow, Beijing uses the idea of multipolarity as a way to flatter the global south and attract it to its cause. Multipolarity has been a central theme of China’s diplomatic charm offensive throughout 2023, while Putin declared at the Russia-Africa summit in July that the leaders in attendance had agreed to promote a multipolar world. Similarly, when leaders of rising middle powers promote the idea of multipolarity—such as Lula in Brazil—it is often an attempt to position their country as a leading nonaligned nation.

One might wonder whether polarity—and widespread misconceptions about it—even matter. The simple answer is that the number of poles in the global order matters greatly, and misconceptions obscure strategic thinking, ultimately leading to the wrong policies. Polarity matters for two very important reasons.

First, states face different degrees of constraint on their behavior in unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar systems, requiring different strategies and policies. For instance, the new German national security strategy, released in June, states that the “international and security environment is becoming more multipolar and less stable.” Multipolar systems are indeed regarded as less stable than unipolar and bipolar systems. In multipolar systems, the great powers build alliances and coalitions in order to avoid one state dominating the others, which can lead to continuous realignments and sudden shifts if a major power changes allegiance. In a bipolar system, the two superpowers mainly balance each other out, and they are never in doubt about who the main rival is. We should, therefore, hope that the German strategy paper is wrong.

Polarity matters for businesses as well. Morgan Stanley and INSEAD are preparing their clients and students for a multipolar world, but pursuing multipolar strategies in a system that remains bipolar could prove to be a costly mistake. This is because trade and investment flows can be very different depending on the number of poles. In bipolar systems, the two great powers will be very concerned about relative gains, leading to a more polarized and divided economic order. Each type of order comes with different geopolitical risks, and a mistaken strategy on where a company should build its next factory can be very costly.

Second, advocating a multipolar world when it is clearly bipolar could give the wrong signals to friends and foes alike. The international stir caused by Macron’s statements during his visit to China in April illustrates the point. In an interview on his plane during the flight back to Europe, Macron reportedly emphasized the importance for Europe to become a third superpower. Macron’s willingness to muse about multipolarity did not go down well with French allies in Washington and Europe. His Chinese hosts appeared delighted, but if they confuse Macron’s reflections about multipolarity with French and European willingness to support Beijing in the U.S.-China rivalry, they may have gotten the wrong signals.

A multipolar system may be less overtly polarized than a world with two adversarial superpowers, but it would not necessarily lead to a better world. Instead of being a quick fix for multilateralism, it could just as well lead to further regionalization. Rather than wishing for multipolarity and spending energy on a system that does not exist, a more effective strategy would search for better solutions and platforms for dialogue within the existing bipolar system.

In the long term, the world may indeed become multipolar, with India being the most obvious candidate to join the ranks of the United States and China. Nevertheless, that day is still far off. We will be living in a bipolar world for the foreseeable future—and strategy and policy should be designed accordingly.

Jo Inge Bekkevold is a senior China fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies and a former Norwegian diplomat.

2023年9月4日星期一

Foreign State Immunity Law PRC

 

China adopts foreign national immunity law that allows foreign states to be sued domestically

 

Polina Dvornikova | Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, UA September 2, 2023 https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/09/china-adopts-foreign-national-immunity-law-that-allows-foreign-states-to-be-sued-domestically/ 

 

The Fifth Session of the Fourteenth National People’s Congress of China concluded on Friday. This assembly serves as the highest legislative body in the state, and its final resolutions entail modifications to existing legislative acts.

During the session, 161 members of the Standing Committee were present, and the number of participants met the quorum requirement. Mr. Zhao Leji presided over the committee’s proceedings. On this occasion, legislators decided to adopt the revised Administrative Review Law, amend the Civil Procedure Law and adopt the law on foreign national immunity.

China’s Law on the Immunity of Foreign States, scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2024, regulates the system of foreign state immunity comprehensively. This legislation establishes a legal framework for the jurisdiction and adjudication of civil cases within Chinese courts involving foreign states as defendants. This new law represents a shift from the previous policy of absolute state immunity to a regime of limited state immunity. According to the provisions of this law, Chinese courts will, under specific conditions, accept foreign states as defendants.

The Law on the Immunity of Foreign States consists of 23 articles, with its core provisions covering several key aspects. Firstly, it sets out principles and exceptions related to the jurisdictional immunity of foreign states, as well as principles and exceptions regarding the release of foreign state property from enforcement measures. Furthermore, it includes the principle of reciprocity, which means that if a foreign state offers China a less favorable immunity regime than what is outlined in the law, the principle of reciprocity will be applied.

The third review project of the Administrative Review Law strengthens the protection of administrative control and duty enforcement, enhances the relevant work requirements, improves the capacity of administrative control to handle administrative disputes, increases the number of applications for administrative control and popular initiatives and refines the administrative control jurisdiction system.

The second-instance civil procedural law project enhances provisions related to geographic jurisdiction of cases involving foreigners. It aims to coordinate jurisdiction conflicts, improve relevant provisions, and establish new standards for determining the jurisdiction of foreign courts. The amendments are also intended to enhance alignment with foreign immunity law principles.

The congress decided to extend the program, allowing lawyers from special regions of the People’s Republic of China, namely Macau and Hong Kong, to practice on the mainland of China in cities within the Greater Bay Area based on special licenses.

Furthermore, an agreement on joint extradition with Ecuador was ratified during the same session. At this session, they also approved personnel appointments and necessary personnel rotations related to responsibilities under this agreement.

In his concluding remarks, the committee chair called for efforts to elevate legislative work to a high standard. He underscored the importance of legal safeguards in building a strong state and did not overlook democratic practices, emphasizing their significance within the legislative process.

Additionally, a resolution was passed during the session to establish a strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Benin. They initiated trade relations and planned to increase the import of Benin’s products to China. China pledged to encourage Chinese investors to invest more in Benin’s national companies.

President Xi Jinping signed presidential orders to promulgate the laws and implement the decisions made during the congress.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Global China" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to global-china-g+unsubscribe@vt.edu.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/vt.edu/d/msgid/global-china-g/322C5803-B90E-47FB-A610-36AE6C14527D%40vt.edu.

中华人民共和国外国国家豁免法

(2023年9月1日第十四届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第五次会议通过)

来源: 中国人大网  浏览字号:   2023年09月01日 18:03:13

第一条 为了健全外国国家豁免制度,明确中华人民共和国的法院对涉及外国国家及其财产民事案件的管辖,保护当事人合法权益,维护国家主权平等,促进对外友好交往,根据宪法,制定本法。

第二条 本法所称的外国国家包括:

(一)外国主权国家;

(二)外国主权国家的国家机关或者组成部分;

(三)外国主权国家授权行使主权权力且基于该项授权从事活动的组织或者个人。

第三条 外国国家及其财产在中华人民共和国的法院享有管辖豁免,本法另有规定的除外。

第四条 外国国家通过下列方式之一明示就特定事项或者案件接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖的,对于就该事项或者案件提起的诉讼,该外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免:

(一)国际条约;

(二)书面协议;

(三)向处理案件的中华人民共和国的法院提交书面文件;

(四)通过外交渠道等方式向中华人民共和国提交书面文件;

(五)其他明示接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖的方式。

第五条 外国国家有下列情形之一的,视为就特定事项或者案件接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖:

(一)作为原告向中华人民共和国的法院提起诉讼;

(二)作为被告参加中华人民共和国的法院受理的诉讼,并就案件实体问题答辩或者提出反诉;

(三)作为第三人参加中华人民共和国的法院受理的诉讼;

(四)在中华人民共和国的法院作为原告提起诉讼或者作为第三人提出诉讼请求时,由于与该起诉或者该诉讼请求相同的法律关系或者事实被提起反诉。

外国国家有前款第二项规定的情形,但能够证明其作出上述答辩之前不可能知道有可主张豁免的事实的,可以在知道或者应当知道该事实后的合理时间内主张管辖豁免。

第六条 外国国家有下列情形之一的,不视为接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖:

(一)仅为主张豁免而应诉答辩;

(二)外国国家的代表在中华人民共和国的法院出庭作证;

(三)同意在特定事项或者案件中适用中华人民共和国的法律。

第七条 外国国家与包括中华人民共和国在内的其他国家的组织或者个人进行的商业活动,在中华人民共和国领域内发生,或者虽然发生在中华人民共和国领域外但在中华人民共和国领域内产生直接影响的,对于该商业活动引起的诉讼,该外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免。

本法所称商业活动是指非行使主权权力的关于货物或者服务的交易、投资、借贷以及其他商业性质的行为。中华人民共和国的法院在认定一项行为是否属于商业活动时,应当综合考虑该行为的性质和目的。

第八条 外国国家为获得个人提供的劳动或者劳务而签订的合同全部或者部分在中华人民共和国领域内履行的,对于因该合同引起的诉讼,该外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免,但有下列情形之一的除外:

(一)获得个人提供的劳动或者劳务是为了履行该外国国家行使主权权力的特定职能;

(二)提供劳动或者劳务的个人是外交代表、领事官员、享有豁免的国际组织驻华代表机构工作人员或者其他享有相关豁免的人员;

(三)提供劳动或者劳务的个人在提起诉讼时具有该外国国家的国籍,并且在中华人民共和国领域内没有经常居所;

(四)该外国国家与中华人民共和国另有协议。

第九条 对于外国国家在中华人民共和国领域内的相关行为造成人身伤害、死亡或者造成动产、不动产损失引起的赔偿诉讼,该外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免。

第十条 对于下列财产事项的诉讼,外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免:

(一)该外国国家对位于中华人民共和国领域内的不动产的任何权益或者义务;

(二)该外国国家对动产、不动产的赠与、遗赠、继承或者因无人继承而产生的任何权益或者义务;

(三)在管理信托财产、破产财产或者进行法人、非法人组织清算时涉及该外国国家的权益或者义务。

第十一条 对于下列知识产权事项的诉讼,外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免:

(一)确定该外国国家受中华人民共和国法律保护的知识产权归属及相关权益;

(二)该外国国家在中华人民共和国领域内侵害受中华人民共和国法律保护的知识产权及相关权益。

第十二条 外国国家与包括中华人民共和国在内的其他国家的组织或者个人之间的商业活动产生的争议,根据书面协议被提交仲裁的,或者外国国家通过国际投资条约等书面形式同意将其与包括中华人民共和国在内的其他国家的组织或者个人产生的投资争端提交仲裁的,对于需要法院审查的下列事项,该外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免:

(一)仲裁协议的效力;

(二)仲裁裁决的承认和执行;

(三)仲裁裁决的撤销;

(四)法律规定的其他由中华人民共和国的法院对仲裁进行审查的事项。

第十三条 外国国家的财产在中华人民共和国的法院享有司法强制措施豁免。

外国国家接受中华人民共和国的法院管辖,不视为放弃司法强制措施豁免。

第十四条 有下列情形之一的,外国国家的财产在中华人民共和国的法院不享有司法强制措施豁免:

(一)外国国家以国际条约、书面协议或者向中华人民共和国的法院提交书面文件等方式明示放弃司法强制措施豁免;

(二)外国国家已经拨出或者专门指定财产用于司法强制措施执行;

(三)为执行中华人民共和国的法院的生效判决、裁定,对外国国家位于中华人民共和国领域内、用于商业活动且与诉讼有联系的财产采取司法强制措施。

第十五条 下列外国国家的财产不视为本法第十四条第三项规定的用于商业活动的财产:

(一)外交代表机构、领事机构、特别使团、驻国际组织代表团或者派往国际会议的代表团用于、意图用于公务的财产,包括银行账户款项;

(二)属于军事性质的财产,或者用于、意图用于军事的财产;

(三)外国和区域经济一体化组织的中央银行或者履行中央银行职能的金融管理机构的财产,包括现金、票据、银行存款、有价证券、外汇储备、黄金储备以及该中央银行或者该履行中央银行职能的金融管理机构的不动产和其他财产;

(四)构成该国文化遗产或者档案的一部分,且非供出售或者意图出售的财产;

(五)用于展览的具有科学、文化、历史价值的物品,且非供出售或者意图出售的财产;

(六)中华人民共和国的法院认为不视为用于商业活动的其他财产。

第十六条 对于外国国家及其财产民事案件的审判和执行程序,本法没有规定的,适用中华人民共和国的民事诉讼法律以及其他相关法律的规定。

第十七条 中华人民共和国的法院向外国国家送达传票或者其他诉讼文书,应当按照下列方式进行:

(一)该外国国家与中华人民共和国缔结或者共同参加的国际条约规定的方式;

(二)该外国国家接受且中华人民共和国法律不禁止的其他方式。

通过前款方式无法完成送达的,可以通过外交照会方式送交该外国国家外交部门,外交照会发出之日视为完成送达。

按照本条第一款、第二款规定的方式进行送达的诉讼文书,应当依照该外国国家与中华人民共和国缔结或者共同参加的国际条约的规定附上有关语言的译本,没有相关国际条约的,附上该外国国家官方语言的译本。

向外国国家送达起诉状副本时,应当一并通知该外国国家在收到起诉状副本后三个月内提出答辩状。

外国国家在对其提起的诉讼中就实体问题答辩后,不得再就诉讼文书的送达方式提出异议。

第十八条 经送达完成,外国国家未在中华人民共和国的法院指定期限内出庭的,法院应当主动查明该外国国家是否享有管辖豁免。对于外国国家在中华人民共和国的法院不享有管辖豁免的案件,法院可以缺席判决,但应当在诉讼文书送达之日的六个月以后。

中华人民共和国的法院对外国国家作出的缺席判决,应当按照本法第十七条的规定送达。

外国国家对中华人民共和国的法院缺席判决提起上诉的期限为六个月,从判决书送达之日起计算。

第十九条 中华人民共和国外交部就以下有关国家行为的事实问题出具的证明文件,中华人民共和国的法院应当采信:

(一)案件中的相关国家是否构成本法第二条第一项中的外国主权国家;

(二)本法第十七条规定的外交照会是否送达以及何时送达;

(三)其他有关国家行为的事实问题。

对于前款以外其他涉及外交事务等重大国家利益的问题,中华人民共和国外交部可以向中华人民共和国的法院出具意见。

第二十条 本法规定不影响外国的外交代表机构、领事机构、特别使团、驻国际组织代表团、派往国际会议的代表团及上述机构的相关人员根据中华人民共和国的法律、中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约享有的特权与豁免。

本法规定不影响外国国家元首、政府首脑、外交部长及其他具有同等身份的官员根据中华人民共和国的法律、中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约以及国际习惯享有的特权与豁免。

第二十一条 外国给予中华人民共和国国家及其财产的豁免待遇低于本法规定的,中华人民共和国实行对等原则。

第二十二条 中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约同本法有不同规定的,适用该国际条约的规定,但中华人民共和国声明保留的条款除外。

第二十三条 本法自2024年1月1日起施行。