本文選題：《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》 + 條約適用　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：基于香港特殊的法律地位，《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》在香港適用的情況一直沒有明文規(guī)定。在國際司法實踐中，有的國家承認(rèn)《公約》適用于香港地區(qū)，有的國家則否認(rèn)《公約》適用于香港地區(qū)。國際司法實踐中有許多有關(guān)《公約》在香港適用的案例，其中最具代表性的兩個案例，一個是美國CNA公司訴科龍國際（香港）案，一個是法國的電信產(chǎn)品案。從這兩個案例判決理由中可以看出，美國法院認(rèn)為在對待涉及香港當(dāng)事人的案件中應(yīng)適用《公約》的規(guī)定，而法國法院則持相反的觀點。 事實上，《公約》在香港適用不明的問題由來已久，主要是由于歷史原因造成的。1997年之前，由于英國并不是《公約》的締約方，，所以當(dāng)時在英國統(tǒng)治之下的香港自然也是不能適用《公約》的，但是香港回歸后中國政府也并未按照《公約》規(guī)定做出聲明，聲明《公約》是否適用于香港地區(qū)，自此，《公約》在香港適用的問題便不甚明確，于是從而造成了各國在司法實踐中在此問題上態(tài)度不一。 在香港能否適用《公約》的問題上，學(xué)界爭論不一。從當(dāng)前的實際來看，不論我國是否根據(jù)公約第93條第（1）款做出聲明與否，香港應(yīng)當(dāng)是可以適用《公約》的。其主要依據(jù)如下：第一，香港是中國領(lǐng)土不可分割的一部分，中國對香港的主權(quán)不可爭辯；第二，根據(jù)《公約》第93條第（1）款的規(guī)定，香港完全符合公約第93條中關(guān)于領(lǐng)土單位的定義，而且《公約》第93條做出聲明針對的是一國不希望《公約》適用于其全部領(lǐng)土單位的情況，既然我國未做出任何關(guān)于《公約》是否適用于香港的聲明，而香港又符合《公約》中關(guān)于領(lǐng)土單位的定義，那么《公約》自然應(yīng)當(dāng)是適用于香港地區(qū)的。 《公約》要在香港適用主要有以下兩個問題，一個是適用的方式，另一個是《公約》保留在香港的效力。目前，《公約》在香港的適用只能通過轉(zhuǎn)化適用的方式進(jìn)行。具體適用中可以分為兩類：一是在涉及香港當(dāng)事人和內(nèi)地當(dāng)事人案件的適用，二是在涉及香港當(dāng)事人和外國當(dāng)事人案件中的適用。至于《公約》的保留在香港的效力問題，應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合中國政府在過渡時期處理國際條約保留問題的三原則進(jìn)行具體問題具體分析，在結(jié)合三原則進(jìn)行分析的情況下，可以看出，若《公約》在香港適用，我國有關(guān)《公約》做出的保留無須適用于香港地區(qū)。
[Abstract]:Due to the special legal status of Hong Kong, the UN Convention on contracts for the International Sale of goods has not been expressly stipulated in Hong Kong. In international judicial practice, some countries recognize that the Convention is applicable to Hong Kong, while others deny that it is applicable to Hong Kong. There are many cases concerning the application of the Convention in Hong Kong in international judicial practice, one of which is the most representative case, one is the case of CNA v. Cologne International (Hong Kong), the other is the case of telecommunications products in France. As can be seen from the reasons for these two cases, the United States courts held that the provisions of the Convention should be applied in cases involving Hong Kong parties, while the French courts held the opposite view. In fact, the problem of the application of the Convention in Hong Kong has been unknown for a long time, mainly for historical reasons. Before 1997, since the United Kingdom was not a party to the Convention, Therefore, Hong Kong, which was under British rule at that time, was naturally unable to apply the Convention. However, after the reunification of Hong Kong, the Chinese Government did not make a declaration in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, declaring whether the Convention would apply to the Hong Kong region. Since then, the application of the Convention in Hong Kong is not very clear, thus resulting in different countries in judicial practice on this issue. There is disagreement among academics about whether Hong Kong can apply the Convention. In current practice, Hong Kong should be able to apply the Convention whether or not it has made the declaration under Article 93 (1) of the Convention. The main reasons are as follows: first, Hong Kong is an inalienable part of Chinese territory and China's sovereignty over Hong Kong is indisputable; second, in accordance with article 93 (1) of the Covenant, "Hong Kong is in full compliance with the definition of territorial unit in article 93 of the Convention, and that article 93 of the Convention makes the declaration that a State does not wish the Convention to apply to all its territorial units," Since China has not made any declaration as to the applicability of the Convention to Hong Kong, and Hong Kong meets the definition of territorial unit in the Convention, Then, naturally, the Convention should be applicable to Hong Kong. There are two main problems in the application of the Convention in Hong Kong, one is the mode of application and the other is the effect of reservations to the Convention in Hong Kong. At present, the application of the Convention in Hong Kong can only be carried out by means of conversion. The concrete application can be divided into two categories: one is the application in cases involving Hong Kong parties and the mainland parties, and the other is the application in cases involving Hong Kong parties and foreign parties. As for the question of the validity of reservations to the Convention in Hong Kong, we should conduct a specific analysis in the light of the three principles of the Chinese Government dealing with reservations to international treaties during the transitional period. In the light of the analysis of the three principles, it can be seen that If the Convention applies in Hong Kong, the reservations made by China to the Convention need not apply to the Hong Kong region.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曾華群;香港特別行政區(qū)高度自治權(quán)芻議——對外事務(wù)實踐的視角[J];比較法研究;2002年01期

2 杜濤;;CISG之仲裁適用問題[J];東方法學(xué);2009年03期

3 陳治東,吳佳華;論《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》在中國的適用——兼評我國《民法通則》第142條[J];法學(xué);2004年10期

4 宋錫祥;張琪;;《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》適用中的問題及在我國的實踐[J];法學(xué);2008年01期

5 張為國;;對中國與CISG有關(guān)聲明中若干理論問題的研究[J];國際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索;2009年03期

6 劉瑛;;《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售公約》解釋規(guī)則研究[J];江西財經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報;2006年03期

7 揚帆;;中國對CISG的保留及該公約在CIETAC仲裁中的適用[J];武大國際法評論;2008年02期

8 徐崇利;“九七”之后國際經(jīng)濟條約如何繼續(xù)適用于香港[J];中外法學(xué);1997年01期

9 張建軍;;中國應(yīng)撤回對《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》“合同形式”的保留[J];西北大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2008年05期

10 宋哲新;;CISG的基本原則和適用問題[J];現(xiàn)代財經(jīng)-天津財經(jīng)學(xué)院學(xué)報;1991年02期

本文編號：2083244