中国的呐喊书评荟萃
Strong Resonances to The Voice from China: Leading Comments on the New Monograph
编者按：
陈安教授所撰《中国的呐喊》一书，自德国Springer出版社向全球推出以来，已引起国内外学界同行的广泛关注，学者们纷纷撰文评论与回应，迄今已经收到书评14篇，并已汇辑在一起，由北京大学出版社出版的《国际经济法学刊》第21卷第4期特辟《中国的呐喊》书评专栏，以中英双语集中发表，荟萃聚合，形成对外弘扬中华学术正气、追求国际公平正义的共鸣强音，借以进一步扩大其国内外的学术影响。
2015年3月18日
Editorial Note:
After the publication of Prof. An CHEN's monograph—The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law through world renowned Springer, it has attracted extensive attention and provoked intensive interest in the academic circles, both from domestic and abroad. Scholars have in succession responded with comments and reviews. As of today we have received 14 such book reviews, the bilingual (Chinese and English) versions of which are all ready to compile together and publish in a special book-review column for The Voice from China in the Journal of International Economic Law (China) through the Peking University Press. It is our wish that these leading comments will help to forge and converge a stream of strong resonances to advance and enrich the righteous viewpoints of Chinese scholars, and to pursue equity and justice at the international level.
March 18, 2015
1. 中国呐喊 发聩振聋
耄耋高龄的厦门大学法学院国际经济法学教授、中国国际经济法学会荣誉会长陈安教授所撰英文专著《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》（The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law）（简称为《中国的呐喊》），新近由享有国际学术盛誉的德国权威出版社Springer向全球推出，在国际经济法学界引起广泛关注。
本书汇集作者自1980年以来三十多年不同时期撰写的24篇英文专论。全书852页，分为六部分，分别探讨和论证了当代国际经济法基本理论和重要实践的学术前沿重大问题。这些英文专论原稿绝大部分发表于中外知名学刊，立足于中国国情，以马克思主义为指导，从当代国际社会弱势群体即第三世界的视角，有的放矢，针对当代国际经济法学科领域的基本理论以及热点难点实践问题，发出与西方强权国家主流观点截然不同的呼声和呐喊。在积极参与国际学术争鸣当中，大力宣扬众多发展中国家共同的正义主张和基本立场，有理有据地揭示某些西方主流理论误导之不当和危害，从而避免在实践上损害包括中国在内的国际弱势群体的公平权益。这也正是本书命名为《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》之由来。
这部英文专著文稿于2013年11月获得“国家社会科学基金中华学术外译项目”正式立项，据悉，这是我国国际经济法学界获此立项的第一例。按照全国社科规划办公室文件解释，“中华学术外译项目”是2010年由全国社会科学规划领导小组批准设立的国家社科基金新的重大项目，旨在促进中外学术交流，推动我国社会科学优秀成果和优秀人才走向世界。主要资助我国社会科学研究的优秀成果以外文形式在国外权威出版机构出版，进入国外主流发行传播渠道，增进国外对当代中国、中国社会科学以及中国传统文化的了解，提高中国社会科学的国际影响力。
诚如专家评审意见所指出的那样，这部英文专著“对海外读者全面了解中国国际经济法学者较有代表性的学术观点和主流思想具有重要意义。全书结构自成一体，观点新颖，具有中国风格和中国气派，阐释了不同于西方发达国家学者的创新学术理念和创新学术追求，致力于初步创立起以马克思主义为指导的具有中国特色的国际经济法理论体系，为国际社会弱势群体争取公平权益锻造了法学理论武器”。
陈安教授《中国的呐喊》一书，在展现作者中国特色学术思想和创新成果的同时，也为中国国际经济法学界向世界发声搭建国际传播平台。本专著出版之后，反响强烈，国内外高端学者纷纷撰文评论与回应，迄今已经收到书评14篇，由北京大学出版社出版的《国际经济法学刊》第21卷第4期特辟专栏，以中英双语集中发表，荟萃聚合，形成弘扬中华学术正气、追求国际公平正义的共鸣强音。另一方面，鉴于此书出版后国际学术效应良好，德国Springer出版社又主动提出进一步开展学术合作的建议，要求陈安教授主持组织另外一套系列英文学术专著，总题定名为“当代中国与国际经济法”（Modern China and International Economic Law），遴选和邀请一批中外知名学者围绕这个主题，撰写创新著作，提交该出版社出版，每年至少推出两部。经认真磋商，双方现已达成协议，正式签署合同，并已启动执行。相信此举将会为进一步提升中华法学学术在世界学术界的知名度和影响力，作出新的贡献。
中国国家主席习近平曾经指出，“文明因交流而多彩，文明因互鉴而丰富”；“文明是平等的，人类文明因平等才有交流互鉴的前提”。[2]近来他又强调我国在国际事务中应当积极“提出中国方案，贡献中国智慧”[3]。可以说，陈安教授上述力作向全球发行及其良好效应和后续举措，对于促进中外不同特色的文明在平等前提下交流互鉴，对于在国际事务中提出中国方案，提升中国的话语权，都将起到应有的积极作用。
（林伍 报道）
The Enlightening and Thought-provoking Voice from China
The English monograph of Prof. An CHEN, an octogenarian prominent professor at School of Law, Xiamen University and the Honorary Chairman of Chinese Society of International Economic Law (CSIEL for short, a nation-wide academic society), was recently published by Springer-verlag, a Germany-located yet world-renowned Publisher, under a broad title “The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law”. It has now entered the main disseminating channel of academic works, arousing extensive attention in the circles of international economic law.
This monograph, with a total six parts and a colossal volume of 852 pages, has compiled within it 24 of Prof. Chen's articles written in English since early 1980s. These English articles were mostly published by well-known academic journals in and out of China. Guided by Marxism, they are all based on a common stand of China's national conditions and a consistent perspective of world weak groups, endeavoring to speak up a completely different voice from those of mainstream Western powers as regards the fundamental theoretical problems and hot or controversial issues in practice in the field of contemporary international economic law. During his active participation in world academic debates, Prof. Chen persistently advocates for the just proposals of the many developing countries, and tries his best to reveal the improperness and potential hazard of those misguiding mainstream theories from the West, so as to protect the equitable rights and interests of world weak groups including China. This is why the monograph is entitled “The Voice from China”.
This English monograph has successfully won the support of the Chinese Academic Foreign Translation Project (CAFTP), making itself the first of such kind within the academic circles of International Economic Law in China. According to the official specifications from the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC), CAFTP is one of the major categories of projects set by the NSSFC and approved by the National Philosophy and Social Science Planning Leading Group of China in 2010. This Project aims to promote Sino-foreign academic exchanges, and to facilitate the outstanding works as well as prominent scholars in the field of philosophy and social science towards the world's academic stage. For this purpose, a major part of such funding is allocated to sponsor the aforesaid achievements to be published in foreign language through authoritative publishers abroad. It is expected that, by such way of accessing and participating in foreign mainstream distribution channels, foreigners could have a better understanding of contemporary China, its philosophy and social sciences and its traditional culture. It is also expected that Sino-foreign academic exchange and dialogue would hence be more active, and the overseas influence of Chinese philosophy and social science would be enhanced.
In the Expert Review Report, some of the most professional peers opine that Prof. CHEN's book “contributes vastly in the sense of introducing onto the world arena a series of typical academic views and mainstream ideas of Chinese International Economic Law scholars. The whole book is well and uniquely structured, and loaded with creative points of views. With its obvious Chinese character and style, this book has illustrated various innovational academic ideals and pursuits that are different from those voices & views preached by some authoritative scholars from Western developed powers. The author has endeavored to create a specific Chinese theoretical system of International Economic Law under the guidance of Marxism, to further serve as a theoretical weapon for the weak groups of international society to fight for their equitable rights and interests”.
Apart from spreading the China-specific academic thoughts and creative achievements, Prof. Chen's monograph has also set up an international platform for Chinese scholars in international economic law to disseminate their viewpoints to the world. With the publishing of Prof. Chen's monograph, scholars as well as practitioners from domestic and abroad have one after another responded with book reviews and relating comments, which have now converged into a strong resonating voice of advancing and enriching China's academic justice and righteous proposals on international issues. As till now, 14 such reviews have been received and are to be published by Beijing University Press as a special bilingual column in the present issue of Chinese Journal of International Economic Law. In light of this favorable and positive outcome, Springer offered to build a further cooperative relation, by asking Prof. Chen to preside and organize a whole series of English monographs entitled “Modern China and International Economic Law”. This brand new series will select and invite a batch of well-known scholars from China and abroad to contribute their innovative works around the theme of this series, at least two volumes of which will be published by Springer per year. After conscientious consultation, the two sides have reached and executed the final agreement. It is believed that such cooperation will make new contributions to promote the popularity and influence of China's legal academic research.
China's President Xi Jinping once pointed out in his speech in the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), that “［I］t is through communication that civilizations can show their multicolor, and it is through learning from each other that civilizations can be abundantly enriched… All civilizations are equal, which forms the very premise for the communication and mutual learning.”[4]He further emphasized that we should actively “raise Chinese proposals and contribute Chinese wisdom” in international affairs.[5]It could be predicted that, the above-referred book of Prof. An CHEN, together with its consequent influences and follow-up measures, will prove its positive utility in boosting the equal communication and mutual learning among civilizations of different characteristics, as well as in enhancing China's voice of contributing its own prescriptions as to world affairs.
（By Lin Wu）
2. 晨起临窗坐 书香伴芳菲
——喜览《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
昨天傍晚收到了一批书报杂志的邮件，今晨逐件拆封、翻阅，忽然发现一本装帧精美的全英文书。书名很别致，“The Voice from China”（《中国的呐喊》或《来自中国的声音》）。初想，平日与新闻、文艺各界接触很少，刚要放在一边，忽然发现，本书作者的署名，是大名鼎鼎的陈安教授，翻阅内容，主要是1980年以来陈老在国外著名刊物上发表的24篇关于中国国际经济法学的论文集合，这又是陈老的一大创举。
陈安老先生是中国国际经济法学界驰名中外的泰斗和大师，而且是中国特色国际经济法学科的创始人之一，发表了一系列有分量的扛鼎之作。陈老也在国外著名刊物上发表了许多影响很大的学术论文。但是，用时却很难找到。这一次集24篇在国内外发表的中国国际经济法学方面的论文成卷出版，给国内外业界专家提供了很大方便，使人们更便于听到来自中国国际经济法学界的声音，功德无量。
陈老这个头带得很好。据我所知，国内专家也有在国外报、刊发表学术作品，但往往难于寻找。在中国出版的五卷本《陈安论国际经济法》以及笔者的《郭寿康法学文选》中，都包括一部分在国外发表的论文作品，但全书用英文出版的，尚属罕见。希望有更多的学者，用外语在国外权威出版社出版学术专著，从而进入国外学术著作主流发行传播渠道，以满足世界上迫切需要听到“来自中国的声音”的日益强烈的要求。
By the Casement at Dawn, in the Fragrance of New Book
This morning when I was sealing off and leafing through a pile of newly received books, journals and magazines, a rather well designed English book suddenly caught my eyes. With its unconventional title: “The Voice from China”, it first occurred to me that I seldom had contacts with media and literature circles. When I was just about to put it aside, I suddenly saw that the author of this book is Prof. An CHEN, a widely renowned scholar. After I skipped through the contents, I found it a compilation of 24 articles successively published by Prof. CHEN since 1980 in foreign journals, all with a focus on the topic of Chinese school of International Economic Law. This should be deemed as another pioneering work of Mr.CHEN.
Mr. An CHEN, an elderly gentleman, is a master of the discipline of International Economic Law, and has a worldly recognized reputation in this academic circle. He is also one of the founding members of the Chinese School of International Economic Law (IEL), or IEL with Chinese characteristics, for he has published a series of heavy-weight masterpieces, as well as a number of research papers in well-known journals. These journal articles are, however, not that handy when people feel the need to refer to. Now that Prof. CHEN's 24 articles on Chinese IEL are compiled into one volume, it will be bound to foster a more convenient way for peers, both from domestic and abroad, to hear a Voice from Chinese academic circle of IEL. The benefits that go along with this publication are definitely beyond measure.
Mr. CHEN has set a very instructive leading example. As far as I know, there are other scholars of China who have also published their research results in foreign journals. But these articles share a common deficit of being inconvenient to find and collect. In the domestically published works such as “An CHEN on International Economic Law” (Five Volume), and my “Guo Shoukang's Selected Works on Law”, there are some thesis written in English, too. But it is rather rare, at least for now, that a published book of Chinese scholar is all in English. It is my sincere hope, that more scholars of China can publish their works through authoritative foreign press, and enter the worldwide mainstream transmission channel of academic works, so as to fulfill the increasingly strengthened demands of world people to hear the “Voice from China”.
3. 弘中华正气 为群弱发声[8]
尊敬的陈安教授：
当我收到您的英文专著《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》，欣喜之外，更是一种感动和震撼。多年来，您一直希望我们以文会友、以书会友。这些年我先后收到了您的《陈安论国际经济法》5卷本、《国际经济法学刍言》上下卷等鸿篇巨制。我的书架上，整整齐齐排列着您主编的《国际经济法学刊》，至今已是第21卷！打开您《中国的呐喊》，更是让我感到分量很重、很重……
这是您的又一部力作。这部专著不仅深刻阐述了当代国际经济法的基本理论问题，而且紧密结合国际经济法理论与实践，深入探讨了构建国际经济新秩序的热点难点问题，自成体系，兼容并包，翔集事理。我知道，字里行间，凝聚的都是您几十年潜心学术研究之成果，是您又一部研精覃思的著作。这本专著作为国家社科基金中华学术外译项目以英文正式出版，对于促进世界更加了解和理解当代中国必将产生重要影响，无疑是中国国际经济法学界的一件大事。
让我感动的是，您在国际经济法学方面的造诣很深，学术成就斐然。但是，耄耋之年，您至今仍在孜孜不倦，辛勤耕耘，不断深入思考国际经济法学特别是中国国际经济法学的发展，并为之奉献了自己的全部心血和智慧。先生的精神实乃难能可贵，足以让那些心浮气躁、急功近利的后辈晚生汗颜。我们年轻一代，无论是法学研究工作者还是司法工作者，都应当学习和弘扬您这种严谨治学、学为人师的学术品格和行为风范。
世界多极化、经济全球化和社会信息化的趋势深入发展，科技进步日新月异，各种文化碰撞交融，使当今世界正经历着前所未有的历史性变革。中国已经历了三十多年的改革开放历程，中国比以往任何时候更加重视国际法的研究，更加重视国际规则的制定和运用。全面推进依法治国，离不开法学理论的繁荣发展。构建开放型新经济新体制，离不开国际经济法的研究。可以说，摆在我们面前的一系列国际法问题包括国际经济法问题，既是理论研究，更是应用研究，我们必须理论联系实际。我们需要学习借鉴外国法学先进理论，更需要立足于复杂多变的国际形势和国际关系，立足于国际经济法理论与我国对外开放实践的紧密结合，积极推动建立公正合理的国际政治经济新秩序，有自己的思考和建议，并且敢于发出中国声音。
在这本英文专著第一编里，我看到其中一篇熟悉的文章，即《“黄祸”论的本源、本质及其最新霸权“变种”：“中国威胁论”》。这篇专论我有幸在2012年就拜读过，它以史实为据，史论结合，深入剖析和批判“中国威胁论”的本质和危害，读了之后令人荡气回肠，拍案叫好。这些年来，您始终立足中国国情和广大发展中国家的共同立场，始终秉持国家经济主权原则，强调维护发展中国家利益，倡导公平互利、南北合作、南南合作，探索建立国际经济新秩序的规律和路径，实事求是，与时俱进，不断探索，追求真理，特别是敢于提出与西方国家传统观点乃至主流观点截然不同的观点，真正响亮地发出了中国的声音，不断推动着中国国际经济法学的理论创新与实践创新。从您的身上，我更是深深感受到了我们每一个国际法学者和法律工作者义不容辞的责任和使命。
真诚感谢您为国际经济法学界奉献了又一部力作！衷心祝愿您健康长寿！
2014年9月16日
Spreading China's Justice, Voicing for the Global Weak[9]
Dear Esteemed Prof. An CHEN
Upon receiving your recent published English writing monograph—The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, I felt more touched and shocked than delighted. For decades, you have been encouraging us to meet friends through sharing our articles and books. I alone have successively received a number of big treatises of yours, such as An CHEN on International Economic Law (Five Volumes), and CHEN's Papers on International Economic Law. On my bookshelf arrays neatly a complete serie of Chinese Journal of International Economic Law (from Vol. 1 to the present Vol. 21!). I can literally feel the heavy weight of your new book when I hold it in hand and turn over the cover…
Undoubtedly this is your another masterpiece. It has not only elaborated in depth the many fundamental theoretical problems of contemporary international economic law (IEL), but also deeply discussed some hot and controversial issues regarding the establishment of a new international economic order (NIEO), with a close integration of relating IEL theory and practice. By adopting an all-inclusive approach to synthesize facts and reasonings, this new monograph has created a unique system similar to no other. As I see, this new monograph, which is pervaded among the words and lines with all your hard work, condenses your meticulous research and thorough thinking, and embodies your decades' devotion to and fruits of this subject. Supported by the Chinese Academic Foreign Translation Project of the China National Social Sciences Fund, the publishing of this English monograph must bring significant influence on promoting the global understanding of contemporary China, and is with no doubt a major event in the Chinese academic circle of international economic law.
What moves me most is that, apart from your many academic accomplishments in the field of IEL, and despite of your eighties-odd age, you have not yet ceased in thinking and writing on this subject, and still are tirelessly and entirely devoted your heart and wisdom to promoting the development of Chinese school of IEL. Such spirit of yours is quite rare and commendable, and can shame all the youngsters who are impatient and eager for quick success. We younger generations of legal researchers and practitioners shall learn and carry forward such academic personality and behavioral demeanor of yours, to carry out meticulous research and to disseminate righteous knowledge or ideals.
With the continuous deepening of world multipolarization, economic globalization and society informatization, as well as the fast innovation of science and technology, the collision and fusion of various cultures, contemporary world is now experiencing an unprecedented historical change. After over three decades of opening-up and reformation, China is now attaching importance more than ever before to the research of international law, and the making and application of international rules. The comprehensive promotion of managing state affairs according to law is indispensable to the prosperity of legal theoretical research. The establishment of a novel economic system that opens up to the world is indispensable to the research of IEL. A series of problems that we encounter, no matter regarding international law or international economic law, are of theoretical research as well as of practical one. We must thus link theory to practice. Also, we need to learn and benefit from the foreign advanced theories; especially to base on the complicated and changeable international situations and international relations, as well as a close combination of international economic legal theory with our past open-up practices. Further more, we also need to actively promote the establishment of a fair and reasonable new international economic and political order, to form our own thoughts and suggestions, and dare to express our own Voice from China.
I have found a familiar article in Part I of your English monograph, namely On the Source, Essence of “Yellow Peril” Doctrine and Its Latest Hegemony “Variant”—The “China Threat” Doctrine, which I had the fortune to read when it first came out in 2012. This article has carried out a very thorough dissection of and pointed critique against the “China Threat” Doctrine. Based on historical facts and with a well-organized integration of history and theory, this article is soul-stirring, making readers can't help striking the table and shouting bravo. For the past decades, you have been consistently standing on China's situations and the common ground of the vast developing countries, adhering to the principle of national economic sovereignty, emphasizing the preservation of national interests of the weak groups, advocating equity and mutual benefit, South-North Cooperation and South-South Cooperation, and exploring the rules and approaches to establish a new international economic order. You have been persistently advancing with the times, keep exploring and pursuing the truth from facts, and especially daring to express thought-provoking viewpoints that are different from or even contrary to traditional or mainstream views from the West. Such resounding Voices from China of yours have been keeping pushing forward the innovation of international economic legal theory and practice with Chinese characteristics. You have set up a model, from whom I have deeply felt the responsibility and mission that every international law scholar and practitioner is bound to and shall undertake.
I sincerely thank you for contributing another new masterpiece to the academic circle of international economic law, and cordially wish you good health and a long life!
Cao Jianming
September 16, 2014
4. 中国国际经济法学老艄公的铿锵号子[10]
——《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》读后的点滴感悟
金秋收获时节，欣悉《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》（The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law）（以下简称《中国的呐喊》）面世。这部新著集中了中国国际经济法学奠基人之一陈安先生近三十多年学术研究之精华，由举世闻名的国际权威出版社同时向全球推出纸质版精装本和电子版。晚辈获陈老前辈惠赠其巨著，受宠若惊，感激之余，不禁感叹如下数语，以飨读者。
陈先生不愧为学界泰斗，学术常青常新。他数十年如一日，研究不息，笔耕不止，出版和发表的著述字数以数百万计。根据晚辈初步观察，中国改革开放后的头二十年，陈先生研究的重心主要是通过主编不同版本的《国际经济法》教材、创办和主编《国际经济法论丛》及其改版的《国际经济法学刊》，创立和不断完善中国的国际经济法学体系。此外，他还在国际商事仲裁和国际投资争端解决等领域著书立说。与此同时，陈先生在国（境）内外一系列重要学术刊物上就国际经济法基本理论和实践中的重大和热点问题分别用中文和英文发表了数十篇具有重要影响的论文。
进入21世纪，陈先生的学术成就集中体现在其先后出版的三部巨著之中。这三部代表作可谓是陈先生近十几年来学术创新的“三步进行曲”，节节攀升，直至巅峰。首先，由北京大学出版社于2005年推出《国际经济法学刍言》上、下两卷本，共计210余万字。三年后的2008年，在原有著述的基础上由复旦大学出版社推出了《陈安论国际经济法学》五卷本，共计300余万字。诚如先生自言：这部新著“并不是《刍言》的简单再版或扩容”，而是作者“针对本学科领域新问题进行探索的心得体会的全面增订和创新汇辑”。更令人震撼的是，如今，虽然先生已85岁高龄，但是追求学术之壮心不已，再次由国际权威出版机构向全球推出其英文巨著《中国的呐喊》。至此，“陈氏国际经济法”不仅深深扎根和流行于华语世界，而且将在全球各种不同文化的国家和地区广泛传播和推广，必将产生深远的国际影响。
《中国的呐喊》重申和再现了“陈氏国际经济法”的“三性”理论。[12]上个世纪90年代初，陈先生率先提出了国际经济法学的“三性”基本特征，即“边缘性”“综合性”和“独立性”，并将这一新的理论贯穿于此后他主编的教材、出版的著作和发表的论文之中。“三性”理论科学地揭示了国际经济学作为一门新兴学科的内涵和外延，阐明了国际经济法与其他相邻学科之间的区别与联系，论证了这一新兴学科体系上的综合性和相对独立性。如今，“三性”理论早已被国际经济法学界所普遍接受，广泛应用于中国的国际经济法教学与研究之中，结束了曾长期困扰学界的关于国际经济法学的定性之争。
《中国的呐喊》创造性地揭示了国际经济关系、国际经济秩序和国际经济法发展与更新的“6C律”。“6C律”是陈先生通过洞察和总结数十年来围绕建立国际经济新秩序的南北斗争的历程而得出的规律性认识，并预言这一规律在全球化快速发展的当下和明天将持续下去。所谓“6C律”（依笔者看来，似乎是“7C律”），就是描述国际经济秩序和法律规范破旧立新的螺旋式上升轨迹，即“矛盾”（Contradiction）→“冲突或交锋”（Conflict）→“磋商”（Consultation）→“妥协”（Compromise）→“合作”（Cooperation）→“协调”（Coordination）→新矛盾（Contradiction new）。[13]陈先生巧妙地运用七个英文单词的首字母予以概括和表述，既贴切，又便于记忆，其学术智慧可见一斑。
《中国的呐喊》向国际社会阐释中国对外经济交往的法理内涵和原则，揭露当今美国等国宣扬的“中国威胁”论是近代西方列强“黄祸”论的翻版，二者的DNA一脉相承，其本质是“政治骗术”，其目的是蛊惑人心，误导国际舆论，贬损中国。[14]陈先生锋利的言辞依据的是历史和事实，秉持的是正义和公理，捍卫的是中国的正面形象和正当合法的利益。
《中国的呐喊》先后三论中国在建立国际经济新秩序中的战略定位。陈先生主张“中国应成为建立国际经济新秩序的积极推手”，“南南联合自强的中流砥柱之一”；中国应“既坚持战略原则的坚定性”，“又审时度势，坚持策略战术的灵活性”。[15]依陈先生之见，正在和平崛起的中国“不宜只是现存国际经济秩序的‘改良者’、南北矛盾的‘协调者’，而应是‘改革者’之一”。[16]我坚信，这一观点道出了中国和发展中国家及其国际经济法学界共同的心声，并且已经得到一些欧美学者的赞许。
旗帜鲜明、直抒己见，是陈先生为人、做事、治学的原则和特点，这同样贯穿于《中国的呐喊》之中。这里仅举一例。近年来，在改革现有国际经济法及国际经济秩序的问题上，西方国际法学界一度流行“新自由主义经济秩序”论、“WTO宪政秩序”论、“经济民族主义扰乱全球化秩序”论。对此，陈先生告诫中国和广大发展中国家及其学人，不可盲从或附和，应实行有鉴别的取舍，尤其要警惕西方“淡化”“弱化”主权和鼓吹主权“过时”的“理论陷阱”。[17]
《中国的呐喊》将广大发展中国家描述为“全球弱势群体”，强调这些弱势群体国家应“珍惜和善用经济主权”，呼吁“南南联合自强”，反对美国的单边主义和西方强势群体国家在国际经济和贸易关系中实行“双重标准”，坚持多边主义，以争取和维护全球弱势群体在国际经济秩序中的平等地位和公平权益。[18]
总之，《中国的呐喊》具有鲜明的中国风格和中国气派，代表着中国国际经济法学先进的理论，发出的是全球弱势群体国家强烈呼吁建立公平、公正的国际经济新秩序的共同心声。《中国的呐喊》的出版，再次体现了一代宗师非凡的学术气度和追求学术卓越的精神。陈先生不愧为中国国际经济法学的舵手和国际经济秩序“破旧立新”的旗手。更重要的是，陈先生学术成就的重大意义和影响已经超越了国际经济法学本身，正如有关国际机构的高级人士所评价的，“（《中国的呐喊》）是对当代世界政治研究和认识的重要贡献”；同时，“应成为了解和研究中西关系人士的必读物，尤其是应作为发展中国家的领导人、高级经贸谈判官员培训的指导用书”，甚至作为这些国家高等院校的教材。[19]总之，《中国的呐喊》无疑是中国国际经济法学具有代表性的学术权威之音，是向世界发出的强音和高音。我坚信，这部巨著的出版将对国际经济法学的发展产生深远的影响！
The Sonorous Work Song of an Old Helmsman of International Economic Law
—Some Reflections and Thoughts after Reading The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law
In this golden harvest season, it is delighted to know that The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law (hereafter referred as The Voice from China) was published by Springer, the world-wide well-known publisher, both in paper and electronic versions. This new monograph collects the very essence of academic research achievements of Professor An CHEN for the past 30-odd years, who is one of the founders of Chinese international economic law. I, as a younger generation of the discipline and receiver of this great book, thank him for his kindness. In addition to gratefulness to him, I would like to make a few words of my superficial understanding of this book as follows:
Professor CHEN has proved himself to be a leading scholar of the discipline of Chinese international economic law. His academic research is evergreen and often up-dated. He has never stopped studying and writing for several decades, producing numerous publications both at home and abroad. According to my preliminary observation, his studies in the first twenty years after China engaged itself in “reform-and-open policy”, focused on creation and completion of the Chinese discipline of international economic law by means of compiling international economic law textbooks in various editions and founding Journal of International Economic Law in Chinese as editor-in-chief. In addition, some parts of his writings relate to theory creation in the areas of international commercial arbitration and international investment dispute resolution. At the same time, he published quite a number of articles on key and hot issues concerning both basic theories and practices of international economic law in some important academic journals in Chinese or English.
Since the 21st century, Professor CHEN's academic achievements have been reflected intensively and respectively in his three masterpieces. These three magnificent masterpieces might be well-called as “trilogy” of his academic creation in the most recent twenty years, which steadily climbs up to the peak. He firstly published the monograph entitled CHEN's Papers on International Economic Law (two volumes) in Peking University Press in 2003. Three years later in 2008, he published the new expanded edition (five volumes altogether) entitled An CHEN on International Economic Law in Fudan University Press. This new edition, as its author described, “is not simply a re-edition or expansion in volume, but a collection of comprehensive revision and enlargement as well as creation made by the author after his continuous exploration of new issues arising in the discipline”. Today, in spite of his age of 85, he continues pursuing his academic excellence by publishing his great work The Voice from China in English version through Springer who enjoys high international reputation. Hence, CHEN's doctrines of international economic law not only has been deeply rooted and popular in the Chinese society, but also will spread and extend globally, thus resulting in far-reaching international influence.
The Voice from China reaffirms and reproduces the theory of “three basic features”[21]persistently advocated by Professor CHEN for decades. This theory was first put forward by him in early 1990's, namely the marginality, comprehensiveness and independence of international economic law discipline. Since then on, he has penetrated and integrated the theory into his subsequent textbooks, monographs and published articles as well as various lectures on international economic law. This new theory scientifically brings to light the connotation and extension of international economic law as a newly-born discipline, and identifies the differences from and links to other neighboring disciplines. Nowadays, the theory of “three basic features” has been widely recognized by international economic law scholars and extensively applied in teaching and studying of international economic law courses in China's universities and colleges, thus ending the debates on definition of international economic law which had persecuted scholars ever before.
The Voice from China creates the “6C track” or “6C Rule” format embedded in the law-making process of international economic relations since the end of the Second World War. The “6C” means Contradiction→ Conflict → Consultation → Compromise → Cooperation→ Coordination → Contradiction new.[22](It seems to be a “7C” process instead.) This format description demonstrates via the author's critical eyes the track of struggles between the North and the South in establishing international economic order for the past several decades and expects that this track of development in spirals will be continuing in today's and future world of globalization. Professor CHEN skillfully uses the seven key English words which all share the first letter “C” to summarize this circle development tendency, which is both precise and easy for memory. We could appreciate the wisdom of an academic master underlying it.
The Voice from China explains to the international society the Chinese jurisprudence and legal principles in international intercourses, exposes that “China threat theory” advocated by the U.S. and a few other countries today is in essence the refurbished version of “yellow peril theory” advocated by the western powers in the past. He sharply observes that the DNA of the two theories is the same and their essence is a “political trickery”.[23]His sharp words are based on history and facts, uphold the justice and generally acknowledged truth and maintain the positive image of China and its legitimate rights and interest.
The Voice from China contributes a special Part (part III）to analyze China's strategic position on contemporary international economic order issues. It proclaims that China, as the biggest developing country, should “play an active part in promoting the establishing of the NEIO”, “become one of the driving forces and mainstays of the South-South Coalition”.[24]In the course of establishment the NEIO, China should adhere to the firmness its strategic principles on the one hand and tactical flexibility on the other hand. In the view of Professor CHEN, the peacefully rising China should not only be an “ameliorator” of the current international economic order and “intermediary” of the South-North contradiction, but also one of the “reformers” of the order[25], which I believe expresses the common voice and wishes of the vast developing countries and their scholars and deserves the blessing of some European and American academics.
Up-holding clear-cut stand and speaking his mind is the principle and feature of Professor CHEN in his behavior, research and dealing with matters, which is also reflected in The Voice from China. For instance, in recent years, theories of “neoliberalistic economic order”, “constitutional order of WTO” and “economic nationalism's disturbance of globalization” have been popular in western academics of international law. However, Professor CHEN warns China and vast developing countries and their international economic law scholars no to follow these theories blindly, but make choices identifiably, with special guard against “theories trap” which fades out and weakens sovereignty or claims sovereignty old-fashioned.[26]
The Voice from China describes the vast developing countries as the “global weak group” and stresses that these weak countries should “cherish and take a proper use of sovereignty”. The author calls for the “South-South coalition and self-improvement” to oppose unilateralism of the U.S and “ double standards” by the strong group of western countries and persist in multilateralism so as to strive for and maintain the equal rights and fair interests in the international economic order.[27]
In short, The Voice from China bears a distinctive Chinese-style ballet. The book represents the advanced theory of the discipline of Chinese international economic law and delivers the common voice of the weak group countries calling for the establishment of a new international economic order with fairness and justice. It reproduces a master's spirit of extraordinary academic tolerance and pursuing academic excellence. Professor CHEN deserves the title of “helmsman” of Chinese international economic law and “the flag bearer” of the international economic order who promotes to “destroy the old and establish the new”. What is more important is that the significance of his academic achievements surpasses the discipline of international economic law itself. Just as a retired official of the UNATAD observed, Professor CHEN's work is “an important contribution to the study and understanding of contemporary world politics”, and “should be made subject for required reading and study by leaders and policy makers in all developing countries” and “should also be part of the curriculum in developing countries' ministries, universities, and institutes of higher learning that prepare new cadres and officials for participating and work in the multilateral sphere”[28]. In conclusion, The Voice from China, just like the sonorous work song of an old helmsman, is undoubtedly a representative academic voice of the Chinese academics of international economic law as well as its high and strong voice to the whole world. I am confident that the publication of this master work will produce a far-reaching significance for the development of international economic law studies.
5. 天下视野 家国情怀 公平秉守
——读《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
由国际著名出版社Springer出版发行的陈安先生的英文著作《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》（The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law）已经问世。该书汇集了陈安先生数十年来在国际经济法研究方面的重要学术成果，集中向世界展示了一位资深的中国国际经济法学者的立场、观点和方法。如果我们要对该书所反映出的陈安先生的学术思想与学术风格做一个简单概括，或许可以归结为这样三句话：天下视野、家国情怀和公平秉守。
一、天下视野
国际经济法学者原本就应具有观察问题的天下视野。但事实上，许多学者的学术视野局限于西方发达国家的国际经济法理论与实践，甚至完全唯西方标准马首是瞻，以至于“法律全球化”成了“美国法的全球化”。[30]
陈安先生的研究虽然仍关注美国等西方发达国家的理论与实践，但却具有更为广阔的视角，即国际经济秩序的视角。法律的首要价值是其秩序价值。“秩序构成了人类理想的要素和社会活动的基本目标。”[31]同样的道理，国际经济法的首要价值应该是其在确立国际经济秩序方面的功能。事实上，当今的国际经济秩序是在各种国际经济法律规范的共同作用下得以维系的。在这些法律规范中，既有国际法规范，又有国内法规范；既有私法规范，又有公法规范。陈安先生在二十多年前即已为我们清晰地描绘出这样一个支撑国际经济秩序的国际经济法体系。[32]由于国际社会并不存在代表社会利益的“世界政府”，因此，国际经济秩序的形成，即国际经济法律制度的形成是各国及其他各类实体长期行为积累的结果。由此形成的秩序，尽管优于无秩序，但却可能并非公平。正因为如此，从上个世纪60年代起，世界上形成了以“公平”为价值追求的“建立国际经济新秩序”的思潮和运动。这场运动虽然尚未达到预期的效果，但仍旧取得了一些现实的成果。国际贸易领域中的“普惠制”和国际环境领域中的“共同却有区别的责任”就是其中的代表。我国的国际经济法学者虽然也关注过国际经济新秩序的研究，但少有像陈安先生那样持续、深入地对国际经济新秩序加以探索和研究的。在我国老一辈国际经济法学者当中，陈安先生关于国际经济新秩序的研究应该是最具代表性的。尽管“建立国际经济新秩序”的运动在二十多年前即已开始陷入低潮，但陈安先生的相关研究依旧势头不减，并鼓励大家继续深化该领域的研究。在《中国的呐喊》中，陈安先生高瞻远瞩地指出：“建立国际经济新秩序乃是数十亿人争取国际经济平等地位的共同目标和行动纲领。自通过南南合作而建立国际经济新秩序的方针形成以来，弱势国家争取平等国际经济地位的努力，虽历经潮起潮落，但不断冲破明滩暗礁，持续向前。因此，应从长远的战略视角对这场运动予以分析和评估，而不宜从短期战术角度考虑其得失。”[33]中国优秀知识分子历来就有“先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐”的价值取向，而这样一种以天下为己任的胸怀，对于当代知识分子来说，首先就应表现为学术研究的“天下视野”。
二、家国情怀
在以天下为视野的同时，陈安先生的学术研究也明显地表露出家国情怀。这种家国情怀主要体现为两个方面：一是对我国国家利益的深切关注，二是以国家为中心的研究进路。
陈安先生的学术研究始终表现出对我国国家立场和国家利益的关切。在《论中国在建立国际经济新秩序中的战略定位》（What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order）一文中，陈安先生指出：“在建立国际经济新秩序的时代大潮流中，中国的自我战略定位理应一如既往，继续是旗帜鲜明的积极推动者之一，是现存国际经济秩序的改革者之一。不宜只是现存国际经济秩序的‘改良者’、南北矛盾的‘协调者’。”[34]在《中外双边投资协定中的四大“安全阀”是否应贸然拆除？》（Should the Four “Great Safeguards” in Sino-foreign BITs Be Hastily Dismantled?）一文中，陈安先生语重心长地建议：在中外双边投资协定谈判中，中国应坚持有关国际法授权的规定，善于掌握四大“安全阀”[35]，以有效保护我国的国家利益，并在确立合理的外国投资法律规范及建立国际经济新秩序的过程中发挥示范作用。[36]陈安先生的学术研究始终跟踪我国政府的相关实践。他所带领的学术团队与国家商务部等政府部门一直保持很好的互动关系。他的许多研究成果都得到我国相关政府部门的重视和采纳。陈安先生的学术研究中所包含的这份家国情怀令人感动、值得称赞。
陈安先生的学术研究中还表现出另外一种“家国情怀”，即以国家为中心的研究进路。如前所述，陈安先生很早就界定了国际经济法的范围，指出：“由于国际经济法是用来调整各种公、私主体之间跨国经济关系的法律规范。所以，它并非专属于单一的国际公法，不单纯是国际公法的分支，不仅仅是适用于经济领域的国际公法。恰恰相反，它的内涵和外延早已大大突破了传统的国际公法的局限，与国际私法和国际商法交叉，并及于国内经济法、民法和商法，从而构成了一个多门类、跨学科的边缘性综合体。”[37]尽管如此，陈安先生的国际经济法研究基本上是以国家为中心展开的，而几乎不涉足私人之间交易的法律问题。于是，在《中国的呐喊》一书中，我们看到陈安先生关于美国单边主义与WTO多边体制冲突的研究（The Three Big Rounds of US Unilateralism Versus WTO Multilateralism During the Last Decade）、对中国在建立国际经济新秩序中的战略立场的研究（What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order）、对建立国际经济新秩序过程中南南合作的研究（A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong）以及关于中国的外资政策与法律的研究（To Open Wider or to Close Again: China's Foreign Investment Policies and Laws）等。即使是就具体案例所进行的研究，陈安先生也是围绕着国家与私人的关系而展开的。陈安先生的这种研究进路反映出他对国家这一国际社会的基本主体的重视。尽管私人之间的国际经济交往是国际经济法的现实的和逻辑的起点：没有私人之间的国际经济交往，就没有国家对国际经济交往的管理；没有国家对国际经济交往的管理，也就没有国家之间的冲突、协调和合作。但与私人相比，国家是更为重要的国际经济法主体。在调整私人之间交易关系的民商法性质的规范逐渐趋同的情况下，国际经济法体系中更为活跃的部分是国际经济活动的国家管理制度及国家间的协调和合作制度。陈安先生归纳出的“6C”律：Contradiction（矛盾）→Conflict（冲突或交锋）→Consultation（磋商）→Compromise（妥协）→Cooperation（合作）→Coordination（协调）→Contradiction new（新的矛盾）[38]，系统而准确地阐明了国家行为与国际经济法的关系及演变规律。
三、公平秉守
陈安先生学术研究的另外一个特色就是对公平的执着秉守。
如果我们从国家层面观察国际经济法，如果我们将国际经济法的形式限定为制定法和习惯，那么，当今的国际经济法从整体上看只能达到“互惠”（reciprocity），而无法达到“公平”（equity）。“互惠”是相互对等的让与，而“公平”则要求考虑特定情形下的利益分配，而这种分配并不要求是互惠和对等的。由于当今的国际经济法是历史上各类规则的积累，平等地适用这些规则，以致创设新的“互惠”规则，都无法在国际社会成员间实现真正的公平，因此，“建立新的国际经济秩序”也就是要“建立公平合理的国际经济秩序”。如前所述，陈安先生的研究所贯穿的一个基本思想，就是追求国际经济秩序的公平合理。“公平”是比“秩序”更高一级别的价值。人类社会中的“秩序”仅仅表明稳定的社会关系的存在，而“公平”则深入到对“秩序”内容的评判或“秩序”模式的选择。在《关于WTO的法治、立法、执法、守法与变法的法理思考》（Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming）一文中，陈安先生指出：“面对当今现存的各种国际经济立法，包括形形色色的国际经贸‘游戏规则’，国际弱势群体固然不能予以全盘否定，也无力加以彻底改造，但更不能全盘接受，服服帖帖，心甘情愿地忍受其中蕴含的各种不公与不平。”[39]关于建立公平合理的国际经济秩序的途径，陈安先生认为其根本途径在于弱小国家的团结合作。他认为：“在今后一系列全球性问题的国际论坛和多边谈判中，南方各发展中国家比以往任何时候都更加需要采取集体行动，才能赢得公平、公正和合理的结果。为了维护发展中国家共同的根本利益，必须适应形势的变化，通过精心研究和科学设计，调整和更新77国集团的纲领，协调不同的利益，以增强共识和内部的凝聚力。”[40]
陈安先生对国际经济秩序的公平与合理的不懈和热切的追求——无论建立国际经济新秩序的运动是处于高潮或低谷，除其他原因外，与其自身经历有关。他在《中国的呐喊》一书的前言中写道：“我年轻的时候，在学习中华灿烂文明的同时，也从教育中知晓并亲身感受到中华民族的悲惨危机。复杂的情绪逐渐培养起我强烈的民族自豪感和爱国主义的思想，我的反对国际霸权主义的决心，以及我的努力实现社会公正和支持世界上所有弱小国家的志向。”[41]
陈安先生与姚梅镇先生等一起在中国开创了国际经济法学这门学科，并继姚梅镇先生之后成为中国国际经济法学界的旗手。他在20世纪90年代初就系统地论述了国际经济法学的边缘性、综合性和独立性[42]，并对质疑国际经济法学的“不科学”或“不规范”论、“大胃”论或“长臂”论、“浮躁”论或“炒热”论以及“翻版”论或“舶来”论作出了系统的批驳[43]，为国际经济法学的发展奠定了坚实的基础。如今，陈安先生的英文著作又结集出版，在国际学界发出了中国国际经济法学者的声音。我们期待：随着陈安先生的引领，中国学者将在国际社会发出更为响亮的和声。
Global Perspective, State Position and Equity Pursuance
—Introducing The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law
Professor An Chen's book, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, newly published by internationally leading academic publisher Springer, contains representative articles written by the author over the past three decades, showing specific ideas of a senior and eminent Chinese scholar of international economic law. We may sum up the author's wisdom and style reflected in this book with several words, namely: the global perspective, the state position, and the equity pursuance.
I. Global Perspective
A scholar of international economic law is expected to observe issues with a global perspective. However, the views of many scholars are limited to the theories and practices of Western developed countries, and globalization of laws, for them, is the globalization of the laws of the United States.[45]
Although Professor CHEN has been paying close attention to the theories and practice of the United States and other developed countries, he insists on studying from a broader perspective—the international economic order. The primary value of law is order. “Order constitutes the ideal element of mankind as well as the basic target of social activities.”[46]Similarly, the most essential value of international economic law is its function on establishing international economic order. In fact, the current international economic order is maintained by the co-function of various rules of international economic laws, which include both international law and domestic law, private law and public law. Such a system of international economic law maintaining the international economic order was first demonstrated to us by Professor CHEN as early as more than 20 years ago.[47]Due to the absence of a world government to represent the interests of the international society, the formation of international economic order, as well as the international economic legal system is a result of historically accumulated practices of states and other actors. Such an order, though better than disorder, may be far from equity. This is why a trend of thought and movement of the new international economic order aiming at achieving equity was radically developed since 1960s. There have been some fruits from this movement, such as GSP arrangements in international trade law and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in international environment law, although there is still a long road to achieve its expected objectives. There are Chinese scholars paying attention to the study of the new international economic order (NIEO), but few like Professor CHEN who keeps continuous and in-depth studies on the new international economic order. Among the senior generation of Chinese scholars in the area of international economic law, Professor CHEN's study on the new international economic order may be the most representative one. Although the movement of establishing the new international economic order began to hit its bottom about 20 years ago, Professor CHEN has never been disappointed; rather, he has consistently encouraged others to further study in this field. In The Voice from China, Professor CHEN shows great foresight that “the establishment of NIEO is the common goal and program of action of billions of people who are striving for equal international economic status. Since the formation of the policy of establishing the NIEO by way of South-South Coalition, the movement of striving for equal international status of the weak states has undergone ebb and flow, and kept on progressing in a spiral course in spite of layers of barriers. Therefore, the analyses and evaluation of the movement should be carried out from a long-term strategic perspective, not from a perspective of gains or loss in the short run”[48].Feeling anxious before all the others and enjoying happiness after all the others is the creed of outstanding Chinese scholars in history. For today's scholars, to have the world in mind, should firstly keep a global perspective in academic studies.
II. State Position
While taking a global perspective, Professor CHEN's book is an embodiment of the standpoint of the state. The state position is clearly expressed by his profound concern for China's interests and his state-centered research approach.
Professor CHEN's academic study always shows his profound concern for China's interests. In What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order, Professor CHEN points out that “in the course of establishing the NIEO, China should adhere to her self-positioning, i.e., an active promoter who takes a clear-cut stand and a reformer of the existing international economic order, but not just an ameliorator of the existing order or an intermediary of the South- North Contradiction”[49].In Should the Four “Great Safeguards” in Sino-foreign BITs Be Hastily Dismantled, Professor CHEN advises earnestly that China, in the course of negotiating BITs, should insist on stipulating in related BITs such rights authorized by the relevant international law, to well control the four “Great Safeguards”[50], so as to effectively protect China's national interest as well as to play a model role in the course of establishing reasonable legal norms toward foreign investment and the new international economic order.[51]Professor CHEN always combines his academic study with the practice of Chinese government, and his team has been working with the Ministry of Commerce of China and other governmental departments smoothly. Many of his suggestions in his studies have been adopted by relevant governmental agencies. Professor CHEN's patriotic ideas and feelings are really precious and deserve high praise.
Another embodiment of state position is Professor CHEN's state-centered research approach. As mentioned earlier, professor CHEN defined the scope of international economic law very early, saying that “as international economic law refers to legal norms that are used to adjust the cross-border economic relations of various public and private subjects, it can thus not be categorized solely to public international law and cannot be merely deemed as a branch of public international law that applies to economic issues. On the very contrary, its connotation and denotation have largely broken the constrains of public international law in its traditional sense and have crossed partially with private international law, international business law and relating domestic economic law, civil law, and commercial law. Thus, it formed an interdisciplinary marginal synthesis of multi-branches”[52]. However, Professor CHEN's study seems always focusing on state, and seldom concerned with transnational business transactions among individuals. Thus, in The Voice from China, we can find Professor CHEN's analysis on the conflicts between US unilateralism and WTO multilateralism（The Three Big Rounds of US Unilateralism Versus WTO Multilateralism During the Last Decade）, his insight on China's strategic position in the establishment of the new international economic order（What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order）, the study on South-South coalition in the process of establishing the new international economic order, （A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong）and his study on China's policy and law on foreign investment（To Open Wider or to Close Again: China's Foreign Investment Policies and Laws）. Even in the articles mainly adopting case-study, Professor CHEN's analysis is also developed around the relations between the state and individuals. This approach reflects Professor CHEN's attention on states, the basic actor of the international society. Admittedly, transnational business transaction between individuals is in fact the logical starting point, as without individuals' business transactions there would be no governmental administration on them, and no conflicts and coordination among states concerning international economic transactions. However, compared with individuals, the state is a more important actor. While civil law and commercial law regulating business transaction tend to converge, the law regulating governmental administration becomes a more essential part of international economic law. The “6C rules” concluded by Professor CHEN, namely Contradiction → Conflict → Consultation → Compromise → Cooperation → Coordination → Contradiction new[53], systematically and accurately expounds the relationship between state behavior and international law and their road of evolution.
III. Equity Pursuance
Another character of Professor CHEN's study is his pursuance to equity.
If we observe international economic law from a perspective of international relations, and confine the law to international convention and custom, we may find today's international economic law in general is a system in the nature of reciprocity, but not equity. Reciprocity means mutual and equal concession between countries, while equity requires specific allocation of interests under particular situations, which does not necessarily require reciprocity. Since current international economic law is a legal system containing historically accumulated rules, it is difficult to achieve equity among members of the international society by applying those rules equally or establishing new reciprocal rule. Therefore, to establish a new international economic order is to establish an equitable and reasonable international economic order. As mentioned earlier, an idea permeated through Professor CHEN's studies is pursuing the equity and reasonableness of international economic order. Equity is a value of law superior than order. Order only means stable social relations, while equity requires the judgment on the content of order or the choosing of the pattern of order. In Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, Professor CHEN explains that “facing the existing IEL, including varieties of ‘rules of game’ for international economic and trade affaires, the international weak groups certainly cannot deny them all, nor are they capable of remaking the rules entirely. However, the weak groups cannot either accept all the therein embedded unfairness and injustice willingly, docilely, and obediently”[54]. With respect to the road to establish an equitable and reasonable international economic order, Professor CHEN believes the fundamental way lies in the cooperation among the small and weak countries. He holds that “in the later international fora and multilateral negotiations on a series of global issues, it is more necessary than ever for the developing countries of the South to take actions to win an equitable, justified and reasonable outcome. To defend the fundamental common interests of developing countries, it is imperative for the South to adapt itself to the change of circumstances, through delicate research and scientific design, and to reorient and renew the guidelines of the Group of 77, harmonizing various interests and reinforcing common understanding and internal cohesion”[55].
Professor CHEN's unremitting pursuance to equity and reasonableness of the international economic order, no matter whether the movement for establishing the new international economic order is rising or falling, in addition to other factors, relates to his personal experiences. He recalls in the preface of The Voice from China that “when I was young, I was told of the glorious civilization of China, but I was also educated by and personally experienced the sad national crisis of China. Such complex emotions gradually nurtured my strong sense of national pride and patriotism, my determination to fight against international hegemonism, and my ambition to strive for social justice and to support all other weak countries in the world.”[56]
Together with other pioneers, such as professor Yao Meizhen, Professor CHEN created the discipline of international economic law in China, and succeeded professor Yao as the standard-bearer of China's international economic law academia. He expounded and proved systematically that international economic law “formed an interdisciplinary marginal synthesis of multi-branches” as early as in the 90s of last century.[57]He also argued convincingly against queries towards the discipline of international economic law including the queries of “nonscientific or nonnormative”, “polyphagian or avaricious”, “fickle fashion or stirring heat” and “duplication version or importing goods”[58], and laid firm foundation for the discipline of international economic law in China. The publication of Professor CHEN's works in English makes it more convenient for foreign readers to hear the voice from Chinese international economic law scholarships. We expect that following the voice from Professor CHEN, there shall be a loud and clear cantata by much more Chinese scholars in international stage.
6. “提出中国方案、贡献中国智慧”[59]的先行者
——评《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
厦门大学陈安教授的英文专著《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》（The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law），近期由在国际学术界享有盛誉的德国出版社Springer在全球出版发行，令人非常钦佩。作为中国国际经济法学界的学术泰斗，陈安教授耄耋之年，笔耕不辍，知识报国，堪称楷模。《中国的呐喊》，顺应中国和平发展的要求，从积极参与国际规则制定和全球治理的角度，就国际经济法的基本理论、当代国家经济主权的论争以及中国在构建国际经济新秩序中的战略定位等重大问题进行了独特的战略思考，提出了许多切实可行的政策建议。陈安教授立足中国国情和维护广大发展中国家合法权益的需要，学贯中西，独树一帜，从完善国际经济法的角度，为我国参与国际规则制定，建立国际经济新秩序发挥了重要作用，是中国为国际社会“提出中国方案、贡献中国智慧”的先行者。
随着经济全球化的深入发展，国际政治经济格局正在发生着深刻的变化，中国和广大发展中国家在国际舞台上的地位和作用日益重要。积极参与国际规则制定、参与全球经济治理，不仅是实现中华民族伟大复兴之中国梦的重要战略选择，而且也是满足国际社会希望中国在重塑国际经济新秩序过程中发挥更大作用的需要。
中国新一届党和国家领导人高度重视这项工作。习近平总书记在出任国家主席后的第一次对非访问中，就明确提出要推动建设全球发展伙伴关系、加强宏观经济政策协调、共同参与国际发展议程制定、推动国际秩序朝着更加公正合理的方向发展等倡议。[61]并且之后在各种场合多次强调中国要全面参与国际规则制定、参与全球经济治理。
2014年7月，在出席金砖国家领导人第六次会晤，对巴西、阿根廷、委内瑞拉、古巴进行国事访问并出席中国—拉美和加勒比国家领导人会晤的前夕，习近平主席接受了巴西《经济价值报》、阿根廷《国民报》、委内瑞拉国家通讯社和古巴拉丁美洲通讯社的联合采访，就中国的国际作用回答记者的提问时，进一步承诺中国“将更加积极有为地参与国际事务，致力于推动完善国际治理体系，积极推动扩大发展中国家在国际事务中的代表性和发言权”，“将更多提出中国方案、贡献中国智慧，为国际社会提供更多公共产品”。[62]
2014年12月，习近平总书记在中共中央政治局第19次集体学习中指出，中国“是经济全球化的积极参与者和坚定支持者，也是重要建设者和主要受益者”。对于参与国际经贸规则制定、争取全球经济治理的制度性权力，中国“不能当旁观者、跟随者，而是要做参与者、引领者”，“在国际规则制定中发出更多中国声音、注入更多中国元素”。[63]
从加入世界贸易组织以来，中国无论在学术研究方面，还是在政策实践方面，对参与国际经贸规则制定的认识和重视都还很不够，甚至还存在不同的看法，归纳起来可以分为“阶段参与论”、“能力不足论”和“避免麻烦论”等观点。[64]陈安教授对于现行的世界贸易组织体制和规则，以及中国参与国际经贸规则制定的问题一直有他自己的独立思考和鲜明观点，早在2010年便在他纪念中国加入世界贸易组织10周年的论文中作了全面的阐述，提出了立法、执法、守法和变法的辩证关系。[65]陈教授在坚持国际经济关系必须力行法治的基础上，深入地剖析了国际经济立法中决策权力分配不公的事实，指出由此而形成全球财富分配严重不公的后果，即发达国家主导国际经贸规则的制定权，发展中国家权益严重受损。所以中国和广大发展中国家弱势群体，既要在现行的多边贸易机制中“守法”和“适法”，熟悉运行规则，争取为我所用，最大限度地趋利避害；又要在实践中明辨是非，系统排查现行体制中对国际弱势群体明显不利和显失公正公平的条款、规则，研究探索变革方向，通过“南南联合”，推行“变法图强”，促使多边贸易体制和规则与时俱进，造福全球。
事实上，现行国际经贸体系主要是在20世纪40年代以后，在美欧等西方发达国家的主导下建立起来的，首先体现和维护的是西方国家的利益和价值。这些国际规则不仅没有考虑中国和发展中国家的实际情况，而且有些规则还是专门针对中国和一些发展中国家的，最为典型的例子就是所谓的“特殊保障条款”，以及在贸易补救条款下的“非市场经济”地位。随着经济全球化的深入发展，现行国际经贸体系已经不能很好地适应新的国际经济格局。中国与世界的关系在发生变化，中国同国际社会的联动更加密切，中国和平发展追求的不仅是中国人民的福祉，也是世界人民共同的福祉，所以必须统筹考虑和综合运用国际国内两个市场、国际国内两种资源、国际国内两类规则。
陈安教授心怀报国之志，以强烈的学术使命感，长期奋战在国际经济法教学和研究的道路上，独立思考，积极探索，先后在国内外发表了一系列重要的学术论文和论著，包括《国际经济法学系列专著》、《国际经济法总论》和《陈安论国际经济法》等鸿篇力作，为发展完善具有中国特色的国际经济法学作出了巨大的贡献。英文专著《中国的呐喊》的出版，不仅让国际社会听到了中国的声音，而且也正式揭开了中国学者全面系统地参与国际经济法学研究交流的序幕。
在参与国际规则制定、构建新的国际经济秩序的过程中，发展中国家与发达国家必然会发生一些利益上的摩擦和碰撞。西方国家极力维护现存的体现其利益的经济秩序，发展中国家希望建立新的更加公平合理的国际经济秩序，改变全球资源和财富分配不合理的现状。围绕新制度的设计和相关规则的制定，南北方国家之间的斗争是非常激烈和复杂的，在国际经济法学界也出现了“新自由主义经济秩序论”、“WTO宪政秩序论”和“经济民族主义扰乱全球化秩序论”等理论误区。陈安教授在《中国的呐喊》一书中，对这些西方理论界的误区，逐一地进行了分析批判，并呼吁中国在构建国际经济新秩序中要发挥领导作用，坚持和平发展、合作共赢的原则，推动国际经济新秩序和国际经济法体制的新老交替，实现世界共同繁荣。[66]
随着经济全球化的不断深化，国家主权原则是否过时，成为当代国际法学界另一重大的理论和实践问题。20世纪90年代前后，西方国家凭借自身经济实力的优势，出现了种种否定和淡化国家主权的思潮，美国国际公法专家、曾任美国国际法学会会长的路易斯·汉金教授就曾提出主权过时论和主权有害论。世界贸易组织成立以后，美国国会担心加入世界贸易组织可能影响美国的国家主权，从而引发了美国法学界关于国家主权的大辩论。美国另一位国际经济法学专家、被誉为“世界贸易组织之父”的约翰·杰克逊教授则提出所谓的“现代主权论”，他认为传统国家主权的核心没有过时，现代国家主权的核心是权力的分配问题。[67]陈安教授对于美国的这场“主权大辩论”进行了深入的研究和分析，发现两位美国专家的“主权过时论”和“主权有效论”貌似相反，实则相成：都是为了限制其他国家的主权，而维护美国的霸权地位。[68]
当我看到《中国的呐喊》第四章的时候，就不由地想起陈安教授与约翰·杰克逊教授就国家主权问题的一次面对面的精彩辩论，那是2005年在美国首都华盛顿，美国国际法学会举办的“国际贸易与和平、自由、安全”国际研讨会上。陈安教授是受邀出席该研讨会的第一位演讲嘉宾，他提交的论文就是《综合评析美国单边主义与WTO多边主义交锋的三大回合》。[69]陈教授从美国随意使用“201条款”和“301条款”等国内贸易法规出发，揭示了美国实行单边贸易保护主义不仅是WTO多边贸易机制所面临的挑战，而且直接影响世界的和平、自由与安全。美国1994年主权大辩论的实质就是维护美国的霸权主义，限制其他国家的主权，从而将美国的主权和利益凌驾于其他国家和国际组织之上。陈教授的精彩演讲给当时在美国乔治敦大学任职的我以及与会的各国专家学者留下了深刻的印象，也使我有幸与陈安教授结下了忘年之交的深厚友谊。
实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦，积极参与国际规则制定和全球经济治理，推动完善国际机制，建立公正合理的国际经济新秩序，需要中国社会各界的努力合作。陈安教授耄耋之年，笔耕不辍，博览中外，厚积薄发，向世界国际经济法学界发出了代表中国的呐喊，不仅为国际社会了解中国国际经济法学的主流思想和价值取向提供了途径；为传播中华文化的先进思想和理念、建立完善中国国际经济法学派作出了杰出贡献；而且也为促进中外学术交流、丰富完善国际经济法理论作出了杰出贡献，堪为我们晚辈努力学习的楷模。
A Pioneer in “Providing China's Proposal and Contributing China's Wisdom”[70]
—Review on The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law
Professor An CHEN of Xiamen University has recently published an English book The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, which is distributed globally by Springer, a Germany press with high reputation in the international academic circle. That should be greatly admired. As a leading magnate in China's international economic law and jurisprudential circle, the octogenarian, Professor An CHEN has never stopped writing and been insisting on making contributions to our country with knowledge, who is an excellent model. The book complies with the requirements of peaceful development in China, particularly ponders such significant problems as the basic theory of international economic law, the debate on modern economic sovereignty and the strategic position of China in building a new international economic order, etc. and presents numerous feasible policy suggestions from the perspective of active participation in making international rules and global governance. Basing on the China's national conditions and the requirements of maintaining legal interests of developing countries, Professor An CHEN is well versed in both Chinese and western learning, develops a school of his own and plays an important role in assisting China in participating in making international rules and building a new international economic order from the perspective of perfecting international economic law, who will be a Chinese pioneer in “Providing China's Proposal and Contributing China's Wisdom” for the international society.
In the wake of the in-depth development of economic globalization, international political and economic pattern is undergoing profound changes, China and other developing countries play an increasingly important position and role on international stage. The proactive participation in making international rules and global economic governance is not only an important strategic choice achieving Chinese dream of bringing about a great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, but also a desire satisfying the international society that hope China to play a greater role in rebuilding a new international economic order.
The new Chinese Party and State leaders have attached great importance to the work. The Party General Secretary Xi Jinping explicitly put forward suggestions in the aspects of promoting and constructing global development partnership, strengthening macroeconomic policy coordination, jointly participating in making international development agenda and driving international order toward a more just and rational direction during his first visit to Africa after he was elected as the president.[72]Afterwards, he has stressed that China should comprehensively participate in making international rules and global economic governance for several times in different occasions.
Chinese President Xi Jinping received the joint interview of Brazil “Valor Economico”, Argentina “National Newspaper”, Venezuela news agency and Cuba Latin America news agency on the previous day of attending the 6th summit of BRICS leaders for official visit to Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba and attending the leaders' summit between China—Latin America and Caribbean countries in July, 2014. When answering the question of journalist about China's international role, he made a further commitment that China would further proactively participate in international affairs and perfecting international governance system, promote and enlarge the representative right and speaking right of developing countries in international affairs, present more Chinese schemes and contribute more Chinese wisdom and provide more public products for the international society.[73]
The General Secretary Xi Jinping indicated in the 19th collective learning of CPC Central Committee Political Bureau in December, 2014 that China is the active participant and firmed supporter and also the main constructer and beneficiary of economic globalization. China may act as a participator and leader rather than an onlooker and follower with regard to the institutional power participating in making international economic and trade rules and seeking for global economic governance. China may present more suggestions and implant more Chinese elements in making international rules.[74]
Since accessing to the WTO, China has not paid enough attention to the participation in making international trade and economic rules either in the aspect of academic research or policy practice. There were even various different views such as “theory of participation by stages”, “theory of scarce capacity” and “theory of avoiding trouble”, etc.[75]As for the existing WTO systems and rules and the problem regarding China's participating in making international economic and trade rules, Professor An CHEN has his own independent thoughts and distinct viewpoints. He has comprehensively expounded the dialectical relationship between legislation, enforcement, law-abiding and law-reforming in the paper in memory of 10th anniversary of China's accessing to the WTO as early as in 2010.[76]On the basis of performing laws in international economic relationship, Professor CHEN deeply dissected the fact of mal-distribution in decision-making power in international economic legislation and pointed out the consequence of serious mal-distribution in global wealth, namely the developed countries dominate the right of making international trade and economic rules and the rights and interests of developing countries are seriously damaged. China and the vulnerable groups in developing countries shall “abide by laws” and “make laws” in existing multilateral trading system and use the operation rules for ourselves and draw on advantages and avoid disadvantages to the maximum extent. They shall also distinguish right from wrong, systematically survey the articles and rules obviously disadvantageous to international weak groups and losing just and fair in existing system, explore and study the reform directions and promote the multilateral trade systems and rules to keep pace with the times and benefit the world through “South -South” Coalition and “law-reforming”.
In fact, the existing international economic and trade system was built after 1940s under the leading of western developed countries inclusive of America and European countries, giving priority to safeguarding of benefits and value of western countries. These international rules do not take the actual conditions of China and developing countries into account, and also some rules especially direct at China and some developing countries. The most typical example is the so-called “special safeguards measures” and “non-market economy” position under trade remedy terms. Along with the in-depth development of economic globalization, the existing international economic and trade system can not well adapt to the new international economic pattern. The relationship between China and the world has been changing, and the linkage between China and international society is more frequent. What the peaceful development China pursues is not only the well-being of Chinese, but also the well-being of the world's people. Therefore, it shall overall consider and comprehensively utilize international and national markets, resources and rules.
With the will of serving the country and strong academic sense of mission, Professor An CHEN has fought in the teaching and research road of international economic law for a long time. Upon independent thinking and proactive exploration, he has published a series of important academic papers and works successively at home and abroad, including Monographs of International Economic Law Series, Pandect of International Economic Law and Theory of An CHEN on International Economic Law, etc. He has made great contributions to developing and perfecting international economic law with Chinese characteristics. The English book of The Voice from China not only makes the international society hear Chinese voice, but also officially ushers the Chinese scholars comprehensively and schematically in participating the research and communication of international economic law.
Some interest frictions and collisions will certainly occur between the developing countries and developed countries during the process of participating in making international rules and constructing a new international economic order. The western countries make an utmost effort to maintain the existing economic order representing their benefits, while the developing countries are willing to build a fair and rational new international economic order to change the unreasonable distribution of global resources and wealth. The Southern and Northern countries fight intensively and complexly centering about the design of new systems and the making of relevant rules. The theoretical misunderstandings of “Neoliberalistic Economic Order”, “Constitutional Order of the WTO” and “Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization” also exist in international economic jurisprudential circle. Professor An CHEN seriatim analyzes and criticizes the misunderstandings in western theory field in this book, and appeals to China playing a leading role in building a new international economic order, insisting on the principle of peaceful development and win-win cooperation, driving the alternation of new international economic order and international economic law system and achieving co-prosperity in the world.[77]
Along with the deepening of economic globalization, whether the principle of state sovereignty is behind the times has become another important theory and practice problem in modern international jurisprudential circle. Before or after 1990s, the ideological trend of negating and fading state sovereignty appeared in western countries by virtue of their own economic strength. Professor Louis Henkin, an expert in American public international law and the former president of American Society of International Law has ever presented a theory of sovereignty behind the times and a theory of harmful sovereignty. After setting up the WTO, United States Congress worried about influencing state sovereignty after accessing to the WTO, hereby giving rise to a mass debate about state sovereignty in American jurisprudential circle. Another American expert in international economic law, John Jackson with the reputation of “Father of the WTO” presented the so-called “Sovereignty-Modern”. In his opinion, the core of traditional state sovereignty is not outmoded and the core of modern state sovereignty is the power distribution.[78]Professor An CHEN deeply researched and analyzed the “Great Sovereignty Debate”, discovering that “theory of outmoded sovereignty” and “theory of effective sovereignty” are opposite in appearance, while complementary in reality: both theories are presented to limit the sovereignty of other countries and safeguard the hegemony position of America.[79]
While reading Chapter IV of The Voice from China, I can't help thinking of the face-to-face and wonderful debate between Professor An CHEN and Professor John Jackson about state sovereignty in the international conference on International Trade and Peace, Freedom and Security held by American Society of International Law in Washington D.C. in 2005. Professor CHEN is the first speaker to give a presentation in the conference. The paper he submitted is The Three Big Rounds of US Unilateralism Versus the WTO Multilateralism during the Last Decade.[80]Professor CHEN revealed that the unilateral trade protectionism of the United States not only threatened WTO multilateralism trade mechanism, but also directly influenced the peace, freedom and security of the world by taking the random use of “Section 201”, “Section 301” and other domestic trade laws. The essence of sovereignty debate in 1994 is safeguarding the American hegemonism, limiting the sovereignty of other countries and outmatching American sovereignty and benefits above other countries and international organizations. The splendid speech of Professor CHEN made a profound impression on me and the experts and scholars from different countries attending the conference. Since then, I have the honor to be a close friend of Professor An CHEN in spite of the big difference of age.
All sectors of society in China shall cooperate to achieve the Chinese dream of bringing about a great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, proactively participate in making international rules and global economic governance, driving the perfection of international mechanism and building a fair and reasonable new international economic order. The octogenarian, Professor An CHEN has never stopped writing whilst has been accumulating knowledge in China and foreign countries and uttering a voice to the circle of international economic law on behalf of China, not only providing channels for international society to understand the mainstream ideology and value orientation in China's international economic law and making great contributions to spreading advanced ideology and ideas in Chinese culture and to build China's own school of international economic law, but also making great contributions to promoting academic communication between China and foreign countries and enriching and perfecting the theories in international economic law. He is an excellent model from whom the young generations should learn.
7. 追求全球正义 抵制国际霸权
导言
陈安教授经过长期刻苦钻研，完成了鸿篇巨制，邀请我撰写书评。对我而言，为这样一位令人敬仰的学者撰写书评，是喜出望外的殊荣。第一次见到陈安教授，可以回溯到2011年。当时，经蔡从燕教授推荐，我代表韩国《东亚与国际法学刊》（Journal of East Asia and International Law），专程前往厦门采访陈安教授。采访在厦门大学法学院的大楼进行，厦门大学法学院靠近景色优美的海滨。我还记得，整个厦门大学法学院的气氛非常专业化，稳重温文，具有合作精神。陈安教授和厦门大学法学院的其他教师如陈辉萍教授，以及陈安教授亲切和善的女儿陈仲洵的热情接待，给我留下了深刻的印象，令我有宾至如归之感。我走进宽敞的会面房间，就看到陈安教授已经带着温暖的笑容在等我。我立刻意识到他是一位名副其实的学者，是一位具有深厚美德的“士”，善于以其无比顽强的力量对抗任何压制真理（veritas）的行为。在我诚挚问候之后，他谦逊且友好地说：“李博士！我们之间有两个共通之处。首先，中国和韩国都曾经遭受日本军国主义的侵略。其次，我和你都推崇孔儒之道，因为你的中文名字‘庸中’与一本儒家经典著作《中庸》密切相关。”确实如此，我们之间的会面访谈也正是在这些共识的基础上积极地展开。
陈安教授在采访过程中提到的许多有趣的故事深深地吸引了我（整个采访的问答记录刊登在《东亚与国际法学刊》第4卷第2期，并被辑入《中国的呐喊》这本书的导言部分[82]）。作为中国国际经济法的旗手学者，他具有卓越的才华和坚守的原则，思维清晰，博闻广识，严谨缜密，充满智慧。他对国际法的重要性具有深刻厚实的理解。
在我回到韩国之后，我们之间一直保持频繁的联系。2014年，陈安教授邀请我为《中国的呐喊》一书撰写书评。一开始我有所犹豫，因为我觉得我不够资格为这样一位我从心底深深敬佩的杰出学者的著作撰写书评，这将会是我要承担的最艰难的任务之一。然而，最后我还是接受了陈安教授的提议，因为我觉得我有责任祝贺他把自己的学术主张传播到国际社会。我的评论本身也许并非对这一著作的确切评价，但我的粗浅评说却表达了一位年轻外国学者对作者的仰慕和敬意。
一、作者简介
陈安教授在1929年5月出生于福建东北部的一个小山村，在其成长过程中，很大程度上受到父亲的影响和教育，他的父亲是位儒家的学者和诗人，1945年辞世。1946年陈安教授17岁的时候，考进厦门大学开始学习法律。此后，由于历史的原因，自1953年起他的法学学习和研究令人遗憾地中断了27年，直到1980年厦门大学法学院重新建立。那时，陈安教授已经五十来岁。他敏锐地意识到中国不仅需要建立国内法律体系，而且，由于中国开始实施对外开放的战略，还需要有自己的国际经济法体系。陈安教授决定专注从事国际经济法的研究。然而，在那个时代，中国缺乏现代的法律教科书，更遑论有关国际经济法的各种文献。1981年，一个偶然的机会，陈安教授遇到美国Jerome Cohen教授并与之就学术观点展开争论，最后，陈安教授被邀请到哈佛大学继续从事法学研究。从此之后，他利用所有到国外访问和参加学术会议的机会，带回大量相关的英文书籍和资料。辑入《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》一书的一系列专论就是其研究的主要成果。它反映了陈安教授严谨的学术素养、爱国主义情怀和历史责任感。陈安教授是“新中国国际经济法学的奠基人之一”，他的学术生涯和中国改革开放的国策息息相关。在法学实践中，他又是一名国际商事领域的律师，多家跨国企业的法律顾问，同时还是国际投资争端解决中心（ICSID）、国际商会（ICC）、法国国际仲裁协会（IAI）和美国国际仲裁员名册（RIA）的仲裁员。
除了国际经济法，陈安教授还爱好诗歌、文学和书法艺术。在东亚，一名完美的学者通常都有这些方面的修养。他性格温和、热心，有勇往直前的信念。他曾经经历了中国被外国占领、内战和社会革命的过程。所有这些，都不能阻止他对人类社会真理、公平的追求。甚至可以说，这些磨难帮助他在中国学术乃至国际学术上达到难以超越的高峰。陈安教授经常论证对人类社会和平以及共同繁荣的崇高追求，不失为我们这个时代的一位杰出的良师益友。
二、著作内容
《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》这部专著，汇辑了陈安教授在过去三十多年所撰写的24篇英文论文，是陈安教授从1980年开始多年从事国际经济法学术研究的代表作。这本书涵盖了中国所面临的有关国际经济法的许多疑难问题。在该书中，这24篇文章被分为6个部分：当代国际经济法的法理；当代经济主权论；中国在当代国际经济秩序中的战略定位；当代双边投资条约；中国的涉外经济立法；当代中国在国际经济争端解决中的实践。各部分的内容相互联结并保持良好平衡。陈安教授的法理观念和学术见解在许多方面不苟同于美国和欧洲国际法研究的主流观点。《中国的呐喊》这本著作的出版具有相当重大的意义，因为它打造了中国在国际经济法领域话语权的坚实基础。通过陈安教授周全深入的研究，中国开始在世界上发出自己的声音、表达自己的理念。从这个意义上说，《中国的呐喊》这一标题有相当深刻的蕴含喻义。除了学术内容精彩独到之外，这本书由久负盛名的施普林格出版社负责出版，编辑加工十分专业、装帧精美，封面设计也很典雅大方，值得称道。
三、“黄祸论”（Yellow Peril）
中国对于西方来说一直是个神秘的国度。其主要原因在于中国具有广阔的疆土，大量的人口，漫长的历史和古老的文明，现代的共产主义理念，而且在1978年之前一直坚持闭关锁国的政策。但是，更关键的是，在西方人思想的深处，曾经不知不觉地根植了的所谓“黄祸论”的传言。最近，这种思想又从他们的潜意识中悄悄爬出来，进入真实的世界，变成为一个恶毒的说法即“中国威胁论”。在《中国的呐喊》的第三章，陈安教授分析了“黄祸论”以及其现代变种的“中国威胁论”的起源、演变和在国际社会的法律意义。一些中国学者似乎也同样意识到这两个概念之间的历史联系。例如，中山大学陈东教授指出：“‘中国威胁论’并非是在过去二十年才出现的新的概念。它可以回溯到19世纪，例如，在沙俄时代米哈伊尔·巴枯宁撰写的《国家制度与无政府状态》一书中，就谈到了‘来自东方（中国）的巨大和可怕的威胁’。德皇威廉二世制作的形象漫画《欧洲人啊，保卫你们的信仰和家园》，就描述了19世纪末欧洲人对中国的普遍看法。”[83]
陈东教授还指出：“‘黄祸论’的根源在于一些欧洲人将黄色面孔的中国人视为‘不文明的’和愚蠢的破坏者，他们对西方的‘文明社会’可能造成巨大的威胁。”[84]
然而，单凭这种历史回溯的方法，往往还不是认识现今“中国威胁论”的关键所在。当代美国霸权版的“中国威胁论”最早出现在20世纪90年代中叶，主要鼓吹者是布什政府下的美国政客和学者。到了21世纪的最初几年，这一谰言开始变得相当尖锐刺耳。当时布什政府看来是刻意地杜撰出“中国威胁论”，旨在阻止经济和政治影响力迅速增长的中国进一步扩展影响到亚洲—太平洋地区，以便于美国全盘统治东亚。对当时唯一的“超级大国”美国而言，中国可能是美国在这一地区军事和经济霸权主义的潜在威胁。“中国威胁论”看来正是在此种权力交替的国际环境中产生。“中国威胁论”可能不是“黄祸论”在当代的简单转型，因为“黄祸论”主要是欧洲人在特定环境下的看法。“黄祸论”的产生实际上起源于13世纪蒙古人入侵欧洲后，欧洲人面对黄色脸孔的中国人和中国文明产生的根深蒂固的自卑情绪。因此，“黄色”一词可能不是指亚洲人皮肤的颜色，它指的是蒙古骑兵在入侵过程中掀起的黄色沙暴。对当时的欧洲人而言，他们是魔鬼，只有全能的上帝能战胜他们。
这一假设在陈东教授的《谁在威胁谁？“中国威胁论”和布什政策》一文中得到很好的论证。陈东教授认为，布什政府抱有“单极世界的梦想”可以解释“中国威胁论”的来由。[85]陈东教授引用伊肯贝利撰写的论文《美国的帝国野心》，指出，美国人将布什的政策视为“美国能保持单极世界从而没有任何竞争者的宏伟的战略”，但这有可能造成“世界更加危险和分裂，因此也会威胁到美国的安全”[86]。陈东教授还特别援引福音教派的理论作为论证布什政策的基础。他认为，“中国威胁论”是布什构建以美国为中心的单极世界的实用工具。[87]
陈安教授在《中国的呐喊》一书对前述布什政策下的种种“中国威胁论”作了概括总结。陈安教授认为：“它们是美国出现的层次最高、频率最繁、影响最大的美国官方版的‘黄祸’论——‘中国威胁’论。它们是美国国会、美国国防部、美国高层智囊‘三结合’产物。美国国防部门的部门利益昭然若揭……（苏联解体）和冷战结束后，对于始终保持着‘古怪癖好’的惯性思维的美国人而言……他们需要找到（苏联以外）另一个明确的、强大的新‘威胁’，而中国正好就是美国人一向极力虚构的危及美国安全的新的‘严重威胁’。”[88]
我十分赞同陈安教授对“中国威胁论”的看法，即“中国威胁”论就是“21世纪美国霸权最新修订版的‘黄祸’论，它体现为美国‘鹰派’反华议员每年一度集中渲染‘中国威胁’的《中国军力报告》，美中经济与安全审议委员会的《审议报告》，以及各种媒体的呼应鼓噪。”[89]
四、经济主权
在《中国的呐喊》一书的第四章和第五章，陈安教授探讨了更为根本性的经济主权问题。随着经济全球化和各国间互相依存性的增强，单个国家的经济主权成为论战的焦点之一。陈安教授对WTO的多边主义和美国的单边主义作了对比分析。他非常精彩地比较分析了美国汉金教授和杰克逊教授关于美国单边主义和WTO多边主义的不同观点。他引用许多相关案例批判美国单边主义凌驾于其他国家主权之上。他的分析和评论有意识地涵盖《美国贸易法》中的201条款和301条款，WTO体系形成过程中的各种主权冲突、美国国内的1994年主权大辩论、美国的主权和其他国家的主权之间的关系，美国与欧盟之间经济主权的争夺、美国与日本之间的汽车争端、美国与欧盟之间香蕉争端、WTO争端解决机构针对美国301条款的专家组报告等。
陈安教授探讨了多边体制时代各主权国家合作协调的问题。他的观点谅必建立在中国过往历史经验的基础上，包括被列强侵占的灾难和国内战争的痛楚，这些灾难和痛楚在陈安教授都曾经亲身经历过。我完全赞同陈安教授的观点。绝大多数亚洲国家都曾经一度沦为殖民地，对亚洲人说来，“主权”不应该是个虚构的神话，它是民族自决的现实。
结论
陈安教授《中国的呐喊》一书，无论对中国、整个亚洲还是对国际社会，都是一项重大的成就和贡献。此书追求和论证的目标是，国家间应当在公平和均衡的基础上开展经济合作。这本著作的核心和焦点可以概括为：为世界群弱呐喊，追求全球正义，抵制国际霸权。
这也是“了解中国”系列专著的出发点，即从建立国际经济新秩序的角度来理解看待中国。对于今后愿意追随陈安教授的学术界人士和实务工作者而言，《中国的呐喊》将会成为杰出的范本。就我而言，我正处在陈安教授开始从事国际法研究的年龄。他不渝不懈的努力和学术热情会一直激励着亚洲乃至全球的国际法工作者。陈安教授的精神也一直鼓舞我保持永无止境的求知欲。无论何时，我都热切地期待未来新的一卷《中国的呐喊》问世。由于陈安教授老当益壮，依然矍铄健朗，我希望新书的出版不会等待太久。在这里，我再次对《中国的呐喊》一书出版，表达发自内心的深深的祝贺之忱。
Pursuing Global Justice, Resisting International Hegemony
Introduction
It is an incredible honor for me to have this opportunity to review the product of a long and painstaking research conducted by an honorable scholar like Professor An CHEN. My first encounter with Professor CHEN traces back to 2011 when I visited Xiamen in order to interview him for the Journal of East Asia and International Law with the recommendation of Professor Congyan Cai. The interview was held in the law school building of Xiamen University which is close to the coast of the beautiful ocean. The atmosphere of Xiamen law school was very professional, gentle and cooperative. I was fully impressed by the warmhearted hospitality of Professor CHEN and other staff members of Xiamen including Professor Huiping Chen and Professor CHEN's lovely daughter Carol. It made me feel at home. When I entered the wide room for the interview, Professor CHEN was waiting with his gentle smile. I could instantly recognize he is a true scholar and a man of immense virtue（士）with the invincible power against anything suppressing ‘veritas’（真理）. After my deeply felt greetings, he modestly and friendly said: “Dr. Lee! We are sharing two common things. First, both of us (China and Korea) have suffered severely from Japanese militarism. Second, we (Professor Chen and Lee) in common respect Confucius, considering that your name Yong Joong（庸中）is related to one of the holy books of Confucius. The relating specific holy book is named with ‘中庸’ （Chinese pronounced as Zhong Yong）.” Indeed, our interview started on a positive note based on these commonalities. Professor CHEN spoke about many interesting stories during the interview sufficient to enthrall me. (The transcript of the whole interview has been published in volume 4, number 2 of the Journal of East Asia and International Law as well as in the introduction section of The Voice from China[91]). As a flag-holder Chinese scholar of international economic law, he is a man of exceptional brilliance and principles with clear, broad, rigorous thinking and wisdom. He has a profound understanding of the importance of international law.
Since my return home, we have maintained frequent contact with each other. In 2014, Professor CHEN requested me to review The Voice from China. I was hesitant at first because I thought I was not entitled to comment on something by an outstanding scholar whom I respect from the bottom of my heart. It would thus be one of the most difficult tasks I have endured. However, I finally decided to accept his proposal because it would be my duty to celebrate his voice toward the global community. My review may not contain an evaluation per se, but my humble comments as a young foreign scholar admiring the author.
The Author
Professor CHEN was born in May, 1929 in a small mountainous town in northeast Fujian Province, China and grew up there profoundly influenced and educated by his father who was a Confucian scholar and poet, dying in 1945. He began studying law at Xiamen University in 1946 when he was 17 years old. Due to historical reasons, his legal studies were unfortunately interrupted for 27 years until 1980 when the Law School of Xiamen University was reestablished. By that time, he was already in his fifties. He had the keen insight to recognize that China would need to establish not only its domestic legal regime, but also international (economic) law, especially when China opened up to the world. Professor CHEN decided to focus on international economic law (IEL). At that time, however, there were few modern legal reference texts in China, not to mention IEL literature. In 1981, he occasionally met and argued with Professor Jerome Cohen and was finally invited to Harvard Law School to continue his legal studies. Afterwards, he took all opportunities of travelling abroad for conferences and visits to bring back relevant books and articles in English. The series works of An CHEN on International Economic Law is the main products of his research. It reflects his academic rigor, patriotism and historical responsibility. Professor Chen is “one of the founders of international economic law in new China” and his academic life is closely connected with reform and opening up. In his legal practice, he is also a concurrent lawyer of international business, legal adviser of several transnational corporations, as well as an arbitrator of the ICSID，ICC, IAI and RIA.
In addition to the IEL, Professor CHEN likes poetry, literature and calligraphy, which are grounds to be an ideal scholar in East Asia. He is a true man of gentle, warmhearted and courageous personality. In his lifetime, China has experienced foreign occupation, civil war and the socialist revolution. All these, however, could not stop his longing for the truth and justice in human society. Rather, those trials have made him an insurmountable peak of Chinese as well as world academia. Professor CHEN always tells his lofty messages and ideas for peace and co-prosperity of human society as a great mentor of our time.
Book
The monograph entitled, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law is a collection of 24 English articles written by Professor An CHEN over the past 30 years. The Voice from China is a representation of his academic life of international economic law, starting from 1980. The book covers areas of international economic law questions that China has been asking. These 24 articles are divided into six parts in his book, namely: Jurisprudence of Contemporary International Economic Law; Contemporary Economic Sovereignty; China's Strategic Position on Contemporary International Economic Order; Contemporary Bilateral Investment Treaties; China's Legislation on Sino-Foreign Economic Issues; and Contemporary Chinese Practices on International Economic Disputes; which are all very well balanced. His jurisprudential idea and academic opinions show different aspects of international law from those of the United States and Europe that were mainstream. This publication has great significance considering that it is the firm ground of Chinese discourse on international economic law. With his thorough research, China began expressing her ideas in her own voice. In that sense, the title, The Voice from China has deep implications. In addition to academic contents, the book is professionally edited and beautifully bound by a highly renowned publisher, Springer. The cover design is also appreciable.
Yellow Peril
China is a mysterious country to the western people. It is mainly due to her vast national territory, large population, long history and civilization, modern communism and her closed-door policy up until 1978. One more critical point is, however, the so-called ‘Yellow Peril,’ which is unconsciously rooted in the western mind. Recently, this ‘Yellow Peril’ began creeping out of their sub-consciousness into the real world as a poisonous concept of the so-called ‘China Threat.’ In Chapter 3 of The Voice from China, Professor CHEN has analyzed the origin, evolution and international legal significance of the ‘Yellow Peril’ and the ‘China Threat,’ which is its modern style transformation. Some Chinese scholars seem to perceive these two concepts to be historically connected. For example, Professor Chen Dong at Sun-Yat-Sen University stated:“The term ‘Chinese Threat’ has not been a novel wording for the past twenty years. Its references date as far back to the nineteenth century, e.g., in Mikhail Bakunin's work entitled ‘On Statism and Anarchism’, which implies the ‘tremendous and dreadful threat from the East’. Wilhelm II von Deutschland's vivid cartoon ‘The Yellow Peril’ (Vlker Europas, wahrt eure heiligsten Güter) depicted a common European perception of China at the turn of the nineteenth century.[92]
He also added:“The core of the ‘Yellow Peril’ theory lay in the fact that some Europeans regarded yellow-faced Chinese as ‘uncivilized’ and stupid locusts causing great, albeit potential, threats to the ‘civilized (western)’ world.”[93]
Such a historical approach is, however, not always the key to understanding the current recognition of the contemporary US hegemonic version of ‘China Threat’, which was firstly referred to in the mid-1990's, mainly by US politicians and scholars under the Bush administration. It became shrill in the early 2000s. The then Bush administration seemed to intentionally fabricate the political slogan, ‘China Threat’ in order to dominate East Asia by preventing China whose economy and political influence were fast growing from expanding to the Asia-Pacific region. For the US, who was ‘the only superpower’ at that time, China might be a potential threat to the American military and economic hegemony in the region. The concept, ‘China Threat’ seemed to be initiated under this global environment of power shift. The so-called ‘China Threat’ thus might not simply be a modern transformation of the ‘Yellow Peril’, which was largely European oriented. The ‘Yellow Peril’ was actually coined because of the Mongol invasion of Europe in the thirteenth century which led to the deep-rooted inferiority complex of the Europeans toward Chinese (Yellow-faced Asian) people and civilization. Herewith, the word, ‘yellow’ might not mean the skin color of Asian, but the color of sand storms that the Mongol cavalry made while aggressing. For the then Europeans, they were evils that could be surmounted only by the omnipotent God.
This hypothesis is well evidenced by Professor Dong Chen's article, Who Threatens Whom? The ‘Chinese Treat’ and the Bush Doctrine. In his article, Dong Chen states ‘Bush's dream for the unipolar world’ to explain the ‘China Threat’[94]. Citing Ikenberry's article, America's Imperial Ambitions, he argues that Americans regard the Bush strategy as “a ‘grand strategy’ that ‘begins with fundamental commitment to maintaining a unipolar world in which the US has no peer competitor’, and that threatens to “leave the world more dangerous and divided-and the US less secure”[95]. Furthermore, Professor Dong Chen specially refers to evangelical Christianity as the basis of the Bush doctrine.[96]According to him, China Threat is an implementative tool of the Bush doctrine to build the unipolar world with the US in the center.
An abovementioned statement to that effect on ‘China Threat’ under the Bush doctrine may be wrapped up in The Voice from China. Professor An CHEN said: “They could be fairly deemed as the official American versions of ‘Yellow Peril’ and ‘China Threat’ on the highest level, at the highest frequency…. They are the outcome of the following triple sources: American Congress, the US Department of Defense, and various high-ranked think tanks… The departmental interests of American Department of Defense could be easily discerned in this regard… After the Cold War was over, it was always the inertial thinking of ‘curious’ Americans … to find a definite and powerful new ‘threat’. And China is the new ‘serious threat’ on security that Americans have been endeavoring to establish.”[97]
I would fully agree with the position of Professor An CHEN that the China Threat is “the twenty-first century version of ‘Yellow Peril’ which has been repeatedly advocated by American hawkish anti-China congressmen, as evidenced in the annual Report of China's Military Power and in the annual Report of US-China Economic and Security, and the echoing of media along with them”[98].
Economic Sovereignty
In Chapters 4 and 5 of The Voice from China, Professor CHEN discusses a more fundamental question of economic sovereignty. As the economic globalization and interdependency between nations are deepening, sovereignty of each nation State is getting to a point of controversy. Professor CHEN refers to the comparison between the WTO multilateralism and the US unilateralism. He compares the ideas of Professor L. Henkin to those of Professor J. Jackson with regard to unilateralism (US) and multilateralism (WTO) very well. Professor CHEN has cited pertinent cases in order to critically discuss the US unilateralism over the sovereignty of other states. His analytic statement purposefully covers Sections 201 and 301 of the US Trade Act, conflicts of sovereignties in the formation of the WTO system, the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate, sovereignty of the US and other States, the US-EU economic sovereignty disputes, the US-Japan auto disputes, the US-EC banana disputes, the WTO/DSB Panel Report on the Section 301 case, etc.
Professor CHEN discusses the coordination of national sovereignty in the time of multilateralism. His idea might be set up based on the China's historical experience including horrible foreign occupation and the civil war that Professor CHEN himself got through in his lifetime. I fully second his opinions. For Asians, most of whom were once colonized, ‘sovereignty’ is not myth; it is the reality to self-determination.
Conclusion
The Voice from China is a great achievement and contribution by Professor An CHEN to China, to the whole of Asia, as well as to the global community, which is searching for a new discourse in the promotion of economic cooperation in a fair and balanced manner between states. The core and focus of this monograph could be summarized as Voicing for Worldwide Weaks, Pursuing Global Justice, Resisting International Hegemony.
It should be a triggering point for the series of ‘understanding China’ with a viewpoint of establishing a new international economic order. This publication will be an outstanding model of other academics and practitioners who are willing to follow him. Personally, I am now of the age in which Professor CHEN began studying international law. His constant efforts and enthusiasm is a consistent stimulant for the passion of international lawyers in Asia as well as the whole world. My eternally curious mind is also deeply inspired by Professor CHEN. I am eagerly awaiting a future volume of The Voice from China, whenever it is manifest. Since Professor CHEN is enjoying green old age, I hope it would not entail much waiting. Once again I extend the deepest and heartfelt celebration to the publication of The Voice from China.
8. 国家主权等国际经济法宏观问题的深刻反思
——评《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》一书的作者是中国国际经济法学界泰斗厦门大学法学院陈安教授，该书汇集了作者自1980年以来三十多年不同时期撰写的24篇专论。该书的学术专论和案例分析论及国际法诸多议题，却又服务于一个共同的主题，即发出作者对国际经济法的独特的“中国声音”。
全书分为六部分：当代国际经济法的基本理论；当代国家经济主权的“攻防”战；中国在构建当代国际经济新秩序中的战略定位；当代国际投资法的论争；当代中国涉外经济立法的争议；若干涉华、涉外经贸争端典型案例剖析。该巨著共789页，含正文24章及参考文献和附录（包括对陈教授论著的各种书刊评论）。
读者开篇即可看出作者的主要意图——阐述自己对国际（经济）法的中国特色和独有路径的看法。《序言》开宗明义：
……中国学者不应盲目附和和全盘接受某些西方观点。正确的态度理应是独立思考，明辨是非，批判地吸收。秉持这一态度，我和我的中国同仁在晚近30年的研究和著述中，一直立足于中国国情和其他弱小国家的基本立场，努力剖析、辨别、探讨西方各种法学理论的真伪，从而决定取舍。除了对西方法律理论“取其精华，去其糟粕”外，我们还努力推陈出新，开拓创新，针对若干重大法律问题提出一系列自己的观点，积极参与国际学术争鸣，形成了自己的理论体系……我们的理论与现有的某些西方观点截然不同（第vi页）。
我的研究领域是国际水资源和国家主权理论，故急切想看看陈安教授在《中国的呐喊》一书中如何看待主权这一问题。本书索引列举了大量与主权有关的讨论，为探讨这一复杂问题提供了多种方便路径。例如，对国家主权至上这一问题，作者主张，“在当代国际法的规范体系和理论体系中，国家主权原则乃是第一性的、居于最高位阶的基本原则。”（第326页）为此，作者认为，“从这个意义说，MFN待遇原则乃是国家主权原则的衍生物，它应当附属于、服从于国家主权原则。”（第326～327页）然而，“即使是居于最高位阶的国家主权原则，也可以依缔约主权国家的自由意志，通过平等磋商，作出适当的真正平等互惠的自我限制。”（第327页）虽然这一主张貌似夸大了国际法的基本原则，但作者以中国为例解释了为什么要对这些原则加以如此强调和全面阐释。在中国，“历史上丧权辱国的惨痛，人们记忆犹新”（第327页）。虽然作者在这里讨论的是国际经济法，其蕴意却是深远的，特别有助于人们充分理解和领会中国对国家主权的立场。“如今，已经站起来了的中国人民，已经恢复和强化了完全独立自主的主权国家身份……”（第317页）。
本书其他部分亦从不同角度探讨国家主权理论。由于本书主要论及国际经济法，大量论述的是“经济主权”（有20次之多），“单个国家的主权”讨论过一次，“永久主权”两次，“联合主权”两次，“国家主权”8次。“主权”一词贯穿全书，通过剖析西方特别是美国的相关理论与实践，全面阐述中国对主权的立场。举例来说，陈教授质疑“跨国法”学说，认为这是一种否定弱国主权，鼓吹美国霸权的学说，是一种有毒的“舶来品”（第38页）。他认为，“杰塞普鼓吹的‘跨国法’，打着‘世界政府’、‘联合主权’、‘国际法’优先的旗号，为觊觎、削弱、否定众多弱小民族的国家主权提供‘法理依据’，其宗旨在于促使弱国撤除民族与国家藩篱，摈弃主权屏障，从而使美国的国际扩张主义和世界霸权主义得以通行无阻”（第38～39页）。
本书附录收录了Branislav Gosovic的一篇论文，总结陈教授对国家主权的看法。他认为，国家主权理论是中国外交战略的基石（该战略在中国1982年《宪法》中确立，即“和平共处五项原则”：相互尊重主权和领土完整、互不侵犯、互不干涉内政、平等互利、和平共处）。Gosovic认为，“今后若干年，学者们可以用实践来检验陈教授的论点和论据，如果证明他是对的，则可对抗西方凡夫俗子思想模式下广泛流传的观点”（第773页）。“‘西方’观点认定，中国的和平崛起会……演变为霸权主义、扩张主义和侵略主义，会仿效并追随过往的侵略者和殖民者，继而将全球瓜分为各自的势力范围。”（第773页）陈教授《中国的呐喊》一书则从中国的国际法观出发，作出了完全不同的论断。
换个角度说，陈教授的国家主权观是从中国实际出发，为我们理解中国的跨界水实践提供了新的洞见。跨界水问题是当今中国和亚洲地区迫在眉睫、亟待解决的问题。中国与20个主权国家和地区有40多条跨界河流，多数情况下中国处于上游，中国对这些河流的淡水使用和开发颇受质疑。争议的焦点是国家主权以及外交政策如何落实国家主权。具体而言，就是中国在管理跨界水资源时，如何根据国际法，既满足自身经济发展的需要，又考虑邻国的需求。虽然有不少外国研究者批评中国的跨界水实践有“霸权性质”，说中国是（无情的？）地区“超级大国”，只片面考虑自身利益；但是，如果仔细加以研究，会发现这些研究者大都犯有同样的重大疏忽，即没有探究中国的国际法观对跨界水问题的内在影响。用跨界水涉及的国际法规则来评估和分析中国的相关条约和国家实践，我们发现中国一贯采取相当一致的立场（虽然该立场尚未得到充分研究），这一立场符合中国的国家主权观，反映的是领土主权有限论（Wouters and Chen, 2013; Xue, 1992; Saul, 2013）。陈教授在《中国的呐喊》中提出的强有力的法律论据，有助于人们更好地理解将来中国在跨界水实践方面的可能走向。的确，对于中国涉水行业的外国投资政策这一重要问题，现有研究极少（Chen, H.，2015），今后需要更多细致研究。《中国的呐喊》一书充分展现出来的跨学科新思维，为更多的创新思路提供了基础。中国需要新的法律思维来管理跨界水资源，从而平衡经济发展与环境保护问题，环境问题现在已成为中国国内的重要议题。当今全球自然资源过度开发，缺乏保护。中国在该领域的国家实践，不仅对其自身的国家资源，对地区和全球经济和环境资源，都有重大意义。如何以支持经济发展的方式来解决全球水/能源/食品/环境等问题，是一个热点问题，也是世界经济论坛热议的话题。世界经济论坛是全球思想家和政策制定者的重要年度会议。在最近一次世界经济论坛会议上（2015年1月在达沃斯召开），中国总理李克强说：“文化多样性与生物多样性一样，是我们这个星球最值得珍视的天然宝藏。人类社会是各种文明都能盛开的百花园，不同文化之间、不同宗教之间，都应相互尊重、和睦共处。同可相亲，异宜相敬。国际社会应以海纳百川的胸怀，求同存异、包容互鉴、合作共赢。”（2015年1月23日，达沃斯）“中国提出‘一带一路’建设，愿与相关国家需求相结合，合作推进。”中国如何在实践中，尤其是在面临诸多复杂挑战时，根据中国的国家主权观和国际法，实施这一雄心勃勃的外交政策，人们拭目以待。也许陈教授的洞见能够指点迷津？
对于解决这些相当复杂又颇有争议的问题，本书极富启迪意义。本书详加探讨的是国际经济法理论与实践，作者却常将之归依为国际公法的普遍问题。因此，《中国的呐喊》具有更博大的魅力。本书还讨论了许多相互关联而又高度相关的国际法问题。诸如：南南合作发展战略〔“发展中国家对自己的自然资源应该享有和行使永久主权；对发展中国家的经济援助应该严格尊重受援国家的主权，不附带任何条件，施援国不得要求任何特权”（第176页）——论邓小平对国际经济新秩序理论的贡献〕；以理论联系实际的方法来研究国际经济法诸议题（包括外国投资），等等。作者反复呼吁并详细论证，国际（经济）法领域需要更加独立的研究和批判性思考。
对于那些对国际法感兴趣的人而言，《中国的呐喊》提供了广阔的天地，尤其是从中国的视角来看。以下前瞻性的论断，非常振奋人心，将激励学者们接受挑战：
“学术上原无什么绝对的‘专属区’，更不该有什么‘独家禁地’，不许他人涉足。因此，中国法学界的志士仁人，不论其擅长或专攻何门类、何学科，似均宜摒除、捐弃任何门户之见，从各自不同的角度，各尽所能，齐心协力，尽力地开拓和尽多地产出具有中国特色的法学硕果和上佳精品，共同为振兴中国法学，跻身国际前列，并进而为世界法苑的百花争妍和绚丽多彩，作出应有的贡献！”（第42～43页）
总之，我希望本书广传于世，激发更多人从更广阔的国际法维度研究国际经济法。此外，我们也需要更多人从事自然资源和涉水资源的研究，既考虑中国的见解，又参考国际最佳实践，综合评估各方意见。
来自中国的呐喊必须认真倾听。陈教授的专著及时问世，必将引发更多创新性的研究。
参考文献：详见本书评英文版。
Reflections on State Sovereignty and Other Grand Themes of International Law
The monograph, “The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law” is a collection of some 24 papers written over 3 decades (from the 1980s) by China's eminent professor in this field—Professor An CHEN (Xiamen Law School). It includes scholarly writings and case analyses, which together aim at consolidating the author's views on the distinctive ‘Chinese voice’ in the area of international economic law, touching also on a range of related themes in international law.
Presented in six parts—Jurisprudence of Contemporary International Economic Law; Great Debates on Contemporary Economic Sovereignty; China's Strategic Position on Contemporary International Economic Order Issues; Divergences on Contemporary Bilateral Investment Treaty; Contemporary China's Legislation on Sino-Foreign Economic Issues; Contemporary Chinese Practices on International Economic Disputes (Cases Analyses)—the work comprises 24 chapters, with references and an Annex that includes comments about CHEN's writings. It is a large volume, covering 789 pages.
The reader quickly discerns the primary objective of the author—to present his personal views on the Chinese characteristics of, and approach to, international (economic) law. The preface provides:
“… we Chinese law scholars, should not blindly follow and completely accept these Western opinions. Rather, a correct attitude is to contemplate independently and critically in order for us to be able to distinguish right from wrong. By holding such kind of attitude, in my later three decades of research and writing, I, together, with my Chinese colleague, have always bene trying to analyse, distinguish, ascertain, absorb, or reject Western legal theories while steadily taking into account the national situation of China and the common position of the weak countries. In addition to ‘keeping the essence while discarding the dross’ of the Western legal theories, we have raised a series of our own innovative ideas and actively participated in international academic debates, which have helped us to shape our systematic theories on various legal subjects… Our theories are significantly and substantially different and independent from some of the existing Western ones” (p. vi).
As my own research looks at the notion of state sovereignty (in the context of international freshwater resources), I was keen to explore how Prof CHEN An addresses this topic in “The Voice of China”. The index offers a list of sovereignty-related discourse, each providing diverse inroads on this complex notion. As just one example, on the particular issue of the supremacy of state sovereignty, the author asserts, “State sovereignty is still the primary rule and occupies the highest hierarchical position within the norm-system and theory-system of international law” (p. 326). In accordance with this view, the author holds that MFN treatment is “merely a derivative of state sovereignty”, “which should be subordinated to and serve the supreme principle of state sovereignty” (pp. 326-327). He continues by observing, “However, even if the principle of state sovereignty occupies the supreme place, it can still be appropriately constrained by the states themselves on the basis of real equality, reciprocity, willingness, and equal negotiation” (p. 327). While such an assertion might seem to over-state these bedrock principles of international law, the author explains why, in China's case, these need to be reiterated and fully understood. “The serious consequences of humiliation of nation [sic] and forfeiture of sovereignty are unfaded bitter lessons in history” (p. 327). Although this passage deals ostensibly with international economic law issues, its relevance is more broad-based, especially when one tries to fully discern and appreciate China's approach to state sovereignty. “Nowadays Chinese people have stood up and recovered and have also intensified the sovereignty status of complete independence…” (p. 317).
Other parts of the book also explore the notion of state sovereignty, albeit in different contexts. Understandably, considerable reference is made to ‘economic sovereignty’ (with some 20 citations); ‘individual sovereignty’ is discussed once; ‘permanent sovereignty’, twice; ‘united sovereignty’, also with two entries. ‘State sovereignty’ garners some 8 mentions. A summary of these entries sprinkled throughout the book reveals a rather comprehensive elaboration of China's approach to sovereignty, discussed primarily vis-à-vis western thought and practice, especially US doctrine. As just one example, CHEN challenges the ‘Transnational Law Doctrine’ (TLD) as “a doctrine that negates the sovereignty of weak nations, while preaches the hegemony of the United States and is thus a poisonous imported product” (p. 38). He continues, “Jessup's TLD, by flaunting the banners of ‘world government’, ‘united sovereignty’ and ‘priority of IL’ [international law], intends to provide the jurisprudential basis of coveting, weakening, and negating the state sovereignty of the vast nations. It purports to force the weak nations to discard the fence of nation and state sovereignty, so that the US expansionism and world hegemonism could go through without hindrance” (pp. 38-39).
Interestingly, Prof Chen's treatment of the theme of state sovereignty is summarised in a paper by Branislav Gosovic included in the Annex, where the notion is cast as the anchor for China's foreign policy strategy (defined in the 1982 Constitution—the so-called Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence— “the mutual respect to each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, mutual non-interference in each other's domestic affairs, equality and reciprocity, and peaceful coexistence”. Gosovic argues that “In the years and decades to come, scholars will be able to test empirically Professor CHEN's thesis and arguments and, if he is proven right, counter the widespread view in the realist mode of thinking, especially in the West.” (p. 773). The ‘western’ view is described as positing that China's declared peaceful rise will “….morph into a hegemonic, expansionist, aggressive mode of reasoning and planetary behaviour, imitating and following the former oppressors and colonizers with whom it will proceed to carve the planet into respective spheres of influence” (p. 773). “The Voice from China” suggests an entirely different outcome, based fundamentally on China's approach to international law.
In another vein, Professor CHEN's treatment of the notion of state sovereignty (unabashedly from a Chinese perspective) provides new insights for China's transboundary water practice—a contemporary pressing issue for the country and the region. China, upstream on most of its 40+ major transboundary waters, shared with more than 20 other sovereign nations and autonomous regions, is often challenged with regard to its international freshwater use and development. At the heart of this debate is state sovereignty and how it is implemented in foreign policy, generally, and more specifically, as regards China's management of these transboundary resources in ways that, not only meet its own national economic imperatives, but also take into account the needs of its riparian neighbours, in accordance with international law. While there is a significant body of research that refers to China's transboundary state practice as ‘hegemonic’, casting China as the regional (and ruthless?) ‘super-power’ that acts unilaterally in its own self-interests, upon closer scrutiny, most of these studies suffer the same glaring oversight—they fail to interrogate the integral role that China's approach to international law plays in this domain. A critical analysis of China's treaty and state practice, evaluated in the light of rules of international law in this field, reveals a rather coherent, albeit not yet fully developed approach, aligned with China's approach to state sovereignty, and reflected in the theory of limited territorial sovereignty (Wouters and Chen, 2013; XUE, 1992; Saul, 2013). Professor CHEN's “Voice of China” provides substantive legal arguments that contribute to a better understanding of how China might go forward with its transboundary water practice. Indeed, China's foreign direct investment policy on water-related matters needs more rigorous study, with few writings on this important topic (Chen, H. 2015). Such cross-over connected thinking, richly demonstrated in “The Voice of China”, provides a foundation for innovative approaches.
New legal approaches will be required in order to manage China's transboundary water resources in ways that balance economic growth with environmental issues is now high on the domestic agenda. As the world's natural resources continue to be over-exploited and under-protected, China's practice in this field will have a bearing, not only its national resources, but with respect to regional and global economic and environmental resources. Addressing global water/energy/food/environmental issues in ways that support economic growth is now a key topic debated at the World Economic Forum, the leading annual meeting of the globe's thinkers and policy-makers in this area. At the most recent meeting of the World Economic Forum (Davos, January 2015), China's Premier Li Keqiang stated that “Cultural diversity, like biodiversity, is a most precious treasure endowed to us on this planet. ….Like the vast ocean admitting all rivers that run into it, members of the international community need to work together to expand common ground while accepting differences, and seek win-win progress through inclusive cooperation and mutual learning.” (Davos, 23 January 2015) “China has put forward the initiatives to build the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road. China hopes to work with other countries to advance these initiatives and ensure that they are brought forward in ways that meet the actual needs of countries concerned.” How China implements this ambitious foreign policy in practice, especially in the context of complex contemporary challenges, and in light of China's approach to state sovereignty and international law, will be watched closely. Will Professor Chen's insights offer guidance for the future?
The collected work sheds light on these highly complex and controversial topics through its elaborate discussion of international economic legal theory and practice, which the author often locates within more general themes of public international law. Thus, the “Voice of China” has broad appeal. A number of inter-connected (and highly relevant) international legal topics are touched upon—as just some examples: South-South development policies (“developing countries possess the right to exercise permanent sovereignty over their natural resources; economic aid to the developing countries should be strictly based on respect towards the aided countries' sovereignty, attaching with it no conditions or privileges for aiding countries' extra benefit”, p.176—reviewing Deng Xiaoping's contribution to the notion of a New International Economic Order); theoretical and practice-based approaches to international economic law topics (including foreign investment); and other areas, always with repeated calls and detailed justification for more independent and critical thinking in the field of international (economic) law.
“The Voice of China” provides a fascinating backdrop for all those interested in international law, especially from the Chinese perspective. It is compelling reading for scholars, who are wholeheartedly urged on by this forward-looking visionary to take up the research challenge:
“There is and shall be no ‘exclusive zone’ or ‘prohibited area’ for academic research, into which outsiders are forbidden to enter. As a result, all those Chinese scholars with far vision and lofty ideal [sic] shall discard any parochial prejudices, no matter which fields they are specialized in; shall do their best and make concerted efforts respectively from different fields; and coordinatingly endeavour to take exploration and produce as many china-specific research results as possible. In this way, we can make our significant contributions for the revival and prosperity of legal study in both China and the world” (p. 43)
In closing, it is the reviewer's hope that this collected work will be read by a wide audience and lead to more academic research in this area, considered within the broader canvas of international law. In particular, more scholarship in the field of natural and water-related resources is needed, infused with Chinese approaches, building on international best practice, rigorously evaluated.
China's voice must be heard—Prof CHEN's book is a timely contribution that invites more innovative study in this field.
References:
Chen, H. (2015), The Human Right to Water and Foreign Investment: Friends or Foes? Water International (March 2015); Manuscript on File with the Author.
Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's Speech at Davos 2015 (23 January, 2015) available at https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/01/chinese-premier-li-keqiangs-speech-at-davos-2015.
Saul, B. (2013), China, Natural Resources, Sovereignty and International Law, Asian Studies Review. Asian Studies Review, 37(2), 196-214.
Su, Y. (2014), Contemporary Legal Analysis of China's Transboundary Water Regimes: International Law in Practice, Water International, 39(5), 705-724.
Vinogradov, S., & Wouters, P. (2013, December), Sino-Russian Transboundary Waters: A Legal Perspective on Cooperation, Stockholm Paper, Retrieved December 2, 2014, available at http://www.chinainternationalwaterlaw.org/pdf/resources/20131216_001.pdf.
Wouters, P., & Chen, H. (2013), China's ‘soft-path’ to Transboundary Water Cooperation Examined in the Light of Two UN Global Water Conventions: Exploring the ‘Chinese Way’, Journal of Water Law, 22, 229-247.
Wouters, P. & Chen, H. (2015), Editors' Introduction to the “China Water Papers”, Water International, 40:1, 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/02508060.2014.990144, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2014.990144.
P. Wouters, (2014), “The Yin and Yang of International Water Law: China's Transboundary Water Practice and the Changing Contours of State Sovereignty”, RECIEL, 23(1), ISSN2050-0386. doi:10.1111/reel.12069 (2014).
Xue, Hanqin, (1992), “Relativity in International Water Law”, 3 Colo. J. Int'l Env. L. & Policy 45 1992.
9. 精当透彻的论证 尽显大师的风采
——简评《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
捧读陈安教授的皇皇巨著“The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law”（《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》，以下简称《中国的呐喊》），不禁为他的学术硕果与驾驭英文的能力所折服。
陈教授是中国国际经济法学界的大师、旗手，笔者曾是其麾下的普通成员。作为从事国际商事仲裁的工匠，笔者希图以此视角对《中国的呐喊》中的两宗案件的法律意见书（第20、21、22、23章[102]）略作评述。
案一，英国X公司v.英国Y保险公司。X公司与中国B公司成为1996年12月成立的中国C电力公司的中外合作双方。Y公司作为X公司的担保人，承保的风险中包括政府征用险。因中国国务院〔1998〕第31号通知与国务院办公厅〔2002〕第43号通知（“两通知”），依Y公司对X公司的保单，后者要求前者赔偿在保险期内因中国政府（可能）的征收而发生的损失，Y公司拒绝，在仲裁案中列为被申请人。
陈教授应对的关键问题是“两通知”是否构成（中国政府）对C公司与对X公司在C公司的投资权益的征收；是否据此X公司可以向承保人Y请求赔偿，之后Y公司是否可以获得X公司的代位求偿权。或许还可以用另一种方式表述，在C公司的合作合同符合中国当时的《中外合作企业法》规定而获得批准的前提下，被国际普遍接受的“当事人意思自治”与“法无溯及力”原则是否在作为法治国家的中国存在。
案二，厦门买方Zhonghe公司v.新加坡卖方Bunge公司。Zhonghe公司和Bunge公司于2004年2月25日签订销售合同，标的物是5.5万公吨巴西大豆，准据法是英国法。合同规定Zhonghe公司要在Bunge公司所接受的中国一流银行开立以后者为受益人的信用证。
陈教授的法律意见书涉及的核心问题是中国国家质量监督检验检疫总局（“检验总局”）的禁令对中国进口公司、中国的银行及其海外分行是否具有强制性约束力；系争合同开立信用证义务的履行地是否在中国；系争合同的准据法是英国法，中国强制性规则对中国法人是否有约束力，上述禁令能否导致系争合同落空。
在法律意见中，陈教授对于以中国法为准据法的案件，关注从中国宪法的有关法条到与案件及争议问题密切相关的法律、法规、规章与行政命令等；对以英国法为准据法的合同，他根据《国际合同义务法律适用公约》（《罗马公约》），英国1990年《合同法》、英国法院在长期的司法实践中所确立的判例、英国权威学者提炼与归纳的为国际社会普遍接受的法律冲突规范，对它们的相互关系与不同效力，层层分析，透彻论证自己的见解与观点。
他的结论否定征收的构成与存在，确认法无溯及力等两项原则在中国同样有效；中国强制性命令对中国法人有约束力，中国是合同开立信用证义务的履行地，前述强制性命令导致系争合同落空。
拜读之，笔者不禁想起1985～1986年，中国改革开放与法制建设的初期，曾经协助某前辈出具法律意见书的经历。其中一份意见书是给香港的银团出具的，涉及银团向国内某公司的贷款，贷款合同的准据法是美国纽约州的法律。银团律师聘请中国大陆律师以查明与确认借款人与担保人的身份、营业范围、财政状况、关于借款与担保的偿还能力与各自董事会的决定、借款与担保获得国家外汇管理局批准的情况、各自委派的签约人，等等。两家担保人中的一家是非金融企业，其主营业地在香港，在香港拥有很高的商誉。但是我们获悉其注册地是北京，因而要求其向国家外汇管理局申请批准对外债的担保，提供批准文件。当时我国的法规有限，要适用内部文件所涉及的有关政策。可见，在贷款合同的准据法为美国纽约州法律的情况下，中国法律涉及中国当事人的权利能力和行为能力的规定关系到涉外合同能否顺利履行。银团及其境外律师希望中国律师查明有关中国当事人的问题与中国法律的相关规定，包括当时的内部（红头）文件所载的政策，在意见书出具后，贷款协议才能正式签署。
案一，Y公司是明智的，及时请教中国法律专家为之提供有力的法律武器。若是X公司在怀疑所涉“通知”的溯及力以及“通知”对其在中国C公司的权益构成征收之时，在依据保险合同提请仲裁之前，同样请求陈教授为其出具法律意见书，那么效果是上佳的。毕竟若将争议提交仲裁，由于X公司的现金投资是1200万美元，保险额势必不少于该数额（可能另加10%）；其仲裁请求断不少于此数额。而聘请律师要付费，向仲裁机构提请仲裁要交管理费（按请求金额的比例计算），指定仲裁员的费用与仲裁庭的费用，与中国专家出具法律意见书的费用相比，后者是最合算的。
案二，根据笔者在前文提及曾经参与出具法律意见的经历，在准据法是纽约州法律的情况下，对中国当事人的属人法，境外的律师从不敢掉以轻心，因为它关系到银团与借款人之间的贷款合同是否存在落空的危险；更不会如Bunge公司聘请的中国律师般漠视。
本案是国际货物销售合同的争议，双方均来自《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（“CISG”）的签字国，CISG成为新加坡与中国法律的构成部分。若不明确排除或减损其效力，那么保留部分除外，CISG是否适用于本案？以英国法为准据法的合同争议是否排除CISG的适用？依据陈教授援引的《合同义务法律适用公约》（《罗马公约》）第3.3条的规定：“当事人选择外国法这一事实，无论其是否同时选择外国法庭，如在选择时一切与当事情况有关因素仅同一个国家有关，不应影响该国法律规定的适用，即该国法律规定（以下简称‘强制性规定’）之适用不得以合同废除之。”
据此，适用英国法不能构成对适用CISG的排除，那么CISG第7（2）条规定：“本公约未明确解决的属于本公约范围的问题，应当按照本公约所依据的一般原则来解决，在没有一般原则的情况下，则应按照国际私法规定适用的法律来解决。”
依照CISG的上述原则，系争合同Zhonghe公司的属人法，对其以及对中国的银行（包括它们的海外分行）的行为能力有约束力。在明知进口的食品（或食物的原料）被“检验总局”禁止的情况下，不得违反。对此陈教授已经援引法条充分论证。
此外，是否还可以提及中国《合同法》第127条的规定：“工商行政管理部门和其他有关行政主管部门在各自的职权范围内，依照法律、行政法规的规定，对利用合同危害国家利益、社会公共利益的违法行为，负责监督处理；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。”
上述法条从另一角度再次表明中国法律体系中强制性规定的约束力与违反的严重后果。
或许还可以告诉案二的当事人，如果仲裁庭漠视中国法律体系中的强制性规范，裁决可以向中国出口含有高毒性致癌农药的巴西大豆，或者裁决Bunge公司胜诉，中国法院可以不承认与执行被申请人的胜诉裁决。因为危害消费者健康的食品是不可接受的。裁决书中严重的错误构成对公共政策的违反。[103]允许有重大缺陷的裁决书存在，不予更正，必将损害公众对仲裁整体的信赖。[104]这是国际上日渐流行的准则。这里不妨援引一宗案例Telkon SA Ltd v. Anthong Boswood QC，涉及仲裁员的处理不当（misconduct）导致裁决书的撤销或搁置（setting aside）：“南非高级法院查明仲裁员出现（适用）法律的错误（to commit errors of law），构成仲裁的重大违法（或不当）行为（to amount to gross irregularities），而撤销（或搁置）裁决书。”[105]
从陈教授的法律意见书中，仲裁员还可以学到些什么？在裁决书的仲裁庭意见部分，仲裁员论述争议焦点，交代与揭示其所查明或确认的事实，要全面、详尽、条理清楚；要论述当事人的请求与反请求成立与否的理由。如果仲裁员具备这样的能力，裁决才有说服力。
陈教授的法律意见书出具时间是2006年，当时中国与改革开放和市场经济建设相配套的法律法规已经基本齐全。意见书中提及的所有法规均在阳光下，“红头文件”的效力逐渐消退。问题在于一个法律专家是否真的是行家里手；若没有深厚的理论功底与对所涉问题的深刻理解，又对所涉法规了然于胸、融会贯通，便不能多角度多层面地分析与论述，鞭辟入里，结论清楚，释疑解惑。
时代给他提供了机会，他无愧于时代赋予的使命。作为杰出法学家，他的声音在攀登的路上回响。
料想，陈教授必定熟知马克思所言“外国语是人生斗争的武器”。他的英文著作代表中国国际经济法学界与中国国际商事仲裁界在国际上发声。非经多年的苦读与苦练，不能以地道的英文撰写专业文章并在国际仲裁的权威刊物上发表，进而得以结集出版。
《中国的呐喊》中披露，陈教授从1953年起作为年轻的法学教员转入马列主义的教学领域。1980年其年过半百后，因缘际会，才得以重回法学领域，研究国际经济法。盛年之时，在“应冲刺的年龄才起跑”，也可以视为幸运。在中国改革开放与法制建设的春天，他“急起直追，以勤补拙”。据其弟子告知，陈教授往往工作到深夜或凌晨。三十余年中陈教授获得了宽阔的舞台，在流逝的岁月中留下了深深的足印，为光辉的时代留下了华章。
2005年之际他已七十六岁，犹以自勖诗句[106]表达其永不止步的决心：
蹉跎半生，韶华虚掷。青山满目，夕霞天际。
老牛破车，一拉到底。余热未尽，不息奋蹄！
诵读此诗，令人不禁想起美国诗人Robert Frost的诗Devotion—献身（汉蓉译）：
心灵视献身，不比海岸高。
守候岸曲线，永数潮涨消！
Precise and Thorough Analyses—Illustrating a Guru's Profound Knowledge
—A Brief Commentary on The Voice Form China: An CHEN on International Economic Law
Opening this great monograph titled The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law (The Voice from China), I am very delighted with and impressed by Prof CHEN's scholastic achievements on the subject and his skills in mastering English.
Prof. CHEN is an eminent jurist and the forerunner of China's international economic law discipline. He was the Chairman of the Chinese Society of International Economic Law in which I was once a member of the Society and a mere subordinate under his supervision. I wish to touch and simultaneously share my views on some aspects of the cases and the Legal Opinions in The Voice from China (Chapters 20, 21, 22 and 23[108]) from the perspective of a craftsman—an arbitrator. In order to save space, abbreviated case names and subjects related would be applied.
Case 1, A UK Co X v. a UK Insurance Co Y. In December 1996, an entity from Cayman Islands and Chinese Co. B entered into a contractual joint venture agreement (“the Agreement”) and a contractual joint venture （“the CJV”）was established in China. Later Co X replaced the Cayman entity. Under the insurance policy issued by Co Y with Co X as the assured, the risks undertaken cover losses arising out of acts of expropriation occurring during the policy period of February 20, 2001 to February 19, 2004. Due to the issuance of Circular No.31 〔1998〕 by the PRC's State Council and Circular No.43 〔2002〕 by the General Office of the State Council (“the Two Circulars”), Co X claims that the Two Circulars constitute an Act of Expropriation, and therefore requesting compensation for losses from Co Y by reference to the insurance policy that stipulated about (possible) compulsory take over by the Chinese government. Co Y denies and Co X refers the case to arbitration in British.
The key issues before Prof. CHEN are whether the Two Circulars are of the nature or give such effects of an Act of Expropriation of the assets of the CJV; if the answer is affirmative, Co X could base on the alleged Act of Expropriation to claim the coverage under the insurance policy, thereafter Co Y would gain the subrogation (of insurer) form Co X. In another word, the said issues could be expressed in a manner to cover situations where an agreement is in line with the provisions of the Act of PRC on Chinese-Foreign Contractual Joint Venture (“CJV Act”) and has received approval by some competent governmental authorities of China. Under such circumstances, have those internationally accepted basic legal principles, such as “autonomy of the parties' will” and “no-retroactivity of law”, been fully accepted by or already taken root in China as a country ruled by law?
Case 2, Xiamen Zhonghe Industry Co., Ltd (Zhonghe) v. Bunge Singapore Pte. Ltd (Bunge). Zhonghe as buyer and Bunge as seller on February 25, 2004 entered into the Contract S04-071(“the Contract”) with Brazilian soybeans of 55,000 metric tons as the subject matter. It is provided in the Contract that Zhonghe shall through a first-class Chinese bank acceptable by Bunge open a letter of credit in favor of the seller.
After the conclusion of the Contract, several shipments of Brazilian soybeans exported to China were found containing germicide carboxin-processed soybeans (or Brazillian soybeans highly toxic carcinogenic pesticide or adulteration of red-coated Brazilian soybeans) including a shipment under the Contract between Zhonghe and Bunge, therefore the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of China (“AGSIG”) issued a Warning Notice and then some Public Announcements in a succession prohibiting the importation of Brazilian soybeans. Public Announcement 71 even declared that Bunge was temporarily revoked of the capacity of exporting Brazilian soybeans to China.
The kernel problems that Prof. CHEN are faced with are whether the prohibitions (or administrative ordinances, administrative prohibitive orders or mandatory regulations or rules) by AGSIG have comprehensive and powerful legal binding force over Chinese importers, Chinese banks and their respective branches overseas; whether China is the place of performance of the obligation to open the letter of credit under the Contract; when English laws are applicable, whether the mandatory rules or orders in Chinese legal system are of mandatory effects over Chinese legal entities and therefore the Contract was frustrated due to the said prohibitions and their binding force.
Bunge holds that the prohibitions by AQSIQ on soybeans adulterated with germicide carboxin cannot be fully supported by Chinese laws. According to the provisions of the Act of PRC on Food Sanitation adulteration of the impurities or fake products therein had to be conducted with an intention, therefore the legislative authority for the decisions made by AQSIQ upon the soybeans is not sufficient. Further, Bunge is of the view that the Public Announcement 71 was temporary suspension and actually in existence for 9 days only and so it has not reached the point that it would frustrate the Contract as a whole. Zhenghe should have applied some Chinese bank or its branch overseas to open the letter of credit during the period of 23～25 of June 2004. Failing this, Zhonghe shall be responsible for the liabilities. “According to the Contract, English laws (shall) apply when a dispute is referred to arbitration (emphasis added). English laws only recognize(s) that a breach at the place of performance of the contractual obligations can possibly lead to the frustration of contract.”[109]Further, Bunge holds that pursuant to the Contract, China is not the place of performance of the obligation to open the letter of credit, and opening of the credit letter which is in violation of Chinese laws cannot be taken as the ground for frustration under English laws.[110]The Chinese lawyer engaged by Bunge holds the view that whether one corporate could apply for a letter of credit mainly depends on the applicant's status and financial standing, but no concrete negative evidence against Zhonghe is produced. The Chinese lawyer argues that the Public Announcement 71 had no material influence on the establishment of the letter of credit under the Contract.
In his Legal Opinions, when dealing with issues pertaining to Case 1, Prof CHEN has not overlooked or missed out any provisions concerned from the Constitution to all the laws, acts, regulations, rules, and administrative orders and even the promises by China when entering into WTO. For instance, he lists some facts that as a member of WTO, China has not only promised to “ensure the full conformity of its laws, regulations, and rules with the provision of the WTO Agreement”[111], but also taken measures in this regard.[112]When treating the problems relating to Case 2, he respectively identifies the Contract and the clause that “English laws shall be applied”, and that the Contract was signed by Bunge's subsidiary Bunge International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (“Bunge Shanghai”) residing in Shanghai with Zhonghe.[113]
Revealing his deep knowledge of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (“Rome Convention”), the effective Contacts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (of British), the precedents established by English courts in their long established judicial practice and conflict of laws rules which have been refined and summarized by authoritative English scholars and widely accepted by the international community, analyzing their mutual relations and different forces, step by step, Prof. CHEN discusses the issues and expounds his viewpoints by accurately referring to the relevant provisions of various acts or laws and legal theories.
Prof. CHEN reaches his conclusion that in Case 1 the Two Circulars and their provisions are of no Expropriation effects, and confirms that the two major principles of law, ie., “autonomy of the parties' will” and “non-retroactivity” have actually taken root in China and are applicable to the case. And in Case 2, he firmly believes that the administrative prohibitive orders or mandatory orders contained in the Publication Announcements, such as the Announcements 71 by AQSIQ are of binding effects over Chinese legal entities concerned, that China is the place of performance of the obligation to have the letter of credit opened and the Contract was frustrated due to the mandatory orders.
Perusing the Chapters, the author cannot help recall the days when China was at the initial period of reform and began to rejoin the international community. It was also the initial period of the rule by law in China. In 1985～1986, I once assisted a senior superior in his rendering of legal opinions. One of the legal opinions was for a banking group of Hong Kong, relating to the banking group as lenders and a Chinese company as borrower and two Chinese corporations as guarantors to the loan agreement with the laws of New York State of the America as the governing laws. The lawyers engaged by the banking group had to engage some lawyer in the mainland China to carry out inquiries to identify and confirm the status, the business scope, the financial standing and other conditions of the borrowers and the guarantors; that the matters relating to the loan and guaranty were normal and in conformity with the laws, acts, regulations or policies of China; that the borrower and his guarantors had got consents from competent departments of China; and the decisions relating to the loan made by the boards of directors of the borrower and the guarantors and representatives who would sign the loan agreement and other documents concerned. The main business of one of the two guarantors had been in Hong Kong for over 100 years, nevertheless its registration place of the business was in Beijing. Though it was of good credit in Hong Kong, it was required according to the regulations by the State Administrative Bureau of Exchange Control to apply for approval for the guaranty and to obtain the approval certificate. At that time, there were few statutes enacted or promulgated by National People's Congress or its standing committee, instead there were quite a lot internal documents or official documents of red colored titles (“hong tou wen jian” in Chinese). But it was obviously, while the applicable laws of the loan agreement were the laws of the New York State, the banking group and their lawyers relied expressly upon the provisions of the laws, acts, regulations or even the then popular internal documents of China containing some polices in this regard. All the legal issues or matters identified and confirmed in the legal opinions issued by the lawyer from mainland China were the pre-conditions for the finally conclusion of the loan agreement. The signing of the loan agreement was done upon the receipt of the legal opinions by the banking group and its lawyers.
In Case 1, Co Y acts in reasonable manner, timely asking a Chinese legal expert for advice which forms as his basis for defence. If Co X, when in doubt of the retroactivity of the Two Circulars and whether it is of the nature of expropriation, should have acted as Co Y in asking a Chinese legal expert for advice, Prof. CHEN's legal opinions would have been issued for him and such legal opinions would have even better effect. After all, Co X had referred the case to arbitration, as his sum of investment was USD12,000,000.00, the coverage of the policy would not have been less than that sum or probably plus 10 per cent and the sum claimed would have not been less than the sum either. In this case, Co X had paid fees for his lawyers, for the arbitration administrative charges closely relating to the time spent by the registrar and his deputies and the fees for the arbitrator(s). If Co X had asked for advice before referring the case to arbitration, the sum paid for a Chinese legal expert and his legal opinions would be a very small proportion comparing with the fees and changes that he would have paid for arbitral process.
Concerning Case 2, I have mentioned above that I was once an assistant to a senior superior in rendering legal opinions to a banking group from other jurisdiction. When the governing laws were those of the New York State, the banking group's lawyers had never overlooked the lex personalis of the borrower and guarantors of other jurisdiction. In contrast, in Case 2, the Chinese lawyer engaged by Bunge has given me an impression that he did not take proper notice or even probably turned a blind eye to the laws or mandatory orders of China.
The lex personalis of Zhonghe should not have been neglected, such as those pertaining to the capacity for private rights or duties, any Chinese legal entities should abided by them or the Chinese legal entities must be subject to those laws, acts, regulations or administrative orders. If there are any prohibitions on the importing or exporting to China food or material for food processing with pesticide, knowledge about these prohibitions or the absence of such knowledge would have different serious consequences. Prof. CHEN has proved that he is well professed of all aspects of the matters concerned.
I would like to stress that the Contract is of an important feature in international trade. For example, parties are from the contracting states to the CISG, then the provisions of the CISG will be regarded as being integrated into their respective national law of P. R. China and Singapore. If the parties do not expressly exclude the application of the CISG or derogate from or vary the effect of its provisions[114], save the reservations, doesn't the CISG apply to the case? When the governing law is of English law, does it mean that the CISG could be absolutely excluded?
I am fully accept that Prof. CHEN is correct in quoting Art 3(3) of the Rome Convention “[T]he fact that the parties have chosen a foreign law, whether or not accompanied by the choice of a foreign tribunal, shall not, where all the other elements relevant to the situation at the time of the choice are connected with one country only, prejudice the application of rules of the law of that country which cannot be derogated from by contract, hereinafter called ‘mandatory rules'.”[115]
It seems to me that the application of the CISG to the case could not be excluded. If the parties don't exclude the application of the CISG in the Contract, it will be necessary to look at Art 7(2) of the CISG:
“Questions concerning matters governed by this Convention which are not expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on which it is based or, in the absence of such principles, in conformity with the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law.”
If in the instant case the CISG could not be excluded, should we rely on the lex personalis of Zhonghe as Prof. CHEN does and we may further refer to Art 127 of the Contact Act of PRC:
“The Administration of Industry and Commerce and other relevant administrative authorities shall, within the scope of their respective the functions, supervise and deal with any unlawful conduct by way of contract prejudicial and detrimental to national or public interest. If such conduct amounts to a crime, criminal responsibility shall be pursued according to laws.”[116]
The provision contained in Art 127 above, once more from another angel reminds anyone of the binding effects of Chinese mandatory orders or rules and serious consequence of being against them.
In addition, I guess it might be better to tell Bunge and his Chinese lawyer, if they insists on the view that the mandatory rules or orders in the Chinese legal system could be ignored and the award should be made in favor of Bunge that under the Contract Brazilian soybeans containing highly toxic carcinogenic pesticide could be exported to China, the award should be set aside or its enforcement be refused. Some lines on a case revealing that misconduct of arbitrator “[W]hich justified setting aside an award Telkon SA Ltd v Anthong Boswood QC” are as follows:
“The South African High Court found that the arbitrator had committed errors of law (emphasis added) which amounted to gross irregularities in the conduct of the arbitration and set the award aside.”[117]
We should be aware that nowadays any awards tainted with extremely serious or egregious errors amount to a breach of public policy.[118]To allow such fundamentally flawed awards to stand uncorrected would undermine confidence in the integrity of the arbitral process.[119]That concept or principle is expressly reflected in the Arts 34 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
Form the Legal Opinions by Prof. CHEN, we arbitrators could get some enlightenment. In our awards under the subtitle “the Opinions of the Tribunal”, the tribunal should ensure that no issue and claim is missed out, all matters, key issues, facts and the merits of the case should be thoroughly explored. If arbitrators are short of that ability, failing to explain why a claim or counter-claim is sustained or refused, their awards rendered would be far from convincing in giving reasons.
It is in the 21 century that Prof. CHEN issued his Legal Opinions. Sets of laws, acts, regulations or rules that are orientated towards the needs of a market economy have been basically enacted or promulgated. All the provisions he quotes are transparent in the sun. The effects of those “internal documents” are fading. Nevertheless, the problem lies in whether one is an old hand. Not familiar with all the aspects of the matters concerned, without profound knowledge and deep understanding of all the issues concerned, without skills in mastering in one's mother-tongue and English plus its legal terminology, one could hardly deal with those hard-nuts properly.
The era of reform and opening to the international community has provided Prof. CHEN with a golden opportunity and in return for the era and on behalf of the discipline of the international economic law of China he advocates with admirable clarity and strength, his voice are echoing along the long road to the heights.
I guess Prof. CHEN must be familiar with the saying of Karl Marx, “A foreign language is a weapon in the struggle of life.” No pains no gains. Without decades of hard working, reading, writing and studying, no one is able to write in idiomatic English.
His professional papers are carried in authoritative journals and then collected in this monograph. Acting as a distinguish representative of discipline of the China's international economic law and the circle of China international arbitration, he has made his marks on the international stage and added academic literature thereon.
It is revealed in The Voice Form China, that Prof. CHEN as a junior teacher in 1953 shifted from law to Marxism and Leninism. When over 50-year old, in his prime years, he at last got the chance to return to the law field as he says that “Just stated to race at the age of spurt”. On the other hand, it could be regarded as lucky. In the spring of reform and opening to the outside, he has lost no chance to “rouse to catch up, overcome shortage by diligence”. His doctorial candidates remember that he usually would not turn off his desk-lamp until midnight or early morning. In the past decades, he has never idled away. His brilliant works are reflecting the long road he has travelled.
In his poem of self-encouragement in 2005 even when he was aged 76, he revealed his determination that he would never stop in his academic researching and creating course[120]:
Regretfully it is so late in a daytime,
Half of a lifetime had been spent in vain,
Thanks to the setting sun so brightly shines,
The old ox insists in carrying a broken cart to the end,
Never stop in speeding up its hoof-pace in time,
As long as its surplus energy still remains.
That reminds me of the similar poem by an American poet Robert Frost:
Devotion
The heart can think of no devotion,
Greater than being shore to the ocean,
Holding the curve of one position,
Counting an endless repetition.
10. 独具中国风格气派 发出华夏学术强音
——评《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
2014年3月，中国国际经济法学界的前辈陈安先生的英文版新书《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》[123]隆重面世。该书汇辑了陈安教授自1980年以来不同时期撰写的24篇精品专论，受国家哲学社会科学基金“中华学术外译项目”支持，由国际著名出版社施普林格（Springer）出版公司出版。
陈安先生学贯中西，素养精深，他就中国国际经济法学的基本问题提出了许多真知灼见，并多次代表中国国际经济法学界赴国外交流讲学，被誉为“中国国际经济法学的奠基人之一”。陈安先生并未拘泥于国际经济法学的理论探讨，而是积极投身实践，代表中国参与多项国际法律实务。特别是，陈先生曾经先后于1993年、2004年、2010年三度受中国政府指派，就任“解决投资争端国际中心”（ICSID）国际仲裁员，并处理具体的国际投资争端。
陈安先生《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》一书共分六部分，系统梳理和分析了改革开放以来国际经济法学术前沿的重大热点和难点问题，在该书中，陈安先生将理论与实践紧密结合，始终坚持实事求是，并以公平正义作为自身观点的内在脉络。其中，以第十一章《对近期谢业深诉秘鲁政府案ICSID管辖权裁定的若干质疑：中国—秘鲁BIT是否应当适用于“一国两制”下的香港特别行政区》（Queries to the Recent ICSID Decision on Jurisdiction Upon the Case of Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru: Should China-Peru BIT 1994 Be Applied to Hong Kong SAR Under the “One Country, Two Systems” Policy?）[124]尤为突出。
近年来，国际投资仲裁发展迅速，中国企业的参与度正在逐步增长。中国大陆企业近年来提起了三起国际投资仲裁案[125]，其中包括两件ICSID仲裁案。因此，ICSID仲裁实践对于中国投资，尤其是中国对外签订的双边投资保护协定（BIT）的具体落实具有重要意义。这篇文章以中国政府签署条约首次在ICSID涉案的谢业深诉秘鲁政府案（Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru）的管辖权裁定为中心，探讨了ICSID仲裁庭裁决的不当之处。案件的核心问题之一是，香港人是否可以援引中国政府在香港回归之前与秘鲁政府签订的BIT来寻求投资保护。陈安先生对此持否定态度。陈安先生在着重分析《中英联合声明》、《香港特别行政区基本法》以及《维也纳条约法公约》等相关规定的基础上，主要从两方面论证了其观点：首先，考虑到中国政府的“一国两制”的大政方针和《香港特别行政区基本法》中的具体规定[126]，中国—秘鲁BIT不应自动适用于香港。其次，中国—秘鲁BIT于1994年签订时，香港尚未回归，因此不能适用于涉及中国的争议。
Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People's Democratic Republic案[127]也涉及类似问题，即澳门投资者是否可以援引中国—老挝BIT对老挝提起仲裁。Lao Holdings N.V.案仲裁庭在肯定了《关于国家在条约方面的继承的维也纳公约》（VCST）第15条“移动条约适用范围原则”（moving treaty frontiers rule）与《维也纳条约法公约》（VCLT）第29条均为国际习惯法，并对二者区别以及在此案中的联系进行分析的基础上，认为中国—老挝BIT应当适用于澳门特别行政区。[128]该案裁决虽然与谢业深案的裁决思路存在差异[129]，但在基本立场上继承了仲裁庭在谢业深案中的立场，值得注意。首先，仲裁庭运用VCST第15条[130]对于国家继承问题所发展出的分析框架进行了论证。第15条分为一般条款和例外条款，仲裁庭认为，如果适用一般条款，中国—老挝BIT可以对澳门适用；但是，如果第15条的例外条款的规定得以满足，则中国—老挝BIT不得对澳门适用。仲裁庭采用反推的方法，证明第15条B项中的3项例外条款中的规定均未在该案当中得到满足。其中，在论证“中国—老挝BIT是否在另外被证明不能适用于中国领土全境”时，仲裁庭继承了“谢业深案”的观点。在“谢业深案”中，仲裁庭认为在中国与第三国已经签订BIT的情况下，香港自行与第三国缔结BIT的权力并不必然多余（necessarily redundant）。[131]该案中的仲裁庭认为，中国—老挝BIT与澳门—老挝BIT的立法目标都是保护外国投资者和东道国经济发展。两个BITs如果同时对澳门适用，不仅不会阻碍，反而会对实现这两个BIT的立法目标产生促进作用。[132]除此以外，在对BITs重点概念的理解上，该案仲裁庭也基本认同“谢业深案”仲裁庭适用VCLT进行的论证分析。[133]“谢业深案”仲裁庭认为，根据《维也纳条约法公约》相关规定[134]，在对中国—秘鲁BIT第8条第3款[135]中规定的“涉及”（involving）一词的“通常意义”（ordinary meaning）进行解释时，应当将“涉及”理解为“包含”（inclusive）而非“仅包含”（exclusive）。因此，不能仅仅从表面上将第8条第3款中规定的“涉及”简单理解为对于仲裁庭管辖权的限制。
由此看来，陈安先生的主张虽然理由详实，但并未受到国际仲裁实践的完全认可。陈安先生的论证重点在于《中英联合声明》以及《香港特别行政区基本法》，但仲裁庭显然对《中英联合声明》以及《香港特别行政区基本法》的分析着墨不多，而是着重于对BITs的分析。这启示我们，作为中国学者，应当对中外联合声明的国际法律地位以及特区基本法的内涵进行深入研究，从而能够引起国际关注。
陈安先生文章的最大特色在于论证充分，尤其是完整论证了VCLT第31条、第32条在具体适用中的问题。总体上看，陈安先生的论证不仅对后案有所影响，同时还留下了一些值得深思的问题。首先，中国—秘鲁BIT不能对香港特别行政区生效，是否可以直接等同于香港公民（Chinese nationals who hold a HKSAR passport）不能援引中国—秘鲁BIT？中国—秘鲁BIT中规定的“投资者”的范围是所有“依照中华人民共和国法律拥有其国籍的自然人”[136]。而根据中国《国籍法》相关规定[137]，香港公民具有中国国籍，则香港特别行政区的“高度自治权”是否可以阻碍香港公民凭借中国国籍，获取中国—秘鲁BIT项下的投资保护呢？其次，作为一种法律论证技术（lawyering skill），如果谢业深不能获得中国—秘鲁BIT项下的投资保护，他是否可以根据英国于1993年与秘鲁签订的英国—秘鲁BIT（1994年生效）来寻求投资保护呢？如果谢业深因为“旧法（1994年生效的中国—秘鲁BIT）不适用‘新情况’[138]”而不能获得中国—秘鲁BIT的保护，那么他是否可以依据“旧法（1994年生效的英国—秘鲁BIT）应当根据‘过去的情况’[139]继续适用”的逻辑寻求英国—秘鲁BIT的保护呢？这些都是我们在陈安先生著作的启发下，可以进一步考察的重要问题。
此外，陈安先生在该文中还从中外投资争端的视角，详细论证了有关《中英联合声明》、中国《宪法》和《香港特别行政区基本法》以及中外条约彼此之间的关系等问题[140]，明确指出，《中英联合声明》明文规定，中国政府决定于1997年7月1日对香港恢复行使主权，同日，英国政府将香港交还中国。从此时起，根据中国《宪法》第31条制定的“《香港特别行政区基本法》构成管理香港特别行政区的宪政性文件”[141]，香港的一切事务均应按《香港特别行政区基本法》行事。依据《中英联合声明》附件一第XI章以及《香港特别行政区基本法》第153条规定，在“一国两制”的特定条件下，“中国与外国签订的各种国际协定在1997年后并不能自动适用于香港。相反，这些协定只在中国中央政府征询香港特别行政区政府的意见，并决定适用于香港特别行政区后，才能适用于香港特别行政区。”[142]。这些论证，对于当前中国所面临的现实问题，包括任何人都无权借口《中英联合声明》干涉中国内政、应以法治方式解决香港“占中”危机等，均具有重大的现实参考意义。[143]具体说来，情况如下：
据香港《文汇报》2014年11月18日报道，英国下议院外交事务委员会17日举行有关《中英联合声明》的听证会。香港《南华早报》前总编辑范力行（Jonathan Fenby）在出席“作证”时称，中国中央政府希望紧紧控制香港政治和经济，香港特别行政区政府比较重视与内地的关系，忽略港人的民主诉求。在港参与“占领”行动的香港大学学生Hui SinTung及中文大学学生Tang Chi Tak则称，中国中央政府多次违反《中英联合声明》，包括“剥夺”内文订明港人能继续享有的新闻自由、集会自由及普及选举权利，英国应该迫使中国“履行”《中英联合声明》并做出谴责，甚至重启《南京条约》及《天津条约》。此外，香港民主党主席刘慧卿2014年11月18日也通过视像向英国国会“作供”，称英国有责任保障香港的自由和生活方式。另一方面，英美等外国势力一再插手香港内部事务，近来趁“占中”之机，插手频率更是有增无减。9月底，英国首相卡梅伦称，“英国与中国达成的协议中提到了在‘一国两制’框架下，香港拥有民主对未来的重要性”，10月中旬他又宣称“英国应为香港人的自由权利站出来”。11月，当“占中”行动在香港已陷入穷途末路之际，美国继“美中经济与安全审议会”年度报告用了20页篇幅对香港政改胡诌一通之后，美国国会“中国问题委员会”又召开“听证会”，邀请“末代港督”彭定康在伦敦透过视像卫星越洋“作证”，称西方国家应公开对香港问题发声。英国外交事务委员会的议员则计划到港调查，结果被北京拒绝入境。对于英国的诸多谰言和花招，香港特别行政区政制及内地事务局局长谭志源反驳说，英方对回归后的香港无主权，无治权，无监督权，不存在所谓“道义责任”。香港工联会议员王国兴说，香港部分反对派人员“应邀作证”，是公然配合外国势力干预香港内部事务，是丧失国格的行为，对中国人民、香港市民构成极大伤害。香港金融界立法会议员吴亮星也说，香港事务是中国内政，其他国家无权指指点点，有香港反对派议员“配合”出席听证会，明显是招引外国势力干涉中国国家内部事务。[144]
中国政府对英国下议院外交事务委员会举行有关《中英联合声明》的听证会的荒唐行径，也连续予以严词谴责。早在2014年7月25日，中国外交部发言人洪磊就指出，香港事务属于中国内政，英方的做法是干涉中国内政，中国对此表示强烈不满和坚决反对。中国政府反对任何外部势力以任何借口进行干涉。[145]2014年12月3日，外交部发言人华春莹更加明确指出，香港已于1997年回归中国，是中国的特别行政区。1984年的《中英联合声明》就中方恢复对香港行使主权和过渡期的有关安排，对中英双方的权利义务作了清晰划分。英方对回归后的香港无主权，无治权，无监督权，不存在所谓“道义责任”。英方有些人企图用所谓“道义责任”混淆视听，干涉中国内政，是不可接受的，也不可能得逞。[146]
显而易见，中国政府2014年的上述表态以及香港爱国人士2014年的上述主张，与陈安先生早先在2008年作出的前述详细论证，可以说是完全契合和互相呼应的。
陈安先生博学强识，书中很多对于国际经济法学重要问题的观点均来自于其毕生孜孜不倦的研习以及他与国际学术界的对话。陈安先生先后与Louis Henkin, Andreas F. Lowenfeld以及John H. Jackson等著名国际经济法学家进行过深入的研讨交流，不断更新自己的知识，并将中国国际经济法学界的新发展和新动向介绍给国外同仁。更可贵的是，在研究与实践的过程中，陈安先生深刻洞察到国外国际经济法学著作中所暗含的殖民主义气息和单边主义进路，尤其是美式双重标准（US-style double standards）等，因此他毕生以呼吁改造旧式国际经济秩序、建立新型国际经济秩序为己任，坚持实事求是的态度，不懈探索真理，三十年如一日，积累汇聚而成《中国的呐喊》一书。“全书结构自成一体，观点新颖，具有中国风格和中国气派，阐释了不同于西方发达国家学者的创新学术理念和创新学术追求，致力于初步创立起以马克思主义为指导的具有中国特色的国际经济法理论体系，为国际社会弱势群体争取公平权益锻造了法学理论武器。”[147]
党的十八届三中全会决议将“构建开放型经济新体制”上升到战略高度，加强中国国际经济法学研究、完善中国国际经济法治建设，已成为因应“一带一路”“走出去”、创设金砖银行和亚洲基础设施投资银行的核心要求和必要保障。汪洋副总理撰文指出，应当加强涉外法律工作，积极参与国际规则制定。[148]本书正是陈安先生植根于中华民族利益、中国特色社会主义制度以及中国作为发展中国家经贸大国的发展现状，对国际经济法基本理论和热点难点问题的重要回应。当前，多边贸易体系前行缓慢，双边、诸边贸易投资协定尤其是以跨太平洋伙伴关系协议（Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, TPP）、跨大西洋贸易与投资伙伴协议（Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP）、区域全面经济伙伴关系（Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, RCEP）等为代表的巨型自贸协定（Mega-FTAs）以及数百个包含投资规则的FTAs，正成为国际经贸法重构的重要体现。陈安先生在书中指出：“中外双边投资条约中的四大‘安全阀’不宜贸然全面拆除”[149]，这对于在中美、中欧BIT谈判中，如何保护国家、民族利益等具有借鉴意义。此外，陈安先生在其著作中引经据典，从中国古诗词到外国学界大师名著，可以很好地帮助读者更深入地了解中国国际经济法学者的独特学术视野。
我们相信，陈安先生的巨著《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》，将乘着全球化浪潮和中国经济高速发展的东风走向世界，代表中国国际经济法学人，在国际法舞台上发出华夏学术的强音。
11. 把准南方国家共同脉搏的学术力作
——评《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
陈安先生的皇皇巨著“The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law”（《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》，以下简称《中国的呐喊》）已由世界著名学术出版社Springer出版，此乃学界幸事。陈先生是中国国际经济法学界的前辈，长期以来一直担任中国国际经济法学会会长（1993—2011）和荣誉会长（2012—），领导中国国际经济法学界同仁，引领中国国际经济法学研究的风气。陈先生大作刊行于世，我等晚辈同侪无不奔走相告，以先睹为快。
《中国的呐喊》由多篇专论构成，既独立成章，又相互支撑配合，形成一个相互关联的体系。纵览全书，主旨鲜明突出，即批评当今尚存重大合理性问题的现有国际经济秩序，并在此基础上，为构建著者心目中的更公平合理的国际经济法律新秩序提供建言。
2007～2008年全球金融危机后，旧的全球经济秩序的弊端凸显，如何重构全球经济秩序已经成为刻不容缓的问题。对此，大国之间也立即开展了新的国际经济规则主导权的竞争。中国作为最大的发展中国家和崛起中的大国，自当发出自己的声音，而《中国的呐喊》在此时代背景下应运而生，无论批评还是建言，都体现了著者对国际经济秩序推陈出新和破旧立新的人文关怀。在一众中外学者满足于貌似完美的以“自由主义”为基石的现存国际经济秩序的背景下，著者毫不隐晦其中国学者的身份，强调中国在国际经济秩序重构过程中应该有的大国责任和大国风范，即应积极参与到全球国际经济新规则的制定过程中。其视野其观点，都不脱著者心目中不可或缺的中国视角和中国利益。这一切，反映出著者作为国际经济法学家拳拳的爱国之心；著者的赤子之心，在字里行间呼之欲出。
值得一提的是，著者绝非狭隘的民族主义者，其观点无不浸润着对发展中国家弱势群体数十亿大众的利益关切和广阔视角。从全球范围内看，著者的这一巨著，不啻是在国际经济秩序推陈出新和破旧立新方面，体现南方国家共同立场的学术力作。无论是对于现存国际经济秩序的理论剖析还是对于各方观点的细致评判，都见解独到而又发人深省。而在批判现存国际经济秩序的基础上提出的构建国际经济新秩序的视角，则体现了一个心怀天下的国际经济法大师的胸怀，为全球南方国家在这个破而后立的时代，点明了参与国际经济规则制定的方向。
《中国的呐喊》的学术价值，还在于勾勒了塑造中国国际经济法学发展面貌的诸多因素，丰满了中国国际经济法学发展维度的诸多细节，特别是指出了中国国际经济法学发展的方向。这不但对于国际学者正确全面理解中国特色的国际经济法学，而且对于中国国际经济法学者反思自己的研究路径，都具有指导性的意义。
我相信，《中国的呐喊》，一方面将与任何严肃著述一样，经得起历史风雨的考验，另一方面，该书的出版将使著者成为南方国家中有代表性的、有重大影响的国际经济法学家。
A Highly Recommendable Monograph that Senses the Pulse of the South
—Commentary on The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law
The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law (herein referred to as The Voice from China), which was recently published by Springer, one of the world's leading academic publishers, is a dear gift for the academic society. Professor CHEN, who served as the Chairman (1993～2011) and is acting as the Honorable Chairman (2012～ ) of the Chinese Society of International Economic Law (CSIEL), is a pioneering explorer of international economic law in China. He helps inspire the researchers in this new discipline and guide their academic pursuits. It is no exaggerating to say that the academia, particularly the young generation was jubilant to learn of the publication of this brilliant monograph.
The Voice from China is composed of several chapters. These chapters—either concerned with investment regime or trade issues—are independent yet mutually supportive and therefore form an integrated academic work. Throughout the book, outstanding is the theme, which mainly purports criticizing the existing international economic order for its lack of rationality, and, proposing the establishment of a fairer and more reasonable international economic order.
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2007/2008, the old global economic infrastructure turned out to be defective, making the reform of the infrastructure a pressing issue. Hereto, the world powers are found to engage in a new round of competition to grab the leadership of international economic rule-making. As the biggest developing country and a rising power, China has to make her voice be heard. Under this circumstance, The Voice from China came out timely to reflect the author's humanistic concerns over innovative international economic order regardless of critics and disagreements. Where an array of scholars, home and abroad, are comfortable with and boasting the existing international economic order that is based on the seemingly perfect “liberalism”, the author is not shy to disclose his identity as a China-born-and-bred scholar, advocate China's responsibility to contribute to the emerging new international economic order, and call for a China active in participating the international rule-making process. The author's perspectives and opinions, which originate from China’ indispensable national interest, reflect nothing but the author's true patriotism as an international economic law scholar.
It is worth noting that the author is not a narrow-minded nationalist at all. His publication is a best example of how international economic law can be full of humane concerns on the interests of developing countries and the breath of billions of vulnerable people therein. From the global perspectives, The Voice from China insightfully presents and addresses the common concerns of the South in fighting for a fairer international economic order, thus making itself a great contribution. The meticulous theoretical analysis of international economic order and blatant critics of various parties' arguments are both highly relevant and thought-provoking. From the criticism of existing international economic order, to the proposal to have in place a brand new international economic order, what is evident is the image of a compassionate master in the realm of international economic law, who has great care about the whole world. At a time of setting up new rules after breaking down the olds, The Voice from China helps guide the South as a whole how to get involved in the rule-making for international economy.
Another academic value of The Voice from China lies in that it either sketches or details the development of Chinese international economic law, especially in that it points to the direction of how to advance the Chinese international economic law. It is of instructive significance to help international law scholars fully and properly understand the international economic law with Chinese characteristics, as well as to sharpen their research skills for the studies of Chinese international economic law.
I firmly believe that The Voice from China will, like any solemn monograph, undergo harsh testing of history and moreover, make the author a representative authority with significant contribution to the studies of international economic law.
12. 国际经济法研究的“中国立场”
——读《中国的呐喊》有感
厦门大学法学院陈安教授以“余热未尽，不息奋蹄”的精神与斗志，在八十五岁高龄推出英文学术专著《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》（以下简称《中国的呐喊》），令人可叹可佩！该书是继2009年复旦大学出版社出版的中文五卷本《陈安论国际经济法学》之后，面向国际学术界对陈安教授学术成就以及学术生活的一次全景式、立体化展现。
陈安教授是我国最早从事国际经济法研究的学者之一。过去三十多年，陈安教授一直在这一领域辛勤耕耘，为中国国际经济法学学科地位的巩固与夯实作出了重大贡献。他以一家跨国公司的投资项目为例，从六大方面释明了国际经济活动所需依赖和遵守的国际法律规范与国内法律规范、公法性规范与私法性规范、程序性规范与实体性规范以及贸易法规范、投资法规范与金融法规范等，指明国际经济法是应客观现实之急需，不拘泥于传统法学分科，在学科交叉渗透的基础上形成的独立的、有机的边缘性综合体。[153]不仅如此，面对其他一些学者对初创的国际经济法学的四种误解与非议，即“不科学”或“不规范”论、“大胃”论或“贪食”论、“浮躁”论或“炒热”论以及“翻版”论或“舶来”论，他撰文一一澄清或驳斥，进一步论证了这一学科定位的“科学性、合规律性和旺盛活力”。[154]
国际经济法作为一种法律现象，可以有不同的研究视角和方法。陈安教授则“一贯坚持”南北矛盾的研究方法，“独树一帜”，形成并引领了颇具中国风骨与特色的国际经济法学流派。这一立场，由于两个方面的原因而对中国具有独特的意义：一方面，崛起的中国已经触碰到了某些发达国家“脆弱的神经”，他们对中国极力遏制；另一方面，中国由于实行不同的政治制度，被某些西方国家另眼相加，列入另册，他们对中国严加防范。因此，建立国际经济新秩序（NIEO），并在其中发挥积极的、建设性的作用，是陈安教授立足于中国实际所确立的国际经济法研究的指导思想。为贯彻这一指导思想，《中国的呐喊》在学术层面进行了充分的论证与法理构建：
（1）身份：关于中国的国家“身份”问题，陈安教授的认识是一贯的。长期以来，他对国际经济法中的经济主权原则、南北矛盾与南南合作等问题倾注极大的心力进行研究，就是基于中国“作为全球最大的发展中国家以及全球弱势群体的一员”这一认识。[155]
（2）定位：陈安教授提出，中国应当立足于自身的历史，把握现有国际经济秩序的大局，科学地、合理地从长远角度确立自己在建立国际经济新秩序过程中的战略定位。具体说来，中国理应成为建立国际经济新秩序的积极推手，在国际经济旧秩序尚未完全退出历史舞台的背景下，为了实现南北公平，中国作为发展中的大国之一，理应以公正、公平、合理的国际经济新秩序作为长远奋斗目标，积极倡导和参与建设和谐世界；中国理应致力于成为南南联合自强的中流砥柱之一，作为当代奉行和平发展方针的大国，应当具有大国的意识和风范，勇于承担，与其他发展中国家一起联合行动。[156]
（3）目标：陈安教授认为，中国与全球弱势群体共同参与建立国际经济新秩序的战略目标，理应坚定不移，始终不渝。面对当今现存的各种国际经济立法，包括WTO法制下的种种“游戏规则”，国际弱势群体固然不能予以全盘否定，但是显然也不能全盘接受，心甘情愿地忍受其中蕴含的各种不公与不平。对待当今现存的各种国际经济立法，正确态度理应是：以公正、公平为圭臬，从争取与维护国际弱势群体的平权利益的视角，予以全面的检查和审查，实行“守法”与“变法”的结合。凡是基本上达到公正与公平标准，符合改造国际经济旧秩序、建立国际经济新秩序需要的，就加以沿用、重申，就强调“守法”；凡是违反这种需要的，就要强调“变法”，并通过各种方式和途径，据理力争，努力加以改订、废弃或破除。[157]
在国际弱势群体争取建立国际经济新秩序的过程中，国际学界也出现了一些颇为流行的理论，比如“新自由主义经济秩序”论、“WTO宪政秩序”论、“经济民族主义扰乱全球化秩序”论等。陈安教授研究指出，这些理论各有其合理内核，但其副作用亦不可小觑。“新自由主义经济秩序”论、“WTO宪政秩序”论可能是一种精神鸦片，会麻痹、瓦解国际弱势群体的斗志与信心；“经济民族主义扰乱全球化秩序”论可能是一种精神枷锁，会压制国际弱势群体的斗志与信心。要警惕这些“时髦”理论取代“建立国际经济新秩序”论！[158]
（4）途径：面对当代国际社会“南弱北强”、实力悬殊的战略态势，面对国际强权国家集团（七国集团之类）在国际经济领域中已经形成的“长达三十余年的霸业”格局，国际弱势群体要求“变法”图强，不应该单枪匹马，各自为政。实践反复证明：唯一可行和有效之途径就是南南联合，动员和凝聚集团实力，不渝不懈，坚持建立国际经济新秩序、“变法图强”的理念和目标，一步一个脚印地迈步前进。也正是由于中国等发展中大国的综合国力和国际影响的逐步提高，在WTO多哈会议、坎昆会议、香港会议、华盛顿会议、首尔会议的全过程中，中国与印度、巴西、南非和墨西哥等“BRICSM”成员曾多次通力协作，折冲樽俎，使得国际霸权与强权不能随心所欲，操纵全局，从而为国际弱势群体争得较大的发言权、参与权和决策权。[159]
对于南南联合自强及其成功经验，陈安教授进行了历史的考察。从历史上看，通过南南联合自强，逐步建立国际经济新秩序的战略主张，最初开始形成于1955年的万隆会议，此后，建立国际经济新秩序的进程，迂回曲折，步履维艰，尽管经历了多次潮起潮落，但其总趋向是始终沿着螺旋式上升的“6C”轨迹或遵循“6C律”，即Contradiction（矛盾）→Conflict（冲突或交锋）→Consultation（磋商）→Compromise（妥协）→Cooperation（合作）→Coordination（协调）→Contradiction new（新的矛盾）……每一次循环往复，都并非简单的重复，而都是螺旋式的上升，都把国际经济秩序以及和它相适应的国际经济法规范，推进到一个新的水平或一个新的发展阶段，国际社会弱势群体的经济地位和经济权益，也获得相应的改善和保障。当然，盲目的乐观也是有害的。陈安教授提醒，建立国际经济新秩序的前途，依然漫漫而崎岖，而要使它进一步发展成为康庄坦途，则坚持南南联合自强和南北合作，仍是不二法门。必须假以时日，必须坚持韧性，二者不可缺一。[160]
《中国的呐喊》不单是不畏国际强权、力争国际公义的呐喊，更是陈安教授赤诚的现实关怀与报国情怀的完美结合。陈安教授“蹉跎半生而重返法学殿堂”（先生语），却思想活跃，能紧跟形势，与时俱进。面对中国的实际问题，陈安教授殚精竭虑，奉献了超凡的智慧。无论是在改革开放之初还是在1989年政治风波之后，陈安教授都及时撰文，宣讲中国的开放政策，澄清事实，消除误解。[161]在中国对外开放的复杂形势面前，一些学者和官员在国际投资法重大问题的立场方面，出现了疑虑与彷徨。陈安教授多次著文条分缕析，周密论证，阐述中国应当采取的立场与做法，提出四大“安全阀”不宜贸然拆除等真知灼见。[162]在中国《仲裁法》颁布之初，陈安教授即对中国的涉外仲裁监督机制进行了批判分析。[163]在WTO运行一段时间后，陈安教授以其学术敏感，撰文综合评析十年来美国单边主义与WTO多边主义交锋的三大回合，揭示美国学者主权观的两面性以及当代条件下经济主权原则之不可动摇，为国内学界再次敲响警钟。[164]……总之，作为中国国际经济法学界的泰斗级人物，在关涉中国国际经济法研究与实践的重大问题与重大事件时，几乎都有陈安教授振聋发聩的“呐喊”！
A Chinese School of Jurisprudence on International Economic Law
—A Book Review on The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law
It is admirable that Professor An CHEN finished his monograph in English at the age of 85. This monograph, titled as The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, is a quintessence of his five-volume book series published by Fudan University Press five years ago and some of his articles thereafter. Nevertheless, it reflects a three-dimensional panorama of Professor CHEN's academic achievement and activities to the international academia.
Professor CHEN is one of the rare pioneers in the research field of international economic law (IEL). Since the inception of China's policy of reform and openness (CPRO), he has been concentrating his energies on the IEL and the CPRO. As a founding member and former Chairman of Chinese Society of International Economic Law, he has played a leading role in the establishment and enhancement of the discipline of the IEL in China. He takes an international investment project as an example to show how an international economic transaction may be governed by international law and domestic law, public law and private law, substantive law and procedural law, as well as trade law, investment law, tax law and financial law etc. Based on this practical analysis, he points out that IEL is a novel branch of legal discipline in response to the objective reality. This legal discipline adopts an interdepartmental and interdisciplinary approach of investigation and is an organic marginal independent synthesis.[166]Facing some misunderstandings and suspicions to the IEL, such as so-called “nonscientific or nonnormative”, “polyphagian or avaricious”, “fickle fashion or stirring heat”, and “duplicating version or importing goods”, he wrote an article to rebut or correct these opinions one by one, which prove the scientific and normative nature and the strong vitality of the IEL from different perspectives.[167]
As a legal phenomenon, the IEL can be reviewed and treated from different approaches. What Prof. CHEN has been taking consistently is the “South-North Contradiction” approach. Thanks to his achievements and influence, a Chinese School of Jurisprudence on the IEL featured by this approach has come into being in China. Based on two factors, this school of jurisprudence on the IEL is of special significance to China. One is that some developed countries adopt “containment strategy” in response to China's rise. The other is that some western countries treat China in an alien way because of China's political system. According to Prof. CHEN, establishing New International Economic Order (NIEO) is a way for developing countries like China to be treated justifiably and China shall play an active and constructive role in this process. In checking and reshaping the IEL, the following points shall be adhered to:
Firstly, the identity of China as a developing country must be recognized. Prof. CHEN holds it is a fact that China is one member within the disadvantaged groups as well as one of the biggest developing countries in the world.[168]Based on this standpoint, he has attached great importance to the study of the basic issues in IEL such as economic sovereignty, South-North conflicts and South-South cooperation.
Secondly, the goal China shall firmly pursue is the establishment of a just, fair and reasonable NIEO. Facing the existed IEL, including varieties of “rules of game” for international economic and trade affairs, neither “accepting all” nor “denying all” is a right attitude. Prof. CHEN holds a full review and investigation shall be carried out from the perspective of campaigning for and maintaining the equal rights and interests of the international weak groups, and law-abiding and law-reforming shall be combined together. For each and every rule which is in violation of justice and fairness, the weak groups shall seek to reform, abolish, or eradicate it through all possible ways and approaches.[169]
Accompanying the advocacy for the NIEO, some other theories have prevailed to some extent, such as “Neoliberalistic Economic Order”, “Constitutional Order of the WTO”, and “Economic Nationalism's Disorder of Globalization”. Although the core of these theories is reasonable in some sense and could be utilized critically, Prof. CHEN reminds that the former two can be a kind of mental opium and disintegrate the unions of the weak states, while the latter one can be a kind of mental shackles and prevent the weak states from establishing the NIEO.[170]
Thirdly, the role China is playing in the course of establishing the NIEO shall be one of the driving forces. China shall act ideologically and in style as a large nation, be brave in assuming responsibilities, and join force with all other weak states in advocating and participating in the establishment of a harmonious world.[171]
Lastly, the pathway to achieve the goal of establishing the NIEO is South-South Cooperation. Since the South is far weaker than the North in contemporary international society and the group of international powers (such as G7) has maintained the dominant position for as long as over 30 years in international economic fields, the international weak groups' demand for law-reforming to strengthen themselves up shall not be expected to be accomplished once and for all, nor shall they take actions dividedly and single-handedly. Prof. CHEN points out the only feasible and effective way is through South-South Coalition to keep mobilizing and agglomerating the collective power unswervingly with the aim to establish the NIEO.[172]
The significance of the South-South Coalition has been embodied in the South-North Contradiction. For over 60 years, the struggles between the South and the North usually temporarily paused when the two sides reaching a compromise, after which new conflicts would arise from new contradictions. As for the historic course and practice of South-North struggle, Prof. CHEN proposes a generalization of the “6C Track” or “6C Rule”: Contradiction→Conflict→Consultation→Compromise→Cooperation→Coordination→new Contradiction... But each new circle is on a spiral upper level rather than on an exactly repetitive old one, thus pushing IEO and the relating IEL towards a fairer level at a higher development stage. Consequently, the economic status and rights of the international weak groups are able to acquire corresponding improvements and safeguards.[173]
The Voice from China is not only an advocacy of struggling against international hegemony and striving for international justice, but also a convergence of Prof. CHEN's patriotism and realism. Although starting his legal research as late as the inception of China's Openness Policy, Prof. CHEN has endeavored to keep pace with the times. He has dedicated vast energy and wisdom to the research of Chinese reality. He wrote papers to eradicate the misunderstandings and suspicions to China's Openness Policy both at the earlier stage of 1980s and 1990s.[174]Facing the complicated issues in international investment law, he presented constructive suggestions to the decision makers through his painstaking research work. For example, his viewpoint that the “Four Safeguards” in Sino-foreign BITs can not be hastily and completely dismantled is of great importance to the protection of China's economic sovereignty.[175]Soon after the enactment of China's Arbitration Law, he did a critical research on the law and proposed suggestions on how to reshape it.[176]He made an analysis on how America interacted with the WTO in the first decade of this organization and revealed America's “double standards” to the sovereignty. It is a reminder that the sovereignty shall be stuck to for developing countries at any time[177]… To sum up, as an authority in Chinese academia of international economic law, Prof. CHEN's voice can always be heard at each critical moment or about each critical incident concerning the IEL, which has always been an advocacy for the rights and interests of the international weak groups.
13. 不为浮云遮眼 兼具深邃坚定
——评《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
收到陈安教授惠寄的Springer出版的“The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law”（《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》），不禁心潮澎湃。为其观点，为其成果，为其精神！
初次面见陈安教授是在1998年于深圳大学召开的中国国际经济法年会上。其时，陈安教授力倡“以文会友、以学报国”，那铿锵有力的声音和抓铁留痕的信念深深地印记在我的脑海里。此后，几乎在每次年会上，或听取陈安教授的大会报告，或参与陈安教授主持的讨论，或是私下里的交流，我都沐浴在陈安教授的思想光圈中。作为后学，自己取得的些许研究成果，一定程度上与陈安教授的影响、关怀和鼓励是分不开的。虽由于生活经历、成长年代、求学背景、研究兴趣等的不同，也有与陈安教授不同的具体想法，但那份尊重和敬佩深植心中、依然如故。
如陈安教授自己所言，其英文巨著是在其五卷本中文版《陈安论国际经济法学》的基础上进一步修订、更新、补充而完成的。今将其思想、观点、成果以“The Voice from China”为题出版英文版，陈安教授在国际层面进一步践行了“以文会友、以学报国”的信念和追求。陈安教授的思想独树一帜，且一以贯之，不为浮云遮眼，兼具深邃坚定。这一特点在国内如此，在国际上亦如此。其思想观点并非一时心得，而是建立在扎实的历史事实和教训之上。正因为如此，其声已超出个人之音，而具有历史和现实之义，理应向国际传播。
由于多方面的原因，特别是由于历史和语言的原因，中国学者对中国社会的描述，对国际社会的看法，不能尽达于国际社会。即便有些著述，或因篇幅所限，或因渠道所困，或因话语语境，不能充分而全面地阐述中国学者的立场观点。国际上一些汉学学者，由于经历、环境不同、兴趣所限，亦不能很好地反映中国的情况和观点。陈安教授立足中国，放眼国际，不满足于国内取得的学术成就和影响，志在基于中国现实和视角向国际社会表达中国学人的立场和观点，努力地有计划地在国际刊物、国际场合发文出声。在年届耄耋之际，陈安教授深耕细作，集其观点大成，推出800多页巨著“The Voice from China”，向世人展示其中国观和世界观，学术生涯达到新的高度。令人敬佩的是，陈安教授在坚持自己观点的同时，积极倡导、推动学术争鸣，提携后进进行独立研究。虽德高望重，但平等待人、平等交流；坚持一家之言，鼓励百家之说。笔者个人认为，其英文著作名称取“The Voice from China”，而没有选取“The Voice of China”，亦体现了其虚怀若谷的风范。
作为中国国际经济法学的奠基人之一，陈安教授对国际经济法的诸多领域均有很深的造诣，并且以学者、律师和仲裁员三栖身份，言行一致地践行其观点。“The Voice from China”收录的文章，既有对建立中国国际经济法学科的详细论证，也有对国家经济主权理论和国际经济新秩序的深刻剖析，还包括亲身参与国际仲裁和诉讼的睿智实录。透过各种重大议题，如国家主权、南北关系、国际秩序、国际投资、一国两制等，再现了中国改革开放以来的激荡历史和中国人民参与国际事务的伟大实践。有的文章成文虽早，但仍不失其现实意义，这进一步体现了陈安教授所见所期之远之大，亦为后学所敬仰追随。
“The Voice from China”，洋洋巨著，洒洒数百万言。任何介绍或评论性的文字都无法充分展示其丰富的内容和精髓。笔者在此也不作该等无谓努力，相信读者会从中见仁见智、相遇金屋玉颜。
最后，想对国家社会科学基金中国学术外译项目致以敬意，感谢其立项资助陈安教授将中文著作推广到英语世界，让英语世界的读者认识、分享其思想观点，并引发对中国问题的更深入、全面的认识。没有这一资助，陈安教授的“以文会友、以学报国”的理念或许无法实现到今天这样的程度。
Never Covered by Cloud, Insisting Profound Insight
—Comments on The Voice from China
On receiving the monograph The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law of about 800 pages written by Prof. An CHEN, published in 2014 by famous publisher Springer, I could not help being moved by the book, the opinions, and the spirit of Prof. An CHEN.
It was in 1998 when the annual meeting of Chinese Society of International Economic Law(CSIEL）was held in Shenzhen University that I first met Prof. CHEN. This was also the first time I attended the activities of CSIEL, almost every attendants of the meeting being stranger to me, but I was deeply impressed by Prof. CHEN, then Chairman of CSIEL, when he gave a speech in his characteristically robust style, calling for “meeting friends with writings and rewarding home country with knowledge”. Since then, either during the annual meetings of CSIEL or in other occasions, it was normal to listen to speeches of Prof. CHEN, seek advices from him, and discuss with him. To some extent, what I have achieved in my legal research should be attributed to the influence, care and encouragement of Prof. CHEN, though he was not my academic adviser in strict sense. This does not mean that I fully agree with all opinions of Prof. CHEN owing to diffident ages, education backgrounds, life experiences and research interests etc. between us, but my respect for Prof. An CHEN lasts forever.
Just as Prof. CHEN said himself in his book, The Voice from China was a updated English version of his five-volume An CHEN on International Economic Law in Chinese published by Fudan University Press in 2008. The English version not only reflects Prof. An CHEN's deeper thoughts on International Economic law, but also his effort to voice Chinese message on international plane, which in broader extent puts into practice his belief “meeting friends with writings and rewarding home country with knowledge”. Prof. CHEN is determined and thoughtful, and his thoughts on International Economic Law are consistent, neither blocked by intricate developments nor for occasions. He has supported his conclusions with good reasons and facts. Readers, either domestic or international, will find perfect combination of historical lessons and modern thinking in The Voice from China.
For some time Chinese scholars' views on domestic issues and international affairs have been not easy to be heard and understood by international community because of various reasons, including factors of language, history, media, and cultural context. On the other hand, Sinologists, owing to lack of rich experience in China and having their own special research interests, cannot accurately and fully reflect the real views of Chinese scholars and the complex reality in China. Born in Old China, experiencing the invasion of Japan, witnessing the change and development of China, and trained in Harvard Law School, Prof. CHEN is in a good position to tell China's story to international community. Not satisfied with the reputation of one of most famous scholars in China, Prof. CHEN has broken through and made his academic career to a new height at the age of more than 80, with The Voice from China, which is based on China's perspective and world outlook. As a matter of fact, this is not the first time for Prof. CHEN to voice his views in international forums. For many years Prof. CHEN has been doing his efforts to hold or attend international conference, to publish articles in international journals, so as to make voice from China to be heard by international community.
As one of noble character and high prestige and one with own special perspective on International Economic Law, Prof. CHEN has been paying due respect for different opinions of different people in different ages. “Respect for different opinions” is his long-held belief. Prof. CHEN has always encouraged younger scholars to express their own views, and the more difference from his the more encouragement from him. As far as I know, many Chinese young scholars pay high respect for Prof. CHEN, though they don't agree with Prof. CHEN in some points. Prof. CHEN is always modest, and in my judgment his book titled The Voice from China, not The Voice of China, also show his modesty.
Being one of the founders of CSIEL, Prof. CHEN has an extremely good knowledge of International Economic Law. Besides a professor of Law, Prof. CHEN is also an arbitrator and a lawyer active in the field of international transactions. The essays collected in The Voice from China include different focuses, not only arguments for separate status of International Economic Law discipline in China's law education system, theoretical analysis of state sovereign and the new international economic order, but also arguments with wisdom for international cases he handled. With discussion of important topics such as state sovereign, South-South or South-North relationship, international order, international investment, and one country two system etc., Prof. CHEN has revealed the surging history of opening-up and reform in China and active practice of China's participation in international affairs since 1979, and made his own contribution in his own way as a Chinese scholar to the new international economic order. Some essays, though finished long time ago, still have inspirational implications for current international affairs, with deep insights into future. This also implies that the academic style of Prof. CHEN sets an example for younger scholars.
It says that there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes. So I won't attempt to make detailed comments on the contents of The Voice from China of about 800 pages, and I know my any effort of this kind would be an effort in vain. I encourage readers themselves to read The Voice form China. I’m sure readers all over the world would find his own Hamlets from The Voice from China.
Last but not least, I want to express my own appreciation for the work of the Chinese Found for the Humanities and Social Science. Without its project, i.e. the Chinese Academic Foreign Translation Project (CAFTP), The Voice from China would not, I guess, have been published in English by international famous publisher; readers in English world would not have this privilege to have a better understanding of modern China through the lens of Prof. An CHEN; and the dream cherished by Prof. CHEN of “meeting friends with writings and rewarding home country with knowledge” would not have come true so soon.
14. 任你风向东南西北 我自岿然从容不迫
——国际经济新秩序的重思：以陈安教授的国际经济法研究为视角
一、国际经济法研究的两大流派
作为法学的一部分，国际经济法的研究显然不可能完全脱离法学研究的主流路径而完全独树一帜。法学的主流研究模式分为实证法学派和自然法学派[181]，因而国际经济法的各种研究手段也可以大略总结为描述性研究和规范性研究两大流派。描述性研究主要是对既有的国际经济法律规范和组织、运行进行说明，通过语义分析阐释规范的含义，通过数据统计分析揭示实际运行的状况，或者通过案例研究研讨规范在实践运行中取得的成就和存在的问题。[182]这种研究是作为一般法学方法的实证主义研究在国际经济法中的体现。规范分析一般前设一套正当性原则，通过批判性、反思性地考察相关的规范或者实践，或者比较不同的规范、不同的实践或者进程，来判断相关的规则和实践是否正当，或者说明相关的国际经济法进步的领域和方向何在。[183]这种研究方法是作为法学方法的自然法学派在国际经济法领域的具体体现，是一种显在的价值分析的研究方式。
这两种方法虽然表面上并不相同，实质上有很多联系。一个令人信服的价值分析必须建立在扎实的实证研究基础之上，很多实证研究在背后也都隐藏着一些基本的价值判断。[184]进而言之，偏好实证分析的学者和偏好价值分析的学者有必要保持相互尊重和欣赏，而不必偏执地认为，只有自己才是正确的，另一种方法则是错误的。所以，好的法学研究虽然会在研究手段上有所侧重，但二者不可偏废。
陈安教授作为中国顶级的国际经济法学者，不仅在国际投资法的实证研究上作出了很多重要的努力，而且在国际经济法的发展方向的批判研究上也进行了卓有成效的尝试，提出了很多发人深省的观点。其中，关于国际经济新秩序及中国的立场的研究就是非常具有代表性的部分。
二、国际经济新秩序的兴衰
陈安教授从历史实证的角度考察了建立国际经济新秩序的背景与进程，同时也探讨了现代社会中倡导国际经济新秩序的重要性。起源于20世纪60年代的国际经济新秩序运动，可以理解为殖民时期基本结束后自决权的延续和拓展。新独立的发展中国家不仅在历史上受到侵略和盘剥，在现实中也被国际经济体系所伤害。[185]原来的宗主国、继而成为国际经济体系的主导者、国际经济法的主要制定者的发达工业国家确立起一套国际经济规则体系，继续将利益输送到发达国家，却使得多数发展中国家积贫积弱，这种法律体制很难说是公正的。[186]正如陈安教授所揭示的，国际经济法立法过程最常见的三大弊端是：少数发达国家密室磋商，黑箱作业，缺乏国际民主；国际经济组织体制规章中不公平、不合理的表决制度；全球唯一的超级大国在世界性经贸大政的决策进程中，其历来奉行的“国策”是“美国本国利益至上”和“对人对己双重标准”。[187]
国际经济新秩序的主张就是一种试图除旧布新、继往开来的努力。但是这种努力显然会影响到发达国家的短期、局部利益，所以它们对于国际经济新秩序的主张反应并不积极。[188]来自发达国家的学者也更倾向于论证载有国际经济新秩序主张的国际文件不属于国际法、没有约束力，不能确立国际义务。在很大程度上是由于20世纪70年代初能源危机的压力以及冷战政治平衡的需要[189]，发达工业国家才允诺了包括普惠制在内的一些推进国际经济新秩序的条件。
在冷战结束以后，发展中国家追求国际经济新秩序的声音马上被新自由主义和全球化这两个相互联系的浪潮所淹没。去除管制、私有化、自由市场成为压倒性的声音。以世界贸易组织、世界银行和国际货币基金组织为代表的国际经济体制也主要以这些自由主义的理念为尺度去确立新的国际经济法，国际经济法的发展似乎走向了自由主义一枝独秀的“历史的终结”。建立国际经济新秩序的努力进入了消沉的阶段。
实践是检验真理的唯一标准。历史显然没有终结，自由主义的普世宣讲不仅在很多时候没有造福于发展中国家，而且“金融创新”的泡沫使发达国家自己也陷入了麻烦之中。
国际经济法的未来，究竟何去何从？
三、国际经济法的中国立场
国际法的变化，既可以从实体规范的层面进行，也可以从程序规范的层面进行；既可以是全局层面的变化，也可以是局部领域的变化。但所有的变化，归根结底来自于行为体层面的推动。这种行为体，虽然包含国际组织、非政府组织、企业和个人，但最有力量、最有影响、行动方式最为方便的，显然是国家。如果一个国家不能够明确地形成自己的立场，并以学术、政治和法律的方式表述自身的观念，则国际体制的变革就会失去该国家的话语，不仅有可能有害于该国的利益，而且有可能影响整个国际法的发展进程。
正是站在不同的利益取向上，带有不同的国际机制设计观念的国家在一起通过协商、谈判而形成的国际法律机制才能在多样化的基础上做到相对均衡。当然，绝对的平衡是不存在的，只有相对的平衡。这是因为，即使在所有国家都表述自己观点的前提下，作为一种国际博弈，强国与弱国之间的力量差异会转化成谈判过程中的讨价还价能力的对比，并最终在国际法律体制中表现为绝对的不平衡。
在中国与国际经济法的发展互动进程中，中国面临着多重任务。在很多学者看来，融入现有体系、了解现有体系、参与现有体系就已经很不容易了，甚至是值得称道的成就，但是在陈安教授看来，中国还有一项更为艰巨、复杂，同时也非常伟大的任务，那就是变革现有体系。这项任务在有些学者看来似乎是不必要的，如果将WTO这样的国际经济法体制视为“模范国际法”，或者国际法治的典范，那么变革现有体系的正当性就不明显。同样，如果认为中国的国家利益在当今的国际体制中并没有受到重大影响，那么中国自身要求变革的动力就不大。如果我们认为中国还不是一个具有话语能力和话语影响的国家，那么中国要求进行变革的影响也不大。
陈安教授显然不是这么认为的。他强调：“作为全球最大的发展中国家和正在和平发展中的大国，在建立国际经济新秩序的历史进程中，中国理应发挥重要作用。”[190]具体说来：“首先，中国应成为建立国际经济新秩序的积极推手。……其次，中国理应致力于成为南南联合自强的中流砥柱之一。……第三，中国与全球弱势群体共同参与建立国际经济新秩序的战略目标，理应坚定不移，始终不渝。……第四，中国在建立国际经济新秩序进程中自我定位，理应旗帜鲜明，和而不同。”[191]
WTO这样的国际经济法体制较之以往的体制，诚然取得了长足进步，但是至少就发展中国家的利益而言，其公平性仍然不足。[192]乌拉圭回合之后对于发展中国家确立的一系列特别待遇，多为“软措施”，或者予以“过渡期限”，难以达到提升发展中国家发展能力的目标[193]；中国的入世议定书中存在着对于中国非常不利的条文，以往的一些案例已经展现了这些条文对中国的损害。而中国已经跃升为全球性的经济和政治大国，此时，如果仍然不能展现出一个大国的风范，担负起一个大国的责任，不能代表如中国一样科技、产业不够发达，人均GDP较低的众多国家，去争取更好的国际体制，则不仅中国自身的发展会受到负面影响，国际社会的公正、稳定、健康、持续发展也无以维系。
所以，中国必须有所作为。以陈安教授为杰出代表的学者们所提出的宏观立场和具体建议，恰恰是中国在国际经济法和国际经济秩序破旧立新进程中理应有所作为的学术表现和实践基础。
四、陈安教授的学术贡献
陈安教授勤于研究、认真思考，心怀理想、硕果累累。陈安教授在国际经济法基本理论、国际经济法的中国立场、国际投资法、仲裁法等领域都出版了大量的著作，其中既包括高水平的论文，也包括很多教材和专著。
从这些研究可以看出，陈安教授在对国际经济法进行价值分析方面提出了很多具有启发性的观点。对于那些认同和高度评价现有国际经济法体制的专家和学者而言，这些观点未必能获得他们的赞同，但应当是可以激起进一步思考和讨论的重要阐释。其中体现的对国家利益的关切、对国际经济法发展方向的关切、对国际社会未来的关切，既有着一个学者追求学术真理的理想成分，也有着对于国际社会格局坚实认知的现实基础。
陈安先生的研究成果是国际法律文化的重要组成部分，这些著作是他贡献给中国学界和国际学界的宝贵财产。作品中不仅相关的内容和论断值得我们一再学习，而且其显示的独立学术品格，深切民族关怀，以及批判的研究方法也值得我们认真对待和深入借鉴。换言之，陈安先生放眼全球，立足中国，任你风向东南西北，我自岿然从容不迫，坚毅探求国际经济秩序之公正合理发展，由此鼓呼中国之立场方向，此一大端，中外学人已受益或将受益者必多。
Disregarding Whither the Wind Blows, Keeping Firm Confidence of His Owns
—A Revisit to Prof. CHEN's Research on NIEO
I. Two Mainstream Approaches of International Economic Law Research
As a part of the science of law, the studies on international economic law cannot really deviate from mainstream approaches of legal studies and create something totally new. Since the mainstream approaches of legal studies may be categorized into positivism and natural law theory[195], the means of studying international economic law may also classified into two streams, namely, descriptive studies and normative studies. Descriptive studies mainly try to illustrate existing rules, organizations, and operation, to explain the meaning of rules through semantic analysis, to discover the status of operation by analyzing statistics, or demonstrate achievements and problems arising from the enforcement of rules in practice based on case studies.[196]Normative studies need a set of principles of justice as prerequisite, and then, their main task is to make judgments on whether relative rules and practices may be regarded as legitimate through a critical, reflexive examination of such rules and practices, or to specify the area and direction of international economic law for improvement.[197]This approach is the specific embodiment of natural law approach from the field of legal theories into the field of international economic law, and should be regarded as an express value analysis.
Although at the superficial level these two approaches are different, they are closely related in many ways. A convincing value analysis must be based on solid positive studies, and many positive studies may implicitly include some basic value judgments behind it.[198]Thus, those who prefers positive studies and those who prefers values analysis should respect and appreciate each other instead of regarding implacably their own studies as the right approach and the other approach as wrong. Therefore, a good legal study may emphasis in a certain approach, but not choose one and abandon the other.
Professor An CHEN, as one of the top scholars in international economic law in China, has not only achieved a lot in positive studies in international investment law, but also tried much in critical studies in the orientations of international economic law, and put forward many inspiring points of view. The research on new international economic order (NIEO) along with the position of China in the process of it is a typical and representative part.
II. The Rise and Fall of NIEO
Professor An CHEN examined the background and history of setting up NIEO, and probed into the importance of NIEO in international society even in the 21st century. The NIEO movement, originated in the 1960s, may be understood as the continuation and upgrading of self-determination after the end of colonial times. The new independent states were not treated fairly since they had been invaded and exploited in the history and were still harmed by the international economic system at the time being.[199]The former suzerains, now acting as the promoter of international economic system and the creator of international law, took welfare and interest to their own territory by the rules they established, and made the developing states poor and weak. Such system cannot be legitimized.[200]According to Professor An CHEN, there are three most commonly observed defects of international economic law-making process: 1) It is up to the heads or representatives from several most developed countries to consult and manipulate secretly before a basic framework is determined. 2) Unfair and unreasonable voting mechanisms are enacted into the regime of global economic organizations in advance. 3) US, as the only superpower of the world, has been constantly pursuing the policy of “the superiority of US national interests” and “double standards towards itself and others ” in her participation in the decision making process of global economic issues.[201]
The proposition of NIEO should be regarded as efforts to get away with the old and set up the new, as well as a critical examiner of past traditions and a trail blazer for future generation. However, these efforts would definitely influence short-term and local interest of the developed countries. Hence, the developed countries' reaction towards NIEO was far from enthusiastic.[202]Some scholars from developed countries are inclined to argue that the documents proscribing the advocates of NIEO are not legally binding and cannot establish international legal obligations. The developed industrialized states reluctantly accepted some conditions such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to carry forward NIEO, to a large extent due to the pressure of Energy Crisis during the 1960s～1970s, plus the need for political balance during the Cold War.[203]
As soon as the Cold War ended, the voice of developing countries seeking for NIEO was submerged by two interlinked waves, namely neo-liberalism and globalization. De-regulation, privatization, and free market became overwhelming voice in the world. Main international economic institutions in the world, such as the WTO, the World Bank, and IMF, engaged in the establishment of “new” international economic laws based on the liberalist notions. It seemed that the development of international economic law was in the track of unilateral hegemony of liberalism and went directly to the “end of history”, meanwhile, the striving for NIEO was in a depressed stage.
Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. The history has not meeting its end. The universal dissemination of liberalism, in many occasions, has not made benefit for developing countries, and even made developed countries themselves in trouble by the bubbles named “financial innovation”.
What should the future of international economic law be?
III. China's Position in International Economic Law
The change of international law may occur in substantive matters, or in procedural matters. The change may be in a general and overall dimension, or may be in a specific and regional level. However, all changes must be initiated by the will and activities of actors. Such actors, although including intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multi-national companies (MNCs), and individuals, mainly appear as states. Since states are the most powerful, most influential, and most convenient to appear in international stage. If a State cannot form its own status clearly, and demonstrate it by academic, political, and legal means, the change of international regime may lose discourse of that state. This circumstance may not only affect the interest of a state, but the whole developing process of international law.
A comparatively balanced international legal system may only be possible based on the negotiation of states with various preference of interest and various idea of international mechanism, and such a negotiation may create deliberate democracy in international society. It is necessary to mention that an absolute balanced mechanism in international law never existed. Even in the case that all states have the opportunity to express their views, as a type of international game, the asymmetric powers of states may change into the contrast of bargaining power in international negotiation, and then result in a status that could be unfavorable for the weak parties.
During the course that China interacts with the current system of international economic law, China is faced with many tasks. For many scholars, it is a demanding mission, or even a considerable accomplishment for China to be involved in the current system, to understand the current system, and to participate in the current system. But for Professor An CHEN, this is not adequate. China still faces a more arduous, complicated, and significant task, that is to change the current system. This task seems to be unnecessary to some scholars because they regard international economic law regimes like the WTO as “model of international law”, or a perfect example of international rule of law. If it is really so, the change of the current system is not so desirable. Moreover, if the national interest of China is not substantially influenced by today's international regimes, China would not have the initiative to demand changing the present system. Further, if China is not a country with negotiation power and discourse influence, the impact of China's efforts on changing the present system would not be significant.
Surely, Professor An CHEN doesn't think so. He stresses: “As the largest developing country peacefully rising in the world, China should play an important role in the historical course of establishing the NIEO.”[204]
“Firstly, China should be the driving force of the establishment of the NIEO. …Secondly, China should dedicate herself to becoming one of the mainstays of ‘South-South Self-reliance through Cooperation’.… Thirdly, China should adhere firmly to her strategic objectives and principles accompanied by cooperating with all the weak states in the course of the establishment of the NIEO. …Fourthly, China should take a clear-cut stand and be in harmony with other countries while reserving differences in the course of establishing the NIEO.”[205]
It is true that international economic regimes like WTO has made substantial progresses compared with what we had before. However, judging from the interest of developing countries, they still lack fairness.[206]The special treatment for developing countries in the WTO after the Uruguay Round cannot really achieve the goal of capacity building for developing countries since most of them are just “soft measures” or merely setting up period of transition.[207]There are provisions in the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China which are obviously unfavorable for China, and cases have already shown that such provisions may take disadvantages to China. Now, China has already gained the position of a political and economic great power in the global scale, if she cannot show the image as a great power, assume the responsibility of a responsible states, cannot endeavor to establish a better international regime on behalf of a great number of states who, like China, are not advanced in science and technology, and not developed in industries, has a low GDP per capita, the development of herself would be negatively affected, and a just, stable, healthy, and sustainable development of international society would be difficult.
Therefore, China must take some positive actions. The position and specific suggestions that submitted by scholars of whom Professor An CHEN is a distinguished representative, may lay a solid foundation in academic and practice level for China's discourse in the evolution and innovation of international economic law & international economic order worldwide.
IV. Professor An CHEN's Academic Contribution
Professor An CHEN is very diligent in making research, he thinks about legal issues critically with a set of ideal based on third world interests, and has contributed a lot in fundamental theories of international economic law, the position of China in international economic law, international investment law, arbitration law and many other fields, by many works including high level articles as well as textbooks and monographs.
From these research works, it is not hard to find out that Professor An CHEN has provided many inspiring views in critical analysis on international law. These works embodied the author's concerns on national interest, concerns on the orientation of international economic law, concerns on the future of international society. They expressed the ideals of a scholar's seeking for academic truth, as well as a solid realistic basis for the constellation of international society. For those who agree with international economic law mechanism status quo and highly endorse it, these views may not be acceptable; however, they definitely present important discourse arousing further thinking and discussion.
Professor An CHEN's research achievements form an important part in international legal culture, and should be deemed as a treasure he contributed to the academia in China and the whole world. In his works, not only the substantive contents and conclusions are worth leaning repeatedly, but the independent academic spirit, deep concern on national interest, and critical research methodology are all worth taking seriously and drawing useful experiences. In other words, disregarding to whither the prevailing wind blows, Professor An CHEN has kept a firm confidence of his owns. His contributions are saliently featured by holding a firm Chinese stand while taking a global broad view, and by insistently pursuing the fair and reasonable development of international economic order, and thus advocating for China's self-position and orientation during this process, regardless of all kinds of voices otherwise preaching. With no doubt, scholars of international economic law, domestic or abroad, have greatly benefited from Professor An CHEN's works both in the sense of substantial viewpoints and methodological approach, and will keep benefiting therefrom in the future.
15. 老战士新呐喊 捍卫全球公义
——评《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》
《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》的出版，是国际经济法发展过程中一个里程碑性的标志。事实上，这本书是近年来论述国际经济新秩序问题唯一的最重要的著作。这本巨著800多页，从陈安教授过去30年取得的大量的学术成果中，遴选24篇代表性文章，汇辑而成。
该英文专著书稿获得“国家社会科学基金中华学术外译项目”的立项，据悉，这是我国国际经济法学界荣获此立项的第一例。依据全国社科规划办公室文件解释，“中华学术外译项目”是2010年由全国哲学社会科学规划领导小组批准设立的国家社科基金新的主要类别之一，旨在促进中外学术交流，推动我国哲学社会科学优秀成果和优秀人才走向世界。主要资助我国哲学社会科学研究的优秀成果以外文形式在国外权威出版机构出版，进入国外主流发行传播渠道，增进国外对当代中国、对中国哲学社会科学以及传统文化的了解，推动中外学术交流与对话，提高中国哲学社会科学的国际影响力。[209]
专家评审意见认为，陈安教授的这部英文专著“对海外读者全面了解中国国际经济法学者较有代表性的学术观点和主流思想具有重要意义。全书结构自成一体，观点新颖，具有中国风格和中国气派，阐释了不同于西方发达国家学者的创新学术理念和创新学术追求，致力于初步创立起以马克思主义为指导的具有中国特色的国际经济法理论体系，为国际社会弱势群体争取公平权益锻造了法学理论武器。”[210]
《中国的呐喊：陈安论国际经济法》是陈安教授站在中国和国际弱势群体的共同立场，践行知识报国夙志，投身国际学术争鸣之力作，也是其命名为“中国的呐喊”之由来。
《中国的呐喊》全书分为六部分，不仅分析国际经济法重大的理论问题，而且也从学理上讨论国际经济法的实际应用。它首先探讨国际经济法的一般理论原则，有力地论证了国际经济法的定义内涵。陈安教授认为，国际经济法乃是一门独立的学科，而不应仅仅被视为国际公法的一个分支部分。这部著作第一部分最有价值、犹如皇冠珠宝的地方，是针对当代经济主权的“大辩论”所作的精辟剖析。陈安教授批评了美国的单边主义，并与他所赞同的WTO多边主义加以比较，论证热烈而极具感染力。该著作还就中国对国际秩序诸多问题所持的各种主张，加以仔细分析并进行辩护。它是迄今针对中国在国际秩序中所持态度最好的陈述。《中国的呐喊》的第四、第五和第六部分，分别探讨了中外双边投资条约、中国的涉外经济立法以及中国参与国际经济争端解决等方面的法律问题。
《中国的呐喊》一书中的所有文章，都是陈安教授过去在各国发表的论文，它们具有三个共同特点。第一，他从历史、政治和经济综合的角度对法律问题进行探讨。虽然该书较少对国际经济法中的具体规则和案例进行学理分析，因此不能成为实务律师的参考书，但这本书的独到智慧在于深入探讨剖析国际上聚讼纷纭的各种问题，如国家主权、管理体制、经济民族主义、美国单边主义、“中国威胁论”等等。第二，陈安教授从南方国家的视角来分析和论证各种问题，也就是说，在南北两类国家有关国际经济秩序的分歧中他支持发展中国家的观点。但是，和某些持有“第三世界思路”的国际法学者的僵硬观点不同，陈安教授赞同多边主义，并认为国际经济秩序可以由诸如WTO之类的各种国际组织来驱动和引导。他似乎并不认为新自由主义是一种具有“原罪”的理念，它代表发达国家富豪们的利益压迫发展中国家穷苦大众。陈安教授主要是反对一些西方国家，特别是美国，鼓吹和实行单边主义。第三，陈安教授显然是一位爱国主义者，甚至是思想开明、毫无偏见的民族主义者[211]。他为维护中国在国际舞台上的既定立场和行动举止进行声辩，其满腔热忱，令人印象深刻。
本书作者陈安教授是中国最杰出的法律学者之一，他带头倡导从南方国家的视角（当然更多从中国的视角）看待国际经济法问题。陈安教授出生于1929年，经历了和见证了中国和全球在20世纪发生的许多最重要的事件。他在1949年之前的民国时代就接受了正规的法学教育，在1979年之后自学了中华人民共和国的法律体系和国际法。据报道，他在“文化大革命”之后，从1981～1982年开始致力于国际经济法的研究，并应邀到哈佛大学进行学术访问。[212]他在50多岁才开始接触国际经济法却能够成为该领域全球最著名的学者之一，可谓奇迹。更难能可贵的是，除了从事学术研究，他在重建厦门大学法学院中发挥了重大作用。厦门大学法学院在1953年全国性“院系调整”中被撤销，中断27年之后，直到1980年才重新组建，但现在已发展成为中国最顶尖的法学院之一。总之，陈安教授堪称是一位既博学多才又勤奋不息的天才人物。
An Old Warrior's New Defense of Global Justice
—Comments on The Voice from China
The publication of The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law represents a landmark development in the discourse of international economic law. As a matter of fact, it is the single most important book on the New International Economic Order (NIEL) published in recent years. This enormous book, featuring almost 800 pages, is a collection of 24 representative articles selected from the voluminous scholarship authored by Professor An Chen that spanned the past 30 years.
This English monograph has successfully won the support from the Chinese Academic Foreign Translation Project (CAFTP), making itself the first of such kind within the academic circle of International Economic Law in China. According to the official specifications[214]from the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC), CAFTP is one of the major categories of projects set by the NSSFC and approved by the National Philosophy and Social Science Planning Leading Group of China in 2010. This Project aims to promote Sino-foreign academic exchanges, and to facilitate the outstanding works as well as prominent scholars in the field of philosophy and social science towards the world's academic stage. For this purpose, a major part of such funding is allocated to sponsor the aforesaid achievements to be published in foreign language through authoritative publishers abroad. It is expected that, by such way of accessing and participating in foreign mainstream distribution channels, foreigners could have a better understanding of contemporary China, its philosophy and social sciences and its traditional culture. It is also expected that Sino-foreign academic exchange and dialogue would hence be more active, and the overseas influence of Chinese philosophy and social science would be enhanced.
In the Expert Review Report, some of the most professional peers opine that Prof. CHEN's book “contributes vastly in the sense of introducing onto the world arena a series of typical academic views and mainstream ideas of Chinese International Economic Law scholars. The whole book is well and uniquely structured, and loaded with creative points of views. With its obvious Chinese character and style, this book has illustrated various innovational academic ideals and pursuits that are different from those voices & views preached by some authoritative scholars from Western developed powers. The author has endeavored to create a specific Chinese theoretical system of International Economic Law under the guidance of Marxism, to further serve as a theoretical weapon for the weak groups of international society to fight for their equitable rights and interests.”[215]
“The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law” is a masterpiece of Prof. An CHEN to practice his lifetime will of serving the home country with knowledge and participating in the international competition of academic views. The whole book is based on the common stand of China and other international weak groups, and is indeed a strong & just Voice from China.
Divided into six parts, this magnificent book discusses both grand theories as well as practical doctrinal issues in international economic law (IEL). It starts with discussions on the general theories of international economic law, including a vigorous effort to define the IEL so that it can be an autonomous academic discipline—and so that it should not be regarded as merely part of public international law according to Prof. CHEN. However, the examination of the “Great Debates” on contemporary economic sovereignty forms the crown's jewels of this first part of the book. Professor CHEN’ critique of U.S. unilateralism, contrasted with his praise of multilateralism represented by the WTO, is powerful and passionate. The book also carefully examines and defends China's position on various issues concerning the international order. It offers by far the best account of China's attitude in this regard. Parts IV，V and VI examine, respectively, legal issues concerning Sino-Foreign bilateral investment treaties (BITs)，Sino-Foreign legislation and China's participation in the settlement of international economic disputes.
All the chapters, originally journal articles published by Professor CHEN in various places, have three common features. First, they all put legal issues in their historical, political and economic contexts. Although the book does not work much on doctrinal analysis of specific rules and cases in international economic law—and hence it cannot be treated as such a reference book by practicing lawyers, its wisdom lies more in the examination of international controversial issues such as sovereignty, regulatory space, economic nationalism, U.S. unilateralism, the China threat theory, etc. Second, it reasons from Southern perspective, meaning it sides with the developing countries in the North-South division in the international economic order. However, unlike many of the diehards in the camp of the Third World Approaches to International Law, An CHEN favors multilateralism as well as an international economic order driven and led by international institutions such as the WTO. He does not seem to view neoliberalism as an idea with the original sin of oppressing the poor people in the developing countries on behalf of the billionaires in the developed world. Rather, he is mainly opposed to the employment of unilateralism by some Western countries, especially the U.S. Third, Professor CHEN is obviously also a patriot and even an open-minded nationalist.[216]His passion to defend China's relevant positions and behaviors at the international level is remarkably impressive.
The author of the book, Professor An CHEN, is one of China's most prominent legal scholars and a leading advocate of the southern view of international economic law, of course more from a Chinese perspective. Born in 1929, Professor Chen has experienced or witnessed many of the most important events in China and the world in the 20th century. His legal education walks from formal legal education during the Republic of China period before 1949 to self-education of the PRC legal system and international law after 1979. Reportedly, he started to devote his energy to international economic law during 1981～1982, when, after Cultural Revolution, he was invited to be a visiting scholar at Harvard.[217]It is however a miracle that he was able to turn himself into one of the world's most distinguished scholars in this field given that he only started to learn and work on IEL after he was 50 years old. More mysteriously, besides his research, he also played a major role in reestablishing the Xiamen University Law School, which was once interrupted and dismantled for 27 years since the 1953 nationwide “School Adjustments” until 1980, and developed it into one of the very best law schools in China. By all means, Professor CHEN deserves to be called a genius who is both talented and hardworking.
（编辑：龚宇、杨帆）
[1] 陈欣系厦门大学法学院国际经济法研究所副教授，杨帆系厦门大学法学院国际经济法研究所助理教授。
[2] 见新华网：《习近平在联合国教科文组织总部的演讲》，http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2014-03/28/c_119982831.htm，2014年3月28日。
[3] 见新华网：《习近平接受拉美四国媒体联合采访》，http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-07/15/c_126752272.htm，2014年7月15日。
[4] See Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping 's Speech at UNESCO Headquarts,http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2014-03/28/c_119982831.htm.
[5] See Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping was Interviewed by the Media from Four Countries in Latin America, http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-07/15/c_126752272.htm, July 15, 2014.
[6] 作者系中国人民大学国际法学教授，法学界老前辈，2012年曾获“全国杰出资深法学家”荣誉称号。
[7] Senior Professor of International Law, Renmin University of China; widely recognized predecessor within jurisprudential circle, awarded with the honorable title “National Eminent & Senior Jurist” in 2012.
[8] 作者曹建明系最高人民检察院检察长，国际经济法教授，原华东政法学院院长。
[9] The Author, Cao Jianming, Procurator-General of PRC; Professor of Law.
[10] 号子，指集体劳动中协同用力时，为统一步调、减轻疲劳所唱的歌，大都由一人领唱，大家应和。参见《现代汉语词典》（第5版），商务印书馆2005年版，第545页。
[11] 作者系武汉大学资深教授、长江学者特聘教授、国际法研究所所长。
[12]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.3-29.
[13]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.207-239.
[14]An CHEN, On the Source, Essence of “Yellow Peril” Doctrine and Its Latest Hegemony “Variant”—The “China Threat” Doctrine: From the Perspective of Historical Mainstream of Sino-foreign Economic Interactions and Their Inherent Jurisprudential Principles, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.45-99.
[15]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.167-206.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.207-239.
[19]See Branislav Gosovic, WTO Citadel Needs to be Challenged by the South; An Important and Creative Contribution from China to the Ideology of Third World; both compiled in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, Annex, pp.754-765.
[20] Yangtse River Scholar Professor; Senior Professor of International Law, Wuhan University, China.
[21]See An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.3-29.
[22]See An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.207-239.
[23]See An CHEN, On the Source, Essence of “Yellow Peril” Doctrine and Its Latest Hegemony “Variant”—The “China Threat” Doctrine: From the Perspective of Historical Mainstream of Sino-foreign Economic Interactions and Their Inherent Jurisprudential Principles, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.45-99.
[24]See An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.167-206.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27]See An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.207-239.
[28]See Branislav Gosovic, WTO Citadel Needs to be Challenged by the South; An Important and Creative Contribution from China to the Ideology of Third World; both compiled in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, Annex, pp.754-765.
[29] 作者系清华大学法学院教授，清华大学法学院原院长。
[30] 高鸿钧：《美国法全球化：典型例证与法理反思》，载于《中国法学》2011年第1期，第5页。
[31] 张文显著：《法哲学范畴研究》（修订版），中国政法大学出版社2001年版，第195页。
[32]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.27.
[33]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.203.
[34] Ibid., p.204.
[35] 四大“安全阀”是指在处理东道国与外国投资者的关系时，有利于东道国的“逐案审批同意”权、“当地救济优先”权、“东道国法律适用”权和“重大安全例外”权。
[36]An CHEN, Should the Four “Great Safeguards” in Sino-foreign BITs Be Hastily Dismantled? Comments on Critical Provisions Concerning Dispute Settlement in Model US and Canadian BITs, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.273.
[37]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.5.
[38]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.234.
[39]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.246.
[40]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.212.
[41] Ibid., p.v.
[42]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.3.
[43]An CHEN, On the Misunderstanding Relating to China's Current Developments of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.32-43.
[44] Professor of Law, Former Dean of Law School, Tsinghua University, China.
[45]Gao Hongjun, The Globalization of American Law, China Legal Science, Vol. 1, 2011, p.5.
[46]Zhang Wenxian, Studies on Basic Categories of Legal Philosophy (revised edition), Press of Chinese University of Politics and Law, 2001, p.195.
[47]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.27.
[48]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.203.
[49] Ibid., p.204.
[50] The four Great Safeguards include the four rights of the host country in its relations with foreign investors, namely, the right to “consent case by case”, the right to require “exhausting local remedies”, the right to “apply host country's laws” and the right to invoke the “exception for state essential security.”
[51]An CHEN, Should the Four “Great Safeguards” in Sino-foreign BITs Be Hastily Dismantled? Comments on Critical Provisions Concerning Dispute Settlement in Model US and Canadian BITs, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.273.
[52]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.5.
[53]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.234.
[54]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.246.
[55]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.212.
[56]An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.v.
[57]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.3.
[58]An CHEN, On the Misunderstanding Relating to China's Current Developments of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.32-43.
[59] 习近平主席在接受拉美四国媒体的联合采访时表示，中国“将更多提出中国方案、贡献中国智慧，为国际社会提供更多公共产品”，详见新华网：《习近平接受拉美四国媒体联合采访》，at http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-07/15/c_126752272.htm，2014年7月15日。
[60] 作者系南开大学教授、美国乔治敦大学客座教授、世界银行咨询专家。
[61] 新华网：《习近平：携手合作，共同发展——在金砖国家领导人第五次会晤时的主旨讲话》，at http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2013-03/27/c_124511954.htm，2013年3月27日。
[62] 新华网：《习近平接受拉美四国媒体联合采访》，at http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-07/15/c_126752272.htm，2014年7月15日。
[63] 新华网：《习近平：加快实施自由贸易区战略，加快构建开放型经济新体制》，at http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2014-12/06/c_1113546075.htm，2014年12月7日。
[64] 赵龙跃：《中国参与国际规则制定的问题与对策》，载于《人民论坛·学术前沿》2012年第16期，第84～94页。
[65]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.241-269.
[66]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.167-206.
[67] 〔美〕约翰·杰克逊著：《国家主权与WTO：变化中的国际法基础》，赵龙跃、左海聪、盛建明译，社会科学文献出版社2009年版，第65～93页。
[68]An CHEN, On the Implications for Developing Countries of “the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate” and the EC-US Economic Sovereignty Disputes, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.159-163.
[69]An CHEN, The Three Big Rounds of US Unilateralism Versus WTO Multilateralism During the Last Decade: A Combined Analysis of the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate Section 301 Disputes (1998～2000) and Section 201 Disputes (2002～2003), in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.103-158.
[70] Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping was Interviewed by the Media from Four Countries in Latin America, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-07/15/c_126752272.htm, July 15, 2014.
[71] Professor of Nankai University, Adjunct Professor of Georgetown University and the World Bank Consultant.
[72] Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping: Cooperate Jointly and Develop Jointly—Speech in the Fifth Summit of BRICS Leaders, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2013-03/27/c_124511954.htm, March 27, 2013.
[73] Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping was Interviewed by the Media in Four Countries from Latin America, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-07/15/c_126752272.htm, July 15, 2014.
[74] Xinhuanet, Xi Jinping: Accelerate Implementing Strategy of Free Trade Zone and Building New Open Economy System, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2014-12/06/c_1113546075.htm, December 7, 2014.
[75]Zhao Longyue, Problems and Countermeasures of China's Participation in Making International Rules, People's Tribune·Academic Frontier, No. 16, 2012, pp.84-94.
[76]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.241-269.
[77]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.167-206.
[78]John H. Jackson, Sovereignty, the WTO, and Changing Fundamentals of International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2006. Chinese version State Sovereignty, the WTO: Changing Fundamentals of International Law is translated by Zhao Longyue, Zuo Haicong and Sheng Jianming. Social Sciences Academic Press, November, 2009, pp.65-93.
[79]An CHEN, On the Implications for Developing Countries of “the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate” and the EC-US Economic Sovereignty Disputes, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.159-163.
[80]An CHEN, The Three Big Rounds of US Unilateralism Versus WTO Multilateralism During the Last Decade: A Combined Analysis of the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate Section 301 Disputes (1998～2000) and Section 201 Disputes (2002～2003), in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.103-158.
[81] 作者系韩国东国大学法学院教授，李儁（YIJUN）国际法研究院院长，《东亚与国际法学刊》主编。
[82]参见A Dialogue with Judicial Wisdom, Prof. An CHEN: A Flag-Holder Chinese Scholar Advocating Reform of International Economic Law, Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol.4, No. 2, pp.477-502; The Voice from China, pp.xxxi-lviii.
[83]Dong Chen, Who Threatens Whom? The ‘Chinese Treat’ and the Bush Doctrine, Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol. 7, 2014, p.32.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Ibid., pp. 39-40.
[86]G. Ikenberry, America's Imperial Ambitions, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, 2002, p.44.
[87]Dong Chen, Who Threatens Whom? The ‘Chinese Treat’ and the Bush Doctrine, Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol. 7, 2014, pp.42-43.
[88]An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014, pp.64-65.并参见陈安：《评“黄祸”论的本源、本质及其最新霸权“变种”：“中国威胁”论》，载于《现代法学》2011年第6期，第20～21页。
[89] Ibid.
[90] Professor of Dongguk University College of Law; President of YIJUN Institute of International Law, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of East Asia and International Law.
[91]See A Dialogue with Judicial Wisdom, Prof. An CHEN: A Flag-Holder Chinese Scholar Advocating Reform of International Economic Law, Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol.4, No. 2, pp.477-502; The Voice from China, pp.xxxi-lviii.
[92]Dong Chen, Who Threatens Whom? The ‘Chinese Treat’ and the Bush Doctrine, Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol. 7, 2014, p.32.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid., pp. 39-40.
[95]G. Ikenberry, America's Imperial Ambitions, Foreign Affairs, Vol.81, 2002, p.44
[96]Dong Chen, Who Threatens Whom? The ‘Chinese Treat’ and the Bush Doctrine, Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol. 7, 2014, pp.42-43.
[97]An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014, pp.64-65. See also, An CHEN, On the Source, Essence of “Yellow Peril” Doctrine and its Latest Hegemony “Variant”—the “China Threat”, Modern Law Science, No. 6, 2011, pp.20-21.
[98] An CHEN, The Voice from China, pp.67-68; An CHEN, On the Source, Essence of “Yellow Peril” Doctrine and its Latest Hegemony “Variant”—the “China Threat”, p.22.
[99] 作者系英国苏格兰邓迪大学教授、联合国教科文组织（UNESCO）水法科学中心前主任。
[100] Professor of International Law, Xiamen School of Law, Director, China International Water Law programme, www.chinainternationalwaterlaw.org (formerly, Director, University of Dundee UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science, Scotland)，Email: p.k.wouters@xmu.edu.cn.
[101] 作者系中国国际经济法学会原会员，若干仲裁机构仲裁员。
[102]See An CHEN, The Truth Among the Fogbound “Expropriation” Claim: Comments on British X Investment Co. Versus British Y Insurance Co. Case; The Approach of “Winning from Both Sides” Used in the “Expropriation” Claim: Re-comments on British X Investment Co. Versus British Y Insurance Co. Case; On the Serious Violation of Chinese Jus Cogens: Comments on the Case of Importing Toxic Brazilian Soybeans into China (Expert's Legal Opinion on Zhonghe Versus Bunge Case); Isn't the Strict Prohibition on Importing Toxic Brazilian Soybeans into China “Illegal”?—A Rebuttal to Lawyer Song's Allegation, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.635-716.
[103]See Michael Hwang and Amy Lai, Do Egregious Errors Amount to a Breach of Public Policy? Arbitration, Vol. 71, No.1, 2005, pp.1-24; Michael Huang, Do Egregious Errors Amount to a Breach of Public Policy? Arbitration, Vol. 71, No. 4, 2005, pp.364-371.
[104] Ibid., p.24.
[105]See Michael Hwang and Amy Lai, Do Egregious Errors Amount to a Breach of Public Policy? Arbitration, Vol. 71, No.1, 2005, p.24. And the Note 21 on the same page: The errors considered material were that the arbitrator: (1) failed to apply his mind properly to certain questions he had to decide; … (4) failed to decide another material question, which effectively resulted in a ruling favoring one party, paras. 10.8-10.84.
[106] 引自陈安著：《国际经济法刍言》，北京大学出版社2005年版，自序。
[107]Council member of the Chinese Society of International Economic Law; arbitrators with SCIA, CIETAC and Shanghai International Arbitration Centre. The author is grateful to Brian C. W. Wong, Barrister of Hong Kong and Prof. Thomas Chiu of HKCT Institute of Social Science for their valuable pieces of advice, such as on idiomatical ways of saying things.
[108]See An CHEN, The Truth Among the Fogbound “Expropriation” Claim: Comments on British X Investment Co. Versus British Y Insurance Co. Case; The Approach of “Winning from Both Sides” Used in the “Expropriation” Claim: Re-comments on British X Investment Co. Versus British Y Insurance Co. Case; On the Serious Violation of Chinese Jus Cogens: Comments on the Case of Importing Toxic Brazilian Soybeans into China (Expert's Legal Opinion on Zhonghe Versus Bunge Case); Isn't the Strict Prohibition on Importing Toxic Brazilian Soybeans into China “Illegal”?—A Rebuttal to Lawyer Song's Allegation, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014, pp.635-716.
[109]See An CHEN, On the Serious Violation of Chinese Jus Cogens: Comments on the Case of Importing Toxic Brazilian Soybeans into China (Expert's Legal Opinion on Zhonghe Versus Bunge Case), in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.679. About this view point, Barrister Brian C. W. Wang from Hong Kong, who majoring in law for many years in British, is of the opinion: This may not be an accurate position of English law.
[110] Ibid.
[111]See An CHEN, The Truth Among the Fogbound “Expropriation” Claim: Comments on British X Investment Co. Versus British Y Insurance Co. Case, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.643.
[112] Ibid., pp.643-646.
[113]See An CHEN, On the Serious Violation of Chinese Jus Cogens: Comments on the Case of Importing Toxic Brazilian Soybeans into China (Expert's Legal Opinion on Zhonghe Versus Bunge Case), in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013,pp.687-688.
[114] See Art 6 of the CISG.
[115]See An CHEN, On the Serious Violation of Chinese Jus Cogens: Comments on the Case of Importing Toxic Brazilian Soybeans into China (Expert's Legal Opinion on Zhonghe Versus Bunge Case), in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.687-689.
[116] Quoted from the English Edition of the Contract Act of PRC by Harmony Consultants Ltd.
[117]See Michael Hwang and Amy Lai, Do Egregious Errors Amount to a Breach of Public Policy? Arbitration, Vol. 71, No.1, 2005, p.24. And the Note 21 on the same page: The errors considered material were that the arbitrator: (1) failed to apply his mind properly to certain questions he had to decide; … (4) failed to decide another material question, which effectively resulted in a ruling favoring one party, paras. 10.8-10.84.
[118] Ibid., pp.1-24.
[119] Ibid., p.24.
[120]An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014, pp.li-lii.
[121] 石静霞，对外经济贸易大学法学院教授、博士生导师，对外经济贸易大学法学院院长。
[122] 孙英哲，对外经济贸易大学法学院2014级博士研究生。
[123] The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014.
[124] Ibid., pp.337-372.
[125] Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited v. Kingdom of Belgium, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/29.
China Heilongjiang International Economic & Technical Cooperative Corp., Beijing Shougang Mining Investment Company Ltd., and Qinhuangdaoshi Qinlong International Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Mongolia, PCA.
Beijing Urban Construction Group Co.ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/30.
[126] 该法第153条第1款规定：“中华人民共和国缔结的国际协议，中央人民政府可根据香港特别行政区的情况和需要，在征询香港特别行政区政府的意见后，决定是否适用于香港特别行政区。”
[127] Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People's Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6.
[128] Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People's Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6.
[129] “谢业深案”的裁定仅援引了VCLT，并未引用VCST进行论证。
[130]该法第15条“对领土一部分的继承”规定：
“对领土一部分的继承
一国领土的一部分，或虽非一国领土的一部分但其国际关系由该国负责的任何领土，成为另一国领土的一部分时：
（a）被继承国的条约，自国家继承日期起，停止对国家继承所涉领土生效，
（b）继承国的条约，自国家继承日期起，对国家继承所涉领土生效，但从条约可知或另经确定该条约对该领土的适用不合条约的目的和宗旨或者根本改变实施条约的条件时，不在此限。”
[131] Tza Yap Shum v. Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6), 76.
[132] Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People's Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6.
[133] Ibid.
[134] 该法第31条第1款规定：“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。”
[135] 中国—秘鲁BIT第8条第3款规定：“如涉及征收补偿款额的争议，在诉诸本条第1款的程序后6个月内仍未能解决，可应任何一方的要求，将争议提交根据1965年3月18日在华盛顿签署的《关于解决国家与他国国民之间投资争端公约》设立的‘解决投资争端国际中心’进行仲裁。缔约一方的投资者和缔约另一方之间有关其他事项的争议，经双方同意，可提交该中心。如有关投资者诉诸了本条第2款所规定的程序，本款规定不应适用。”
[136] 中国—秘鲁BIT第1条第2款第1项。
[137] 该法第3条规定：“中华人民共和国不承认中国公民具有双重国籍。”第4条规定：“父母双方或一方为中国公民，本人出生在中国，具有中国国籍。”
[138] 回归后的香港在国际法意义上成为中国领土的一部分，香港公民获得中国国籍。
[139] 在英国与秘鲁签订BIT时，香港仍然在国际法意义上是英国的领土。
[140]详见 The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014，pp.341-348；并参见《〈中国—秘鲁1994年双边投资协定〉可否适用于“一国两制”下的中国香港特别行政区》，载于《陈安论国际经济法学》（五卷本），复旦大学出版社2008年版，第1155-1162页。
[141] The Voice from China: An Chen on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014, p.344.
[142] Ibid., p.343.
[143] 例如：由于《中英联合声明》并不对香港政府自动生效，因此香港政府的措施并不受《中英联合声明》的拘束，而只受到中国《香港特别行政区基本法》及其项下法律法规的规制。因此英国下议院于2014年12月16日对占中分子进行听证，并决定对香港政局作出调查的行为是于法无据的。“下议院听证占中分子”，详见Evidence Session Announced With Protesters From Hong Kong, http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news/hong-kong-evidence-wprotesters/，http://club.china.com/data/thread/1011/2775/44/18/5_1.html，访问时间：2014年12月20日。
[144] 参见《香港大学生赴英“听证” 声称英国应重启〈南京条约〉》，http://club.china.com/data/thread/1011/2775/44/18/5_1.html。
[145] 参见《英质询联合声明在港实施 中国强烈不满》，http://es.miqisq.com/portal.php?mod=view&aid=2005。
[146] 参见《外交部发言人华春莹主持例行记者会》，2014/12/03，http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/fyrbt_602243/t1216342.shtml。
[147] 全国哲学社会科学规划办公室的“关于《中国的呐喊》书稿的专家评审意见”，2013年11月22日。
[148] 参见汪洋：《加强涉外法律工作》，载于《人民日报》2014年11月6日第六版。
[149] The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2014, p.273.
[150] 作者系中国政法大学教授，国际法学院院长。
[151] Professor of Law, Dean of International Law School, China University of Political Science and Law. An initial English version, which is primarily based on the Chinese version, was prepared by Tianqi Yu.
[152] 作者系西安交通大学法学院腾飞人才特聘教授，原西北政法大学国际法学院院长。
[153]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.8-12.
[154]An CHEN, On the Misunderstanding Relating to China's Current Developments of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.34.
[155]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.204.
[156]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.174-175.
[157]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.245-248.
[158]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.190-204.
[159]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.207.
[160]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.233-238.
[161]An CHEN, To Open Wider or to Close Again: China's Foreign Investment Policies and Laws; To Close Again or to Open Wider: The Sino-US Economic Interdependence and the Legal Environment for Foreign Investment in China After Tiananmen, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.407, 453.
[162]An CHEN, Should the Four “Great Safeguards” in Sino-foreign BITs Be Hastily Dismantled? Comments on Critical Provisions Concerning Dispute Settlement in Model US and Canadian BITs; Distinguishing Two Types of Countries and Properly Granting Differential Reciprocity Treatment: Re-comments on the Four Safeguards in Sino-Foreign BITs Not to Be Hastily and Completely Dismantled; Should “The Perspective of South-North Contradictions” Be Abandoned: Focusing on 2012 Sino-Canada BIT, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.273, 309, 373.
[163]An CHEN, On the Supervision Mechanism of Chinese Foreign-Related Arbitration and Its Tally with International Practices, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.581.
[164]An CHEN, The Three Big Rounds of US Unilateralism Versus WTO Multilateralism During the Last Decade: A Combined Analysis of the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate Section 301 Disputes (1998～2000) and Section 201 Disputes (2002～2003); On the Implications for Developing Countries of “the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate” and the EC-US Economic Sovereignty Disputes, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.103, 159.
[165] Professor of Law, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China; Former Dean of International Law School, North-Western University of Political Science and Law, China.
[166]An CHEN, On the Marginality, Comprehensiveness, and Independence of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.8-12.
[167]An CHEN, On the Misunderstanding Relating to China's Current Developments of International Economic Law Discipline, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.34.
[168]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.204.
[169]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.245-248.
[170]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.190-204.
[171]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalistic Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.174-175.
[172]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.207.
[173]An CHEN, A Reflection of the South-South Coalition in the Last Half Century from the Perspective of International Economic Lawmaking: From Bandung, Doha, and Cancun to Hong Kong, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.233-238.
[174]An CHEN, To Open Wider or to Close Again: China's Foreign Investment Policies and Laws; To Close Again or to Open Wider: The Sino-US Economic Interdependence and the Legal Environment for Foreign Investment in China After Tiananmen, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.407, 453.
[175]An CHEN, Should the Four “Great Safeguards” in Sino-foreign BITs Be Hastily Dismantled? Comments on Critical Provisions Concerning Dispute Settlement in Model US and Canadian BITs; Distinguishing Two Types of Countries and Properly Granting Differential Reciprocity Treatment: Re-comments on the Four Safeguards in Sino-Foreign BITs Not to Be Hastily and Completely Dismantled; Should “The Perspective of South-North Contradictions” Be Abandoned: Focusing on 2012 Sino-Canada BIT, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.273, 309, 373.
[176]An CHEN, On the Supervision Mechanism of Chinese Foreign-Related Arbitration and Its Tally with International Practices, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.581.
[177]An CHEN, The Three Big Rounds of US Unilateralism Versus WTO Multilateralism During the Last Decade: A Combined Analysis of the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate Section 301 Disputes (1998～2000) and Section 201 Disputes (2002～2003); On the Implications for Developing Countries of “the Great 1994 Sovereignty Debate” and the EC-US Economic Sovereignty Disputes, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.103, 159.
[178] 作者系中国人民大学法学院教授，WTO争端解决专家组指示性名单成员。
[179] Professor of Law, Renmin University of China; Panelist of WTO/DSB.
[180] 作者系2011计划·司法文明协同创新中心成员，吉林大学法学院、公共外交学院教授。
[181]Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th ed., Routledge, 1997, pp.15-18.
[182]E.g., Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Economic Law, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2008.
[183]E.g., Andrew Land, World Trade Law after Neoliberalism: Re-imagining the Global Economic Order, Oxford University Press, 2011.
[184]John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2011, pp.27-29, 281-285; Robert George, In Defense of Natural Law, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp.108-109.
[185] 陈安主编：《国际经济法学专论》，高等教育出版社2002年版，第31～32、38～39页。
[186]Phillippe Sands, Lawless World: Making and Breaking Global Rules, Penguin Books, 2005, p.95.
[187]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.243-244.
[188] “第二次世界大战结束以来，众多发展中国家强烈要求彻底改变数百年殖民统治所造成的本民族的积贫积弱，要求彻底改变世界财富国际分配的严重不公，要求更新国际经济立法，建立起公平合理的国际经济新秩序。但是，这些正当诉求，却不断地遭到了在国际社会中为数不多的发达强国即原先殖民主义强国的阻挠和破坏。它们凭借其长期殖民统治和殖民掠夺积累起来的强大经济实力，千方百计地维持和扩大既得利益，维护既定的国际经济立法和国际经济旧秩序。由于南北实力对比的悬殊，发展中国家共同实现上述正当诉求的进程，可谓步履维艰，进展缓慢。”参见陈安：《中国加入WTO十年的法理断想：简论WTO的法治、立法、执法、守法与变法》，载于《现代法学》2010年第6期。
[189]John W. Yound and John Kent, International Relations Since 1945, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2013, pp.274, 303.
[190] 陈安：《论中国在建立国际经济新秩序中的战略定位——兼评“新自由主义经济秩序”论、“WTO宪政秩序”论、“经济民族主义扰乱全球化秩序”论》，载于《现代法学》2009年第2期，第4页。
[191]陈安：《论中国在建立国际经济新秩序中的战略定位——兼评“新自由主义经济秩序”论、“WTO宪政秩序”论、“经济民族主义扰乱全球化秩序”论》，载于《现代法学》2009年第2期，第7～8页；《再论旗帜鲜明地确立中国在构建NIEO中的战略定位——兼论与时俱进，完整、准确地理解邓小平“对外28字方针”》，载于《国际经济法学刊》2009年第16卷第3期；陈安：《三论中国在构建NIEO中的战略定位：“匹兹堡发韧之路”走向何方——G20南北合作新平台的待解之谜以及“守法”与“变法”等理念碰撞》，载于《国际经济法学刊》2009年第16卷第4期；An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalist Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.169, 174-175.
[192]M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenmaum, and P. C. Mavoidis, The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2006, pp.912-913.
[193]E.-U. Petersmann (ed.), Reforming the World Trade Organization: Legitimacy, Efficiency, and Democratic Governance, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp.233-274.
[194] Professor of Law, Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, Jilin University, China.
[195]Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th ed., Routledge, 1997, pp.15-18.
[196]E.g., Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Economic Law, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2008.
[197]E.g., Andrew Land, World Trade Law after Neoliberalism: Re-imagining the Global Economic Order, Oxford University Press, 2011.
[198]John Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2011, pp.27-29, 281-285; Robert George, In Defense of Natural Law, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp.108-109.
[199]An CHEN (ed.), Problems of International Economic Law (in Chinese), Higher Education Press, 2002, pp.31-32, 38-39.
[200]Phillippe Sands, Lawless World: Making and Breaking Global Rules, Penguin Books, 2005, p.95.
[201]An CHEN, Some Jurisprudential Thoughts upon WTO's Law-Governing, Law-Making, Law-Enforcing, Law-Abiding, and Law-Reforming, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.243-244.
[202]Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th ed., Routledge, 1997, pp.27, 233-235.
[203]John W. Yound and John Kent, International Relations Since 1945, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2013, pp.274, 303.
[204]An CHEN, “What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalist Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization”, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, p.169.
[205]An CHEN, What Should Be China's Strategic Position in the Establishment of New International Economic Order? With Comments on Neoliberalist Economic Order, Constitutional Order of the WTO, and Economic Nationalism's Disturbance of Globalization, in An CHEN, The Voice from China: An CHEN on International Economic Law, Springer, 2013, pp.169, 174-175.
[206]M. Matsushita, T. J. Schoenmaum, and P. C. Mavoidis, The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2006, pp.912-913.
[207]E.-U. Petersmann (ed.), Reforming the World Trade Organization: Legitimacy, Efficiency, and Democratic Governance, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp.233-274.
[208] 作者系新加坡国立大学法学院副教授，亚洲法律研究中心副主任。
[209] 全国哲学社会科学规划办公室“国家社科基金中华学术外译项目申报问答”，at http://www.npopss-cn.gov.cn/n/2013/0228/c234664-20635114.html。
[210] 全国哲学社会科学规划办公室“关于《中国的呐喊》书稿的专家评审意见”，2013年11月22日。
[211]The scientific and detailed analysis on nationalism by Prof.CHEN，See The Voice from China, Springer Press, 2014，pp.200-203.对“民族主义”一词的科学解读和具体剖析，参见《陈安论国际经济法学》（五卷本），复旦大学出版社2008年版，第130～134页。
[212]See Prof. Eric Yong Joong Lee, A Dialogue with Judicial Wisdom, Prof. An CHEN: A Flag-Holder Chinese Scholar Advocating Reform of International Economic Law, published in The Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol. 4, No.2, Autumn 2011, pp.477-514. Korean Prof. Eric Lee is now the Editor-in-Chief of the said Journal.This long Dialogue with 28 pages is now compiled in the Introdction of the English monograph The Voice fromChina, Springer Press, 2014，pp.xxxi-lviii.
[213] Professor of Law, Deputy Director, Centre for Asian Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.
[214] See“Q & A upon the Application for the Chinese Academic Foreign Translation Project(CAFTP) under the National Social Science Fund of China(NSSFC)”, http://www.npopss-cn.gov.cn/n/2013/0228/c234664-20635114.html.
[215]See Expert Review Report on the monograph manuscript of “The Voice from China”，issued by CAFTP under the National Social Science Fund of China(NSSFC),Nov.22,2013.
[216]For scientific and detailed analysis on nationalism by Prof.CHEN，see The Voice from China, Springer Press, 2014，pp.200-203.
[217]See Prof. Eric Yong Joong Lee, A Dialogue with Judicial Wisdom, Prof. An CHEN: A Flag-Holder Chinese Scholar Advocating Reform of International Economic Law, published in The Journal of East Asia and International Law, Vol. 4, No.2, Autumn 2011, pp.477-514.Korean Prof. Eric Lee is now the Editor-in-Chief of the said Journal.This long Dialogue with 28 pages is now compiled in the Introdction of the English monograph The Voice from China, Springer Press, 2014，pp.xxxi-lviii.