For a summary of sentencing in the Rio Tinto case, click here, and here for a radio interview with Professor Jerome A. Cohen on the verdict (includes transcript).

By Jerome Cohen and Yu-Jie Chen
中文版

The Chinese Government’s refusal to allow Australian Government consular officials to observe the secret portion of the Rio Tinto trial was supposedly based on the alleged superiority of Chinese domestic law over China’s international obligation under the Sino-Australian Consular Convention. On March 19 MOFA spokesperson Qin Gang said the case would be handled according to Chinese laws. In rejecting the Australian Government claim to have the right of consular attendance even at the closed portion of the trial, Qin said:”We should not confound the consular agreement with sovereignty, especially judicial sovereignty….The decision of a closed-door trial was made based on Chinese law...”

This was a dangerous assertion that China’s formal international binding obligations cannot be relied upon if the Chinese Government later decides that the demands of sovereignty override them.

Yet it now appears that MOFA’s position and the decision of the Shanghai Intermediate Court No. 1 to exclude the Australian consuls violated existing Chinese law, which since 1995 has explicitly instructed China’s courts to permit foreign consular representation even at non-public trials.

Article 6 (1) of the Instruction on the Handling of Certain Problems in Foreign-Related Cases, issued jointly by MOFA itself together with the most authoritative criminal justice agencies in China (the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuracy, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, and the Ministry of Justice) on June 20, 1995, instructs the courts to allow foreign consular attendance at non-public trials, including criminal trials, whenever there is a provision for this in consular agreements, as there is in the Sino-Australian agreement. Moreover, Article 1 (3)) of the Instruction states that whenever there may be a conflict between China’s domestic law and its international obligations, its international obligations must prevail except where the Chinese government has made a reservation. It goes on to say “the authorities shall not refuse the obligations in international treaties by invoking domestic laws.” This Instruction remains in effect today.

It is difficult to understand how MOFA, the Shanghai Intermediate Court and Professor Wan Xia of the International Law Department of China Foreign Affairs University could have been ignorant of this Instruction, which Chinese courts obeyed until recently. China’s courts used to admit foreign consuls to closed trials in accordance with the Instruction. The Rio Tinto case is not the only recent case in which the courts and MOFA have violated the Instruction, which is an official interpretation of China’s obligations under relevant consular conventions such as Australia’s. Last summer the United States government’s claim to send consuls to observe the trial of American citizen XUE Feng on charges of gathering intelligence for overseas organizations” and “illegally providing state secrets” related to the oil industry, a trial that has not yet been concluded, was also rejected. Apparently neither the Australian Government nor the United States Government was aware of the Instruction, which makes clear that China’s courts are to implement — not contradict — China’s international obligations. So it turns out that it is MOFA and the Shanghai Intermediate Court that have violated China’s exercise of its “judicial sovereignty,” to the detriment of the Australian defendant, Sino-Australian relations and China’s reputation for respecting international law.

Cited Provisions of the Instruction on the Handling of Certain Problems in Foreign-Related Cases:
Article 1 (3): 处理涉外案件，在对等互惠原则的基础上，严格履行我国所承担的国际条约义务。当国内法或者我内部规定同我国所承担的国际条约义务发生冲突时，应当适用国际条约的有关规定（我国声明保留的条款除外）。各主管部门不应当以国内法或者内部规定为由拒绝履行我国所承担的国际条约规定的义务。Back To Top

Article 6(1): 外国驻华使、领馆官员要求旁听涉外案件的公开审理，应向各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院提出申请，有关法院应予安排。旁听者应遵守人民法院的法庭规则。
对于依法不公开审理的涉外案件，外国驻华使、领馆官员要求旁听的，如有关国家与我国已签订的领事条约中明确承担有关义务的，应履行义务；未明确承担有关义务的，应根据我国法律规定，由主管部门商同级外事部门解决。Back To Top

力拓案、国际法及中国法

孔杰荣（柯恩）、陈玉洁

中国政府拒绝澳大利亚领事官员旁听“力拓案”不公开审理的部分，按理说是基于中国国内法优于《中澳领事协定》国际法义务的立场。3月19日，外交部发言人秦刚表示，力拓案依据中国法律处理。针对澳大利亚政府先前主张领事官员有权旁听审判，即使是不公开审理，秦刚驳斥说：“不要混淆一个国家的主权，特别是司法主权和《中澳领事协定》的关系…不公开审理决定是依据中国法律的规定。”

这无异是一个危险的主张：如果中国政府后来决定主权的需求压倒国际义务，就不能指望中国履行其正式承担、具有拘束力的国际法义务。

而今看来，外交部的立场和上海市第一中级人民法院不允许澳方领事旁听的决定，实际上违反了中国国内法律，因相关规定在1995年就已明白要求中国法院允许外国领事官员旁听审判，即使是不公开审理案件。

1995年6月20日，外交部和其他具有最高刑事司法权限的部门，即最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、安全部及司法部，共同发布《关于处理涉外案件若干问题的规定》，其中第六条第一款明文要求，只要领事条约中明确承担有关义务时，法院应允许外国领事官员旁听不公开审理，包括刑事案件在内。而《中澳领事协定》就订有相关义务。此外，《规定》第一条第三款更清楚指出，当国内法同国际条约义务发生冲突时，应当适用国际条约的规定，除非有声明保留的条款。条文接着说：“各主管部门不应当以国内法或者内部规定为由拒绝履行我国所承担的国际条约规定的义务。”此《规定》至今仍然有效。

令人费解的是，外交部、上海市中级人民法院及外交学院国际法系教授万霞，怎么会忽略这个《规定》。直到最近为止，中国法院都还遵守《规定》让外国领事官员旁听不公开审判。《规定》代表了中国对领事条约义务的官方解释，包括中澳协定在内。近来中国外交部和法院违反《规定》，力拓案并非首例，去年夏天美国政府要求让领馆官员旁听美国公民薛锋涉嫌非法提供国家秘密罪（关于石油信息）的审判，也被中国拒绝，此案件目前还未宣判。显然澳大利亚或美国政府都未注意到《规定》要求中国法院履行—而非抵触–国际条约义务的明文。现在看来，恰恰是外交部和上海中级法院自己违反了中国对“司法主权”的行使，更损及澳大利亚籍被告的权益、中澳关系以及中国尊重国际法的声誉。

《关于处理涉外案件若干问题的规定》相关条文：

第一条第三款：

处理涉外案件，在对等互惠原则的基础上，严格履行我国所承担的国际条约义务。当国内法或者我内部规定同我国所承担的国际条约义务发生冲突时，应当适用国际条约的有关规定（我国声明保留的条款除外）。各主管部门不应当以国内法或者内部规定为由拒绝履行我国所承担的国际条约规定的义务。

第六条第一款：

外国驻华使、领馆官员要求旁听涉外案件的公开审理，应向各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院提出申请，有关法院应予安排。旁听者应遵守人民法院的法庭规则。
对于依法不公开审理的涉外案件，外国驻华使、领馆官员要求旁听的，如有关国家与我国已签订的领事条约中明确承担有关义务的，应履行义务；未明确承担有关义务的，应根据我国法律规定，由主管部门商同级外事部门解决。

分享收藏本文

OTHER POSTS THAT MAY BE OF INTEREST

1. IS A RISING CHINA LOSING RESPECT FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW?
2. Audio: Jerome A. Cohen discusses the Rio Tinto case on ABC Radio Australia (w/ transcript)
3. Professor Cohen in Sydney Morning Herald on the closure of Rio Tinto Cases
4. Professor Jerome A. Cohen in the Press on Rio Tinto Detentions [UPDATED]