Analysis on Special Legal Issues Regarding the Application of CISG in Hong Kong
摘 要：2022年5月5日，中国宣布将《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（简称“《销售公约》”或“CISG”）的领土适用范围扩大至香港特别行政区。根据这份声明，《销售公约》于2022年12月1日在香港生效[1]。《销售公约》在香港特别行政区的适用将有助于巩固其作为国际贸易和争议解决中心的地位。然而，由于香港特别行政区的特殊历史和法律地位，一些法律问题随着本次事件而产生，并引发了深刻的争论。其中最为突出者有三：第一，从1997年7月1日香港回归中国到2022年12月1日中国宣布将《销售公约》延伸适用于香港特别行政区这段时间内，香港在《销售公约》中的地位如何？换言之，中国收回香港是否会导致《销售公约》适用于与香港相关的国际销售合同？第二，香港放弃对《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项保留所产生的法律效果是什么？第三，《销售公约》是否适用于中国内地与香港特别行政区之间的货物销售合同？本文从法律解释、案例和学术观点的角度来阐明这些问题。
On 5 May 2022, China declared the extension of territorial application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter refers as “CISG”) to Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter refers as “Hong Kong SAR”). In accordance with this declaration, CISG took effect in Hong Kong SAR on 1 December 2022[1]. The application of CISG in Hong Kong SAR will contribute to the reinforcement of its role as an international hub of trade and dispute resolution. However, due to the special history and legal status of Hong Kong SAR, several legal questions arose and provoked profound debate along with this event. Among them, there are three most outstanding ones: (1) What is the status of Hong Kong SAR to CISG during the period from its returning to China on 1 July 1997 to China’s declaration of extension of CISG to Hong Kong SAR on 1 December 2022? In other words, did China’s recovery of Hong Kong result in the application of CISG in a Hong Kong-related international sales contract? (2) What are the legal effects of Hong Kong’s waiver of reservation of Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG? (3) Whether CISG applies to contracts for sale of goods between the mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR? This article makes clear these questions from the prospective of law interpretation, cases and academic opinions.
关键词：《销售公约》，CISG，香港，第1条第（1）款（b）项，保留，中国内地Keywords: CISG, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Article 1 (1) (b), reservation, the mainland of China.
一、自1997年7月1日香港回归至2022年12月1日中国宣布将《销售公约》延伸适用于香港特别行政区这段时间内，香港在《销售公约》中的地位
I. Hong Kong’s status to CISG during the period from its returning to China on 1 July 1997 to China’s declaration of extension of CISG to Hong Kong SAR on 1 December 2022
1. 各国法院对此问题的判决存在分歧，这是源于对《销售公约》第93条有着不同的解释。争议关键点是：中国1997年交存联合国的声明是否足以根据《销售公约》第93条第1款规定排除《销售公约》对与香港特别行政区相关交易的适用？
1. There is a split among court decisions regarding this issue, which stems from divided interpretations of Article 93 of CISG. The key point is: whether China’s declaration deposited with the UN in 1997 is sufficient to exclude the application of CISG to transactions in relation to Hong Kong SAR pursuant to Article 93 (1) of CISG?
2.《销售公约》第93条规定：“（1）如果缔约国具有两个或两个以上的领土单位，而依照该国宪法规定、各领土单位对本公约所规定的事项适用不同的法律制度，则该国得在签字、批准、接受、核准或加入时声明本公约适用于该国全部领土单位或仅适用于其中的一个或数个领土单位，并且可以随时提出另一声明来修改其所做的声明。（2）此种声明应通知保管人，并且明确地说明适用本公约的领土单位。（3）如果根据按本条做出的声明，本公约适用于缔约国的一个或数个但不是全部领土单位，而且一方当事人的营业地位于该缔约国内，则为本公约的目的，该营业地除非位于本公约适用的领土单位内，否则视为不在缔约国内。（4）如果缔约国没有按照本条第 (1) 款做出声明，则本公约适用于该国所有领土单位。”
2．Article 93 of CISG states:“(1) If a Contracting State has two or more territorial units in which, according to its constitution, different systems of law are applicable in relation to the matters dealt with in this Convention, it may, at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, declare that this Convention is to extend to all its territorial units or only to one or more of them, and may amend its declaration by submitting another declaration at any time.(2) These declarations are to be notified to the depository and are to state expressly the territorial units to which the Convention extends.(3) If, by virtue of a declaration under this article, this Convention extends to one or more but not all of the territorial units of a Contracting State, and if the place of business of a party is located in that State, this place of business, for the purposes of this Convention, is considered not to be in a Contracting State, unless it is in a territorial unit to which the Convention extends.(4) If a Contracting State makes no declaration under paragraph (1) of this article, the Convention is to extend to all territorial units of that State.”
3.中国早在1986年12月11日就是《销售公约》的缔约国[2]。在中国于1997年7月1日收回香港之前，《销售公约》在香港不适用[3]。
3. China was a Contracting State of CISG as early as 11 December 1986[2]. Prior to China’s recovery of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, CISG did not apply to Hong Kong[3].
4.1997年7月1日，中国恢复对香港行使主权。根据《中华人民共和国政府和大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国政府关于香港问题的联合声明》（“联合声明”）和《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》，回归以后，香港是中国的一个特别行政区，实行不同的法律制度。
4. On 1 July 1997, China resumed exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong. According to the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (“Joint Declaration”) and the Basic Law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, after the transition, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China with a different legal system.
5.1997年6月20日，在香港回归中国前不久，中国政府根据《联合声明》向联合国秘书长交存了一份声明，列出了中国已加入并将适用于香港的国际公约[4]，《销售公约》未列入其中。
5. On 20 June 1997, shortly before the Hong Kong’s reunification with the mainland of China, Chinese government deposited a declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to the Joint Declaration, listing the international conventions to which China was already a party and thereafter should be applied to Hong Kong[4]. CISG was not included therein.
6.基于上述事实，中国内地法院倾向于认为：由于中国在香港回归时没有声明将《销售公约》延伸适用于香港特别行政区，因此《销售公约》在香港特别行政区不适用，如浙江省高级人民法院审理的盈顺发展香港有限公司与浙江中大技术出口有限公司买卖合同纠纷案[5]和湖北省高级人民法院审理的武汉市银丰数据网络有限公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案[6]。同样，在Telecommunications Products案[7]中，法国最高法院在审查了中国在1997年收回香港之前的声明后得出结论：因为该声明没有提及《销售公约》，足以构成《销售公约》第93条第（1）款规定的保留，所以《销售公约》不适用于香港特别行政区。香港特别行政区律政司在2021年7月7日向香港特别行政区立法会提交的意见中也支持这一观点，其指出：“虽然中国是《销售公约》的缔约国，但《销售公约》现时不适用于香港特别行政区”[8]。
6. Based on this fact, courts of the mainland of China are inclined to hold that since China did not declare the extension of CISG to Hong Kong SAR at the time of Hong Kong’s returning, CISG does not apply to Hong Kong SAR, such as Hong Kong Yingshun Development Co. Ltd v. Zhejiang Zhongda Technology Import Co. Ltd Case[5] decided by High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province of China and TV Broadband Network Products Case decided by High People’s Court of Hubei Province of China[6]. Likewise, in Telecommunications Products Case[7], the French Supreme Court, after examination of China’s declaration prior to its recovery of Hong Kong in 1997, concluded that the declaration was sufficient to constitute a reservation under Article 93 (1) due to its absence of mentioning CISG, therefore CISG would not be applicable to Hong Kong SAR. This view was supported by the Department of Justice of Hong Kong SAR in its advise to the Legislative Council of Hong Kong SAR on 7 July 2021, which states: “Whilst China is a Contracting State to the CISG, the CISG is currently not applicable to Hong Kong SAR”[8].
7.然而，一些外国法院并不这么认为。在CAN Int’l, Inc. v. Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings et al.案[9]和Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Electric Motors, Ltd et al.案[10]中，法院基于上下文解释认为：根据《销售公约》第93条第（1）款，缔约国必须就《销售公约》将适用哪些领土单位作出肯定性声明。如无此声明，根据第93条第（4）款，《销售公约》将自动延伸适用至缔约国所有领土单位。中国交存的声明不符合第93条第（1）款的要求，因为它没有明确指出《销售公约》适用于哪些领土单位，因此不能排除《销售公约》在香港特别行政区的适用。
7. Some foreign courts, however, do not think so. In CAN Int’l, Inc. v. Guangdong Kelon Electronical Holdings et al. Case[9] and Electrocraft Arkansas, Inc. v. Electric Motors, Ltd et al. Case[10], the courts, by way of context interpretation, held that according to article 93 (1) of CISG, a Contracting State must make an affirmative declaration as to which territorial units CISG will apply, absence of such declaration will invoke the automatic extension of CISG to all of its territorial units pursuant to article 93 (4). The declaration deposited by China did not satisfy the requirements prescribed by article 93 (1) as it did not state expressly the territorial units to which CISG extends, thereby not excluding the application of CISG to Hong Kong SAR.
8. 因此,在司法实践中，如果一个国际货物销售合同是在1997年7月1日香港回归之后订立的，且一个缔约方的营业地位于香港特别行政区，在没有选择准据法的情况下，即使中国在收回香港时没有声明将《销售公约》延伸适用至香港特别行政区，《销售公约》仍有可能适用于该合同。
8. As such, in judicial practices, if a contract for international sale of goods was concluded after China’s recovery of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997, with the place of business of one contracting party located in Hong Kong SAR, in the absence of chosen governing law, CISG is potentially to be applied to the contract, even though China did not declare the extension of CISG to Hong Kong SAR at the time of recovery.
9.笔者认为，《销售公约》第93条严格适用于在签署、批准、接受、核准或加入时已经拥有“两个或多个领土单位”且实行“不同法律制度”的缔约国，如加拿大、澳大利亚等联邦体制国家。它不涉及国际条约在新领土的适用（或者说新领土的条约继承）问题。实质上，CISG在香港特别行政区的适用问题属于后者。1986年12月11日中国批准《销售公约》时，香港尚未回归中国，因此当时尚未出现《销售公约》第九十三条第一款所涉及的情形。因此，第93条不能作为解决《销售公约》在香港特别行政区的适用问题的依据。
9. From the prospective of the author, article 93 of CISG strictly applies to a contracting state which already has “two or more territorial units” that implementing “different systems of law” at the time of its signature, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, such as Canada, Australia and other federal countries. However, it does not deal with the matter of international treaty application in the new territory (or treaty succession of new territory). The application of CISG in Hong Kong SAR, in essence, belongs to the latter. When China ratified CISG on 11 December 1986, Hong Kong had yet returned to China, so the matter covered by article 93 (1) of CISG had not arisen at that time. So article 93 can not be relied upon to resolve the issue of CISG’s application in Hong Kong SAR.
10.关于国际条约的领土适用问题，基础法律渊源是《维也纳条约法公约》第二十九条（条约的领土范围），该条规定：“除条约表示不同意思，或另经确定外，条约对每一当事国之拘束力及于其全部领土。”
10. With respect to the matter of territorial application of international treaties, the basic legal source is Article 29 (Territorial scope of treaties) of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides:“Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.”
11.由于《销售公约》未涉及新领土的条约继承，所以问题在于是否构成“另经确定”，进而排除《销售公约》在1997年7月1日香港回归后适用于香港特别行政区。事实上，从中国于1997年6月20日向联合国秘书长交存的声明中可以推断出：中国当时有意排除《销售公约》在香港特别行政区的适用，该声明载明：“四、对于中华人民共和国已加入或将加入的未列于本声明附件的任何其他条约，如决定将该条约适用于香港特别行政区，中华人民共和国政府将另行实施与适用该条约相关的手续。”由于《销售公约》并未列入本声明附件，根据本声明，中国政府额外实施的手续是《销售公约》在香港特别行政区生效的前提条件，因而排除了其自动适用于香港特别行政区的可能性。中国政府随后于2022年5月5日明确宣布将《销售公约》的领土适用范围扩大至香港特别行政区的做法进一步证实了这一点。中国的声明，结合实践可视为《维也纳条约法公约》第二十九条意义上的“另经确定”，因此《销售公约》在1997年7月1日香港回归时并不自动适用于香港特别行政区。
11. Since CISG does not address the issue of treaty succession of new territory, the answer lies in whether it is “otherwise established” so as to preclude the application of CISG in Hong Kong SAR after its retrocession on 1 July 1997. In fact, it can be inferred from China’s declaration deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 June 1997 that China intended to exclude the application of CISG in Hong Kong SAR at that time, which reads: “IV. With respect to any other treaty not listed in the Annexes to this Note, to which the People's Republic of China is or will become a party, in the event that it is decided to apply such treaty to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Government of the People's Republic of China will carry out separately the formalities for such application.” As CISG is not listed in the Annex of this declaration, according to this statement, additional formalities of Chinese government is a precondition of the effectiveness of CISG in Hong Kong SAR, thus precluding its automatic application. It is further supported by the subsequent practice of Chinese government dated 5 May 2022 when the extension of territorial application of CISG to Hong Kong SAR was explicitly declared. China's declaration, jointly with its practice can be deemed as “otherwise established” provided by Article 29 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, therefore CISG is not automatically applicable to Hong Kong SAR at the time of its recovery on 1 July 1997.
二、香港放弃对《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的法律后果是什么？
II. What are the legal effects of Hong Kong’s waiver of Article 1 (1) (b) reservation of CISG?
12.《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项的保留是基于《销售公约》第95条的授权。
12．Reservation of Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG is based on the authorization of Article 95 of CISG.
13.《销售公约》第95条规定：“任何国家在交存其批准书、接受书、核准书或加入书时，可声明它不受本公约第1条第 (1) 款 (b) 项的约束。”
13．Article 95 of CISG states:“Any State may declare at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession that it will not be bound by subparagraph (1)(b) of article 1 of this Convention.”
14.《销售公约》第1条第（1）款规定：“本公约适用于营业地在不同国家的当事人之间所订立的货物销售合同：(a) 如果这些国家是缔约国；或(b) 如果国际私法规则导致适用某一缔约国的法律。”
14．Article 1 (1) of CISG provides:“(1) This Convention applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States:(a) when the States are Contracting States; or(b) when the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State.”
15.第1条第 (1) 款 (b) 项作为一种间接适用《销售公约》的方式，在一方的营业地不在《销售公约》缔约国，因而不符合第1条第 (1) 款 (a) 项的情况下发挥替代作用。
15．Article 1 (1) (b), being an indirect way of applying CISG, plays an alternative role on condition that one party’s place of business is not in the Contracting State of CISG and therefore Article 1 (1) (a) is not met.
16.中国在1986年交存签订条约批准书时对第1条第1款 (b) 项提出了保留[11]。
16．China has made a reservation of Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG at the time of its deposition of its instrument of ratification in 1986[11].
17.值得注意的是：根据中国于2022年5月5日向联合国秘书长交存的声明[12]，中国对第1条第1款 (b) 项的保留不延伸适用于香港特别行政区。这意味着香港不仅将《销售公约》适用于营业地位于不同缔约国的当事人之间的国际销售合同（第1条第（1）款（a）项），而且还将《销售公约》适用于国际私法规则导致适用缔约国法律的国际销售合同（第1条第（1）款（b）项）。
17．It bears noting that according to the declaration deposited by China with the Secretary-General of the UN on 5 May 2022[12], such reservation does not extend to Hong Kong SAR. It means that Hong Kong applies CISG rules not only to international sales contracts between parties whose places of business are in different Contracting States to the CISG (as required by Article 1 (1) (a)), but also to international sales contracts where the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of a Contracting State (as required by Article 1 (1) (b)).
18. 关于《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的法律效果很复杂。简言之，缔约国作出这种保留并不等于是有了一道“防火墙”将该国与第1条第（1）款（b）项隔离开来。
18. The legal effects concerning the reservation of Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG is complex. In a word, such reservation made by a Contracting State does not equate to a “firewall” which isolates such state from Article 1 (1) (b).
19.根据CISG第1条第(1)款(b)项的规定，分析该条款保留的法律效力之关键因素是：（1）法院地国家（该国家是否为声明第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国？）（2）诉讼地法院根据冲突法规则选择其法律的国家，即准据法国家（该国家是否为声明第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国？）。基于这两个因素的不同组合方式，总共产生如下四种不同的场景（每种场景都假设合同至少一方当事人不在《销售公约》缔约国，第1（1）（a）条不适用[13]）：
19. In accordance with the provision of Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG, key factors for analyzing the legal effects of this reservation are: (1) the forum court’s state (is it a Contracting State with an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation?); (2) the state whose law is chosen by the forum court pursuant to its conflict of law rules, that is, chosen law's state (is it a Contracting State with an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation?). Through different ways of composition of these two factors, totally four different scenarios are generated as follows (each based on the assumption that at least one of the parties to the contract is not in the Contracting State of CISG therefore Article 1 (1) (a) does not apply[13]):
20. 第一种场景，法院地国家是未作出第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国，准据法国家也是未作出第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国：在这种情况下，两个缔约国都受《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项的约束，因此第1条第（1）款（b）项能够适用。
20. The first scenario, the forum being a Contracting State without Article 1 (1) (b) reservation, the chosen law being the law of a Contracting State without an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation either: under such circumstance, both of the two Contracting States are bound by Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG, so Article 1 (1) (b) applies.
21. 第二种场景，法院地国家和准据法国家都是对第1条第（1）款（b）项作出了保留的缔约国：由于两个缔约国均不受《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项的约束，因此第1条第（1）款（b）项不适用。
21. The second scenario, both of the forum court’s and the chosen law’s states are Contracting States with an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation: since neither of the two Contracting States are bound by Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG, Article 1 (1) (b) does not apply.
22. 第三种场景，法院地国家是作出了第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国，而准据法国家是未作出第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国：在此情况下，普遍的观点是第1条第（1）款（b）项应当适用。从文义解释角度看，第95条规定保留国“不受《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项的约束”，这表明第1条第（1）款（b）项的保留只是免除了保留国在国际公法层面上依据第1条第（1）款（b）项适用《销售公约》的义务，但这种保留并没有剥夺保留国适用《销售公约》的权利。换言之，即使诉讼地法院位于声明第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国，该法院也可以主动适用第1条第（1）款（b）项[14]。
22. The third scenario, the forum court being of a Contracting State who has made an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation, while the chosen law being the law of a Contracting State without an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation: in this scenario, prevailing view is that Article 1 (1) (b) applies. From the dimension of text interpretation, Article 95, by providing a reserving state “not be bound by” Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG, suggests that an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation merely removes the reserving state’s obligation under public international law to apply CISG pursuant to Article 1 (1) (b). However, such reservation does not deprive the reserving state of the right to apply CISG. In other words, the forum court can apply Article 1 (1) (b) on its own initiative despite that it is in a Contracting State with an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation[14].
23.第四种场景，法院地国家是未作出第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国，准据法国家是作出了第1条第（1）款（b）项保留的缔约国：根据CISG咨询委员会[15]发表的意见，在此情况下，《销售公约》应当适用。首先，法院地国家放弃对第1条第（1）款（b）项的保留使得《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项对该法院有约束力。第二，准据法国家宣布对第1条第1款（b）项的保留不影响其作为第1条第（1）款（b）项“缔约国”的地位。将第95条的措词与《销售公约》其他保留条款（如第92条第（2）款、第93条第（3）款和第94条第（2）款）的措词进行比较，可以证明这一点。后者都明确指出：根据这些条款声明保留将使保留国“不被视为这些条款的缔约国”，而第95条则没有这样的措词[16]。因此，从诉讼地法院的角度看，尽管准据法国家对该条款提出了保留，该准据法国家也是第1条第（1）款（b）项的“缔约国”。因此，该情形符合《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项规定的条件，应当适用《销售公约》。
23. The fourth scenario, the forum court being of a Contracting State without an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation, while the chosen law being the law of a Contracting State with an Article 1 (1) (b) reservation: according to the opinion issued by CISG Advisory Council[15], CISG applies in this scenario. First, waiver of Article 1 (1) (b) reservation by the forum court’s state makes Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG binding to its forum court. Second, declaring a reservation of Article 1 (1) (b) does not impact the status of the chosen law’s state as a “Contracting State” of Article 1 (1) (b). This is evidenced by comparison between the wordings of Article 95 and that of other reservation provisions of CISG, such as Article 92 (2), Article 93 (3) and Article 94 (2). All of the latter expressly state that a reservation declared under those provisions will render a reserving state “not to be considered a Contracting State” of those provisions, while Article 95 does not have such wording[16]. So from the forum court’s point of view, the state whose law is chosen under the conflict of law rules is also a “Contracting State” of Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG, despite that it has declared a reservation. Thus conditions prescribed by Article 1 (1) (b) of CISG are met and CISG applies.
24. 根据上述分析，香港放弃对《销售公约》第1条第（1）款（b）项的保留对与香港有关的国际货物销售合同的具体影响可以用以下图表说明（假设第1条第（1）款（a）项不适用）：
24．Based on the analysis above, the specific effects on a Hong Kong-related contract for international sale of goods resulting from Hong Kong’s waiver of Article 1 (1) (b) reservation of CISG can be illustrated by the following diagram (assuming that Article 1 (1) (a) does not apply):
25. 上述推理仅适用于法院诉讼，不适用于仲裁。与法院不同，仲裁委员会是一个非政府机构，仲裁庭是基于当事人意思自治设立的，国际公约不能为仲裁庭创设义务，因此仲裁庭没有基于国际公法在个案中适用《销售公约》的义务。仲裁庭对案件实体问题适用的法律往往是灵活的。更为重要的是，仲裁裁决中的法律适用问题不能成为撤销或不予执行仲裁裁决的理由。
25. The reasoning above applies only to litigation in the court, but not to arbitration. Different from the court, the arbitration commission is a non-governmental agency, and the arbitral tribunal is established on the basis of party autonomy, international conventions can not create obligations for the arbitral tribunal, so the arbitral tribunal have no obligation under the public international law to apply CISG in a case. The laws applied by the arbitral tribunals on the merits of cases are often flexible. What’s more important, the law application issue in an arbitral award is not the ground for setting aside or refusing to enforce an arbitral award.
三、《销售公约》对中国内地与香港特别行政区之间的货物销售合同的适用
III. The application of CISG on contracts for sale of goods between the mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR
26. 由于《销售公约》是适用于不同的缔约国之间货物买卖的国际公约，中国内地和香港特别行政区都是中国作为《销售公约》缔约国身份所涵盖的“领土单位”，并非“不同的缔约国”，因此《销售公约》不适用于这两个地区的企业订立的货物买卖合同[17]。
26. Since CISG is a convention governing international sale of goods between different Contracting States, the mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR, both being “territorial units” covered by China’s status as a Contracting State of CISG, are not “different Contracting States”, CISG does not apply to contract for sale of goods concluded by businesses from these two regions[17].
27.虽然《销售公约》不适用于中国内地与香港特别行政区之间的货物买卖合同，但这并不妨碍两地的合同当事方根据意思自治原则选择《销售公约》作为其合同的准据法。中国法院有案例支持这种经当事人协商一致作出的法律选择。例如，在联中企业（资源）有限公司、厦门国贸集团股份有限公司买卖合同纠纷案[18]中，中国最高法院在确认《销售公约》不适用于中国内地与香港特别行政区之间的货物销售后，进一步认为“当事人同意适用上述公约的，公约的条款构成当事人之间的合同内容”。该裁判意见后来被山东省青岛市中级人民法院在祥发环球贸易有限公司、青岛宝润钢结构工程有限公司等国际货物买卖合同纠纷案[19]中所引用，青岛市中院认为：“各方在庭审中同意适用内地法律进行本案实体处理，且明确表示不排除《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的使用，本院依法适用内地法律及《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》对本案进行实体审理”。
27. Whilst CISG does not apply to contract for sale of goods between the mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR, the contracting parties from these two regions are not prevented from choosing CISG as the governing law of their contract under the principle of party autonomy. There are cases in Chinese courts supporting such choice of law agreed by contracting parties. For example, in Xiamen ITG Group Corp., Ltd. v. Novelact (resources) Limited Case[18], the Supreme Court of China, having confirmed that CISG does not apply to sale of goods between the mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR, ruled that “if the contracting parties agree to apply CISG, provisions of CISG constitute content of the contract between the contracting parties”. This opinion was later relied upon in Xiangfa Globe Trading Limited v. Qingdao Baorun Steel Structure Engineering Co., Ltd. Case[19], decided by Qingdao Intermediate Court of Shandong Province of China, where the court held that: “in the hearing, both parties agreed to apply the law of the mainland of China regarding the merits of this case, and stated explicitly not to exclude the application of CISG, the court will examine merits of this case by applying the law of the mainland of China and CISG”.
28.中国内地和香港特别行政区分别属于大陆法系和普通法系，各自有着不同的合同法规则。鉴于中国内地与香港之间的贸易对双方来说都占很大比重，因此迫切需要双边安排来规范此类贸易，以降低交易成本，提高规则的可预见性。在香港就《销售公约》进行公众咨询期间，曾有多数人建议制定一个安排，将《销售公约》适用于这些交易。关于这种双边安排的谈判可能已列入两地政府的议程[20]。中国内地和香港特别行政区的企业都期待在未来数年内能够颁布一个管理两地之间的货物销售合同的双边协议。
28. The mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR, respectively belonging to civil law system and common law system, have different rules of their own contract laws. Given that trade between the the mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR accounts for a substantial part to each side, a bilateral arrangement governing such trade is well needed to reduce the transaction costs and enhance the predictability of rules. During the public consultation regarding CISG in Hong Kong, an arrangement for application of CISG to these transactions was recommended by the majority. Negotiation is probably on the agenda of both governments regarding such bilateral arrangement[20]. Businesses of both the mainland of China and Hong Kong SAR are looking forward to the introduction of a bilateral agreement governing contracts for sale of goods between these two regions in the years to come.
>>>>注释
[1]见中国：关于香港特别行政区的声明，文号：C.N.124.2022.TREATIES-X.10 (Depositary Notification), 网址：https://uncitral.un.org/en/news/china-deposits-declaration-territorial-application-united-nations-convention-contracts.
[2]见网址：https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/salegoods/conventions/sale_of_goods/cisg/status.
[3]香港在1997年7月1日回归中国之前由英国管辖。英国不是《销售公约》的缔约国。
[4]见网址：https://treaties.un.org/pages/historicalinfo.aspx?clang=_en.
[5]案号：(2010)浙商外终字第99号，2010年12月15日，网址：https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?docId=j/cvbL0R4fbGcjgHxQEDEM437tU+x7tDtgAbOEUhuGESK1+qRAp7DfUKq3u+IEo4YWEFxuxCWu6+kAmZ5LrvEzJmF9qvBy1qLc6aG3LOGsN1wK2S3VwPhHoF1lBuJkdz.
[6]案号：(2002)鄂民四终字第53号，2003年3月19日，网址：https://www.jufaanli.com/new_searchcase?TypeKey=+1%3A%282002%29%E9%84%82%E6%B0%91%E5%9B%9B%E7%BB%88%E5%AD%97%E7%AC%AC53%E5%8F%B7&search_uuid=c967e6aaad4723a75e5966b77abeb794.
[7]Cour de Cassation, Case No. 04-117726, 2 April 2008, tr. Nathalie Hoffman, available at http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/080402f1.html.
[8]见《立法會參考資料摘要<貨物銷售(聯合國公約)條例草案>》第4段，檔號：IL/ ITF/ 1/ 81, 网址: https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/brief/ilitf181_20210707-e.pdf.
[9]由美国伊利诺伊州北区法院于2008年9月3日判决，见网址：www.cisg.law.pace.edu.
[10]由美国阿肯色州地方法院于2009年12月23日判决，见网址：http://cisg3.law. pace.edu.
[11]见网址：
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/1986/CN.302.1986-Eng.pdf.
[12]见网址：
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2022/CN.124.2022-Eng.pdf.
[13]见第15段。
[14]见 CISG Council Opinion No.15, para 3.7, web: https://cisgac.com/opinions/cisgac-opinion-no1-copy-copy-4-copy-copy-copy-6/.
[15]CISG咨询委员会是一个非官方组织，旨在促进对《销售公约》的统一解释。CISG咨询委员会的主要目的是应请求或主动发布与《销售公约》的解释和适用有关的意见。见网址：https://cisgac.com/.
[16]见 CISG Council Opinion No.15，第 3.12-3.14段, web: https://cisgac.com/opinions/cisgac-opinion-no1-copy-copy-4-copy-copy-copy-6/.
[17]见《立法會參考資料摘要<貨物銷售(聯合國公約)條例草案>》第14段，檔號：IL/ ITF/ 1/ 81，网址：https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/brief/ilitf181_20210707-e.pdf.
[18]案号：（2016）最高法民再373号，见网址：https://www.jufaanli.com/new_searchcase?TypeKey=1%3A%EF%BC%882016%EF%BC%89%E6%9C%80%E9%AB%98%E6%B3%95%E6%B0%91%E5%86%8D373%E5%8F%B7&search_uuid=9e5a35cf93f37b8ccdc9ed8f5ac7138a.
[19]案号：(2021)鲁02民初1280号，见网址：https://www.jufaanli.com/new_searchcase?TypeKey=1%3A%282021%29%E9%B2%8102%E6%B0%91%E5%88%9D1280%E5%8F%B7&search_uuid=cf96e6bd74964416c780117af255cffb.
[20]见《立法會參考資料摘要<貨物銷售(聯合國公約)條例草案>》第14段，檔號：IL/ ITF/ 1/ 81，网址：https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/english/brief/ilitf181_20210707-e.pdf.