《美国滥施“长臂管辖”及其危害》报告（中英全文）
图片来源：中国外交部网站（阅读原文获取）
美国滥施“长臂管辖”及其危害
2023年2月
目录
引言
一、 美国“长臂管辖”的基本情况
二、 美国“长臂管辖”的实施与扩张
三、 美国“长臂管辖”的危害
结束语
引言
历史上，美国长期持续、频繁不断地对各国实施“长臂管辖”。遭受美国“长臂管辖”的国家，既包括美国的盟友国家，也包括与其敌对或关系紧张国家。近年管辖范围呈现不断扩大趋势，长臂越伸越长。本报告通过列举美国滥用“长臂管辖”的实例，深入揭露其对国际政治经济秩序和国际法治带来的严重危害。
一、美国“长臂管辖”的基本情况
◆ 美国法律中“长臂管辖”专指司法机关对于住所或居所在其域外人员或实体实施的管辖，最初系由美国最高法院在1945年“国际鞋业公司诉华盛顿州案”中确立的一种司法管辖权，允许州法院在审理民商事案件时，针对因被告住所不在该州而无法行使管辖权的情况，可以被告与该州有某种“最低限度的联系”为基础行使“对人管辖”。
◆ 按照国际法，一国对域外人员或实体行使管辖一般要求该人员或实体或其行为与该国存在真实、足够的联系。而美国行使“长臂管辖”采用“最低联系原则”，不断降低行使“长臂管辖”门槛。与美国有某种极微弱的联系，如在美设有分支机构、使用美元清算或其他金融服务、利用美邮件系统等均构成“最低联系”。
◆ 美国为达到“长臂管辖”的目的，还进一步发展出“效果原则”，即只要发生在国外的行为在美境内产生所谓“效果”，不管行为人是否具有美国国籍或住所，也不论该行为是否符合行为发生地法律，均可行使管辖权。美国还不断扩大“长臂管辖”范围，对域外人员或实体滥施过分的、不合理的管辖，将美国内法律强制实施于域外非美国人员或实体，动辄利用别国企业对美元业务、美国市场和美国技术的依赖，对其进行处罚或威胁。
◆ 从本质上看，美国“长臂管辖”是美政府以美综合实力和金融霸权为后盾，根据本国法律，对他国实体和个人滥施“域外管辖”的蛮横司法实践。
二、美国“长臂管辖”的实施与扩张
◆ 在长期对外使用过程中，美国逐步发展出体系庞大、相互补充、环环相扣的“长臂管辖”法律体系，并不断降低打击门槛、扩大自由裁量权，成为美国推行霸权外交、谋求经济利益的工具。这种做法无视别国主权，肆意干涉别国内政，严重损害别国正当利益，损害国际交往正常秩序。美国“长臂管辖”的扩张是全方位的，依托“最低联系原则”和“效果原则”，建立起庞大复杂的“长臂管辖”法律体系和执行体系，适用领域和范围不断扩大。
◆“长臂管辖”还成为美国滥施单边制裁尤其是次级制裁的手段，美国往往通过行使司法权，追究未遵守美国制裁法律的域外实体和个人的法律责任，确保美制裁法律域外效力得以实现。除“长臂管辖”外，美国还综合运用行政、经济、金融等其他手段实行次级制裁。
◆ 强制域外取证是“长臂管辖”又一重要途径。在涉他国司法程序中，美国频频采取单边强制措施进行域外取证，绕过国家间正常司法执法合作渠道，直接要求在美设有分支机构或上市的银行、互联网企业等向其提供美国域外的账户信息、数据等证据。在遇到外国交涉时，往往以“司法独立”、“正常司法协助或执法合作效率低下”等借口搪塞。这是典型的“长臂管辖”，严重侵害他国司法主权和被取证对象的正当合法权益。
◆ 美国建立了各部门分工协作、联手行动的全政府“长臂管辖”实施运作模式。美国总统及美国国会是相关制裁的决策主体，大多数经济制裁决策由美国总统作出，美国国会在特定情况下通过立法活动参与制裁决策。美国财政部外国资产控制办公室（OFAC）是最核心的制裁执行部门，其主要职权包括冻结美国管辖范围内的资产、拟定和调整被制裁个人与实体的名单、审查和发放许可证。国务院经济制裁政策与实施办公室(SPI)专门负责制定和实施与外交政策相关的制裁措施。商务部工业和安全局（BIS）管理独立于OFAC以外的清单。此外，美国政府还通过控制SWIFT、CHIPS这两大跨境资金支付清算系统为经济制裁执法提供支撑，通过在必要时迫使其切断与受制裁国金融机构的联系，而达到经济制裁的目的。
◆ 美国不断加强“长臂管辖”立法。美国涉“长臂管辖”法律名目繁多，主要有《对敌贸易法》《国际紧急状态经济权力法》《以制裁反击美国敌人法》《反海外腐败法》《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法》等，《爱国者法案》、年度《国防授权法》等法律中也包含“长臂制裁”条款，此外还有一系列涉及“长臂管辖”的总统行政令。越来越多的美国联邦立法包含长臂条款，目的是避免美国人通过在外国设立子公司等方式规避美国法，避免外国人比美国人受到较少限制，也避免相关国际规则的制定出现不利于美国国家利益的情况，从而用美国国内法来实现“长臂管辖”外交政策。
◆ 美国在司法领域出现将“长臂管辖”理念运用到刑事案件倾向，这是对“长臂管辖”的极度滥用。近年来，不少美国联邦法律都规定了域外效力条款，美国司法部开始利用这些条款开展刑事调查并提起刑事诉讼。在这些刑事诉讼中，联邦法院在审视自身管辖权基础时，也开始利用“长臂管辖”理念，宽泛解释案件与美国存在的联系，不断扩张属人和属地等管辖权的范围，降低保护管辖和普遍管辖等管辖权适用的门槛。
三、美国“长臂管辖”的危害
◆ 美国堪称全球唯一的“制裁超级大国”。根据美国财政部《2021年制裁评估报告》，截至2021财年，美国已生效的制裁措施累计达9400多项。
◆ 加剧国家间紧张关系，冲击国际秩序。健康的国家间关系是保持国际秩序和平与稳定的“压舱石”。早在上世纪90年代，美国出台《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法》，利用“长臂管辖”机制对世界范围内与古巴进行交易的个人和实体施加经济制裁，引发欧盟强烈不满。欧盟于1996年通过了《阻断法案》，以立法的形式阻断美国“长臂管辖”措施在欧盟境内的效果，并赋予欧盟境内个人和实体起诉美国个人和实体的权利。欧盟频繁在联合国大会、安理会、世界贸易组织等国际机构提出提案和发起倡议，呼吁国际社会关注美国“长臂管辖”的危害性，甚至还启动了世界贸易组织争端解决程序。迄今，美国“长臂管辖”已涉及中国、俄罗斯、伊朗、叙利亚、朝鲜、古巴、法国、英国、德国、日本等多个国家。美国塔夫茨大学教授德雷兹纳在《外交事务》杂志发表文章批评称，美国历届政府滥用经济胁迫和经济暴力手段，将制裁作为解决外交问题的首选方案，非但起不到效果，还造成人道主义灾难。
◆ 自1979年以来，美国就长期对伊朗等国实施各类单边制裁。1996年又抛出所谓“达马托法案”，禁止外国公司对伊朗、利比亚能源产业进行投资，实行危害极大、影响深远的“长臂管辖”。此后，美国对伊朗的制裁层层加码、步步升级。美国特朗普政府时期更是对伊朗实施制裁和“极限施压”，企图以压促变，颠覆伊朗政权。时任伊朗总统鲁哈尼曾表示，特朗普政府的制裁至少对伊朗造成2000亿美元的经济损失，美国对伊朗的制裁是非人道的，是犯罪和恐怖主义行为。
◆ 1980年至1992年，美国就对利比亚实施单边制裁，1992年至2003年，美国又胁迫、拉拢盟友扩大对利比亚的单边制裁。世界银行指出，利比亚因制裁遭受的经济损失高达180亿美元，利比亚官方认为，制裁使其损失330亿美元。
◆ 海湾战争后，美国对伊拉克实施野蛮的单边制裁，造成严重后果。1990年8月至2003年5月，制裁造成伊拉克石油收入损失1500亿美元，导致今日伊拉克的人均年收入都没有达到1990年的水平（7050美元）。此外，制裁还造成伊拉克严重的人道主义灾难，伊拉克的婴儿死亡率翻倍，五岁以下儿童死亡率增长6倍。同时，伊拉克的教育、医疗、社会保障体系被毁，识字率从1987年的89%下降到1997年的57%。
◆ 破坏各类国际治理机制的宗旨和功能。美国在联合国框架之外频繁实施单边制裁措施。仅在2021年，美国财政部、商务部等部门就针对2000多个实体实施了各类制裁措施。安理会的制裁功能因此受到冲击，严重影响其维持国际和平与安全的正常运转。美国并非国际刑事法院成员国，但却因国际刑事法院试图调查在阿富汗战争中涉嫌战争罪行的美国军人，针对国际刑事法院检察官本苏达和另一位高级官员莫乔乔科采取制裁措施，引发国际舆论一致声讨。美国罔顾其“301”措施已被世界贸易组织争端解决机构裁定为违反国际法，继续对来自中国和其他国家的进口产品发起各类单边性质的“301调查”，并维持现有的“301”关税措施，直接破坏了多边贸易体制历经多轮艰难谈判所达成的关税减让成果，公然践踏多边贸易体制宗旨和精神，损害多边贸易体制运作基石。
◆ 损害别国企业利益。为维持美国的经济和科技领先地位，美国滥用国家公权力对正常国际商业交易和竞争横加干涉，综合运用出口管制实体清单和经济制裁等措施，以国家安全和侵犯人权等事由为借口，限制别国企业获取对其生存和发展至关重要的原材料、物项和技术，甚至动用次级制裁措施，禁止世界范围内其他企业与之发生正常贸易往来，试图从根本上破坏这类企业的供应链。
◆ 法国阿尔斯通集团高管被拘押是典型案件。2013年，为了在与法国阿尔斯通公司的商业竞争中获胜，美国动用《反海外腐败法》，以存在海外贿赂行为为由，将阿尔斯通高管皮耶鲁齐逮捕，并诱使其签订认罪协议，据此套取更多对阿尔斯通公司不利的证据和信息，最终阿尔斯通公司不得不接受美国通用电气的收购要求，自此，阿尔斯通公司从世界500强行列中彻底消失。美国“长臂管辖”已完全沦为国家公权力打压商业竞争对手和干涉正常国际商业交易的工具，彻底背离美国长期自我标榜的自由主义市场经济理念。
◆ 近年来，美国频繁利用《全球马格尼茨基人权问责法》，针对被其认定从事所谓“严重侵害人权行为”的各国主体实施单边制裁，但这种制裁措施在实施过程中，往往罔顾被制裁主体同样享有人权保护的基本事实，侵犯被制裁主体的基本人权。
◆ 新冠疫情在全球蔓延期间，美国政府顽固坚持对伊朗、叙利亚等国实施单边制裁，导致被制裁国家难以及时获得抗击疫情需要的医疗物资。由于制裁，伊朗无法进口基本药物和医疗器材，严重影响数百万伊朗人的健康状况。伊朗政府为筹措抗疫资金向国际货币基金组织申请50亿美元的抗疫特别贷款，但受到美国阻挠。美国通过冻结伊朗海外资金、威胁疫苗供货方等方式阻碍伊朗进口新冠疫苗。美国布鲁金斯学会分析估计，在伊朗疫情最严重时期，美国持续施加的制裁影响进一步加剧，可能导致多达1.3万人死亡。
结束语
Source:https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230203_11019281.html
The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils
2023-02-03 16:47
Contents
Introduction
I. An Overview of U.S. Long-arm Jurisdiction
II. Exercise and Expansion of U.S. Long-arm Jurisdiction
III. The Perils of U.S. Long-arm Jurisdiction
Conclusion
The United States has a longstanding practice of exerting frequent long-arm jurisdiction over other countries, including both its allies and countries with which it has hostile or strained relations. In recent years, the practice has kept expanding in scope, with U.S. "arms" stretching longer and longer. Examining cases of U.S. abuse of long-arm jurisdiction, this report lays bare the severe harm it has done to the international political and economic order and the international rule of law.
I. An Overview of U.S. Long-arm Jurisdiction
◆ According to U.S. domestic law, long-arm jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over persons or entities domiciled or resident outside the territory of the sanctioning state. First established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (1945), long-arm jurisdiction allows state courts to exercise in personam jurisdiction in civil and commercial cases where jurisdiction cannot be exercised because the defendant is not domiciled in the state, on the basis that the defendant has some "minimum contacts" with the state.
◆ According to international law, the exercise of a country's jurisdiction over an extraterritorial person or entity generally requires that the person or entity or its conduct has a real and sufficient connection to that country. Yet the U.S. exercises long-arm jurisdiction on the basis of the "minimum contacts" rule, constantly lowering the threshold for application. Even the flimsiest connection with the United States, such as having a branch in the United States, using U.S. dollar for clearing or other financial services, or using the U.S. mail system, constitutes "minimum contacts."
◆ To exercise long-arm jurisdiction, the United States has further developed the "effects doctrine," meaning that jurisdiction may be exercised whenever an act occurring abroad produces "effects" in the United States, regardless of whether the actor has U.S. citizenship or residency, and regardless of whether the act complies with the law of the place where it occurred. The United States has also been expanding the scope of its long-arm jurisdiction to exert disproportionate and unwarranted jurisdiction over extraterritorial persons or entities, enforcing U.S. domestic laws on extraterritorial non-US persons or entities, and wantonly penalizing or threatening foreign companies by exploiting their reliance on dollar-denominated businesses, the U.S. market or U.S. technologies.
◆In essence, long-arm jurisdiction is an arbitrary judicial practice, wielded by the U.S. government on the strength of its national power and financial hegemony, to enforce extraterritorial jurisdiction over entities and individuals of other countries on the ground of its domestic law.
II. Exercise and Expansion of U.S. Long-arm Jurisdiction
◆ In the many years of exercising such jurisdiction, the United States has gradually developed a massive, mutually reinforcing and interlocking legal system for long-arm jurisdiction, and continued to lower the threshold and expand its discretionary power, thus shaping long-arm jurisdiction into a tool for the United States to advance hegemonic diplomacy and pursue economic interests. Such practice disregards other countries' sovereignty, blatantly meddles in others' internal affairs, seriously damages the legitimate interests of other countries, and disrupts the normal order of international exchanges. The expansion of U.S. long-arm jurisdiction is all-dimensional. Citing the "minimum contacts" rule and the "effects doctrine," the United States has developed massive and complex legal and enforcement systems to support its long-arm jurisdiction which is expanding in scope and fields of application.
◆ Long-arm jurisdiction has also become a means by which the United States abuses unilateral sanctions, especially secondary sanctions. To ensure the extraterritorial effects of U.S. sanction laws, the United States would usually exercise judicial authority to hold extraterritorial entities and individuals accountable for failing to comply with U.S. sanction laws. In addition to long-arm jurisdiction, administrative, economic, financial and other means would also be employed to implement its secondary sanctions.
◆ Compulsory extraterritorial evidence collection is another important means of long-arm jurisdiction. In the judicial process involving other countries, the United States frequently takes unilateral compulsory measures to collect evidence outside its own territory, circumventing normal channels of judicial and law enforcement cooperation between countries. It would directly ask banks and Internet firms that have branches or are listed in the United States to provide evidence such as account information and data located outside the United States. When other countries try to raise démarche, the United States would always respond by citing excuses such as "judicial independence" or "low efficiency in normal judicial assistance or law enforcement cooperation." These typical examples of long-arm jurisdiction have severely damaged other countries' judicial sovereignty, and the legitimate rights and interests of those subjects of evidence collection.
◆ The United States has put in place a whole-of-government system to practice long-arm jurisdiction, which features a division of labor among departments and inter-agency collaboration. The President and Congress are the main decision makers when it comes to sanctions. The President decides on most of the economic sanctions, and Congress participates through legislative activities under specific circumstances. At the heart of sanctions enforcement is the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an agency under Treasury responsible for freezing assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction, formulating and adjusting lists of sanctioned individuals and entities, and reviewing and issuing licenses. The Department of State's Office of Economic Sanctions Policy and Implementation (SPI) is responsible for developing and implementing foreign policy-related sanctions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), an agency of the Department of Commerce, administers separate lists from the OFAC. On top of these, the U.S. government bolsters its sanctions enforcement through control of SWIFT and CHIPS, two major cross-border payment and clearing systems, by pressing them, when it deems necessary, to cut off contact with the financial institutions of the subject country to achieve the purpose of economic sanctions.
◆ The United States has stepped up legislation for long-arm jurisdiction. A wide range of laws in the United States advance long-arm jurisdiction, including Trading with the Enemy Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and Helms-Burton Act. Others such as the USA PATRIOT Act and National Defense Authorization Act contain long-arm jurisdiction clauses. A number of presidential executive orders also involve long-arm jurisdiction. More and more U.S. federal legislation contains long-arm jurisdiction clauses to prevent Americans from circumventing U.S. laws by establishing subsidiaries in foreign countries, or foreigners enjoying less restrictions than Americans, or relevant international rules-making hurting U.S. interests. These legislative moves allow the United States to enforce long-arm jurisdiction in its diplomacy by citing domestic laws.
◆ There is a growing tendency of the U.S. applying long-arm jurisdiction to criminal cases, which is an extreme abuse of the practice. In recent years, a number of U.S. federal laws include extraterritorial clauses, which have been exploited by the Department of Justice to launch criminal investigations and prosecutions. In these proceedings, federal courts begin to apply the concept of long-arm jurisdiction when examining the basis of their jurisdiction by broadly interpreting the connection between the case and the United States, expanding the scope of personal and territorial jurisdiction, and lowering the threshold for the application of protective jurisdiction and general jurisdiction.
III. The Perils of U.S. Long-arm Jurisdiction
◆The United States is the only sanctions superpower in the world. According to the Treasury 2021 Sanctions Review, by fiscal year 2021,the number of active U.S. sanctions designations had increased to more than 9,400.
◆ Sanctions strain relations between countries and undermine the international order. Healthy state-to-state relations are the bedrock for peace and stability in the international order. In the 1990s, the United States introduced the Helms-Burton Act to impose economic sanctions through long-arm jurisdiction on individuals and entities worldwide conducting transactions with Cuba. It sparked strong opposition from the European Union, who in 1996 passed the Blocking Statute to neutralize through legislation the effects of U.S. long-arm jurisdiction within the EU, and enable individuals and entities in the EU to sue individuals and entities in the United States. Apart from this, the EU put forward a series of proposals and initiatives at the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, the World Trade Organization and other international bodies, calling on the international community to pay attention to the harmful effects of U.S. long-arm jurisdiction, and even resorted to the WTO dispute settlement procedures. So far, the "long arm" of U.S. jurisdiction has reached China, Russia, Iran, Syria, the DPRK, Cuba, France, the UK, Germany, Japan, among others. In an article published in Foreign Affairs, Professor Daniel Drezner of Tufts University criticized successive U.S. administrations for abusing economic coercion and economic violence and using sanctions as the preferred solution to diplomatic problems, which have been ineffective and causing humanitarian disasters.
◆ Since 1979, the United States has imposed various types of unilateral sanctions on Iran and other countries. In 1996, it rolled out the D'Amato Act which forbids foreign companies from investing in the energy sector of Iran and Libya, resulting in long-term damaging ramifications. Afterward, the United States keeps ramping up sanctions against Iran. Under the Trump administration, it harbored a policy of "maximum pressure" and wanted to use sanctions to effect a regime change in Iran. According to then Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, sanctions under the Trump administration caused at least US$200 billion worth of economic damage to Iran; he condemned such sanctions as inhumane, a crime and an act of terrorism.
◆ Between 1980 and 1992, the United States imposed unilateral sanctions on Libya, and from 1992 to 2003, it rallied or coerced allies into expanding sanctions against Libya. The World Bank noted that Libya suffered up to US$18 billion economic losses as a result of the sanctions, while an official Libyan estimate put the figure at 33 billion.
◆ Crude U.S. sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War brought about serious consequences. From August 1990 to May 2003, they caused a total loss of US$150 billion in Iraq's oil revenue. As a result, the country's per capita income falls below its 1990 level of US$7,050 even to this day. The sanctions have also caused a serious humanitarian disaster, with infant mortality rate doubling and the under-five mortality increasing six-fold. Meanwhile, Iraq's education, health and social security systems were destroyed; its literacy rate fell from 89 percent in 1987 to 57 percent in 1997.
◆Undermining the purposes and functions of various international governance mechanisms. The United States has frequently imposed unilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. In 2021 alone, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Department of Commerce and other agencies imposed various sanctions on as many as over 2,000 entities. As a result, the sanctioning function of the Security Council is undercut, seriously affecting its normal function of maintaining international peace and security. When the International Criminal Court (ICC) attempted to investigate suspected war crimes by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the United States, with itself not being a member of the Court, responded by launching sanctions against ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and senior official Phakiso Mochochoko, sparking unanimous outcry from the international community. Despite the ruling of the Dispute Settlement Body of WTO that its Section 301 procedures are a violation of international law, the United States continues to launch various unilateral Section 301 investigations on imports from China and other countries, and keeps all existing Section 301 tariffs unchanged. Such actions have directly sabotaged the tariff concessions achieved by many rounds of difficult negotiations of the multilateral trading system, blatantly trampled on the purposes and spirit of the multilateral trading system, and eroded the cornerstone of the system's operation.
◆ Undermining the interests of companies of other countries. To maintain its economic and technological supremacy, the United States abuses its public power to interfere with normal international commercial exchanges and competition. Under the pretext of safeguarding national security and fighting against human rights violations, it has adopted a package of measures including the Entity List and economic sanctions to restrict foreign enterprises from obtaining raw materials, items and technologies vital to their survival and development, sometimes even used secondary sanctions to cut those companies' normal trade with enterprises from other countries in an effort to disrupt their supply chains root and branch.
◆ A case in point is the imprisonment of a senior manager from the French company Alstom. In 2013, in order to beat Alstom in their business competition, the United States applied the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to arrest and detain Frédéric Pierucci on charges of bribing foreign officials. He was further induced to sign a plea deal and provide more evidence and information against his company, leaving Alstom no choice but to accept General Electric's acquisition, vanishing ever since from the Fortune 500 list. The U.S. long-arm jurisdiction has become a tool for its public power to suppress competitors and meddle in normal international business activities, announcing the United States’ complete departure from its long-standing self-proclaimed champion of liberal market economy.
◆ In recent years, the United States has frequently employed the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (2016) to impose unilateral sanctions on entities in various countries deemed to have engaged in "serious human rights violations." However, while exercising such unilateral sanctions, the United States has often violated the basic human rights of the sanctioned subjects disregarding the fact that their human rights are also entitled to protection.
◆ When COVID-19 was raging in the world, the U.S. government did not relent in imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran, Syria and other countries, making it difficult for these countries to obtain the much-needed medical supplies to fight the virus. As a result of the sanctions, Iran has been cut off access to essential medicines and medical equipment, putting the health of millions of Iranians in jeopardy. To raise funds to fight the pandemic, the Iranian government applied to the IMF for a US$5 billion dollar exclusive loan, but the effort was blocked by the United States. Even worse, the United States prevented Iran from importing COVID vaccines by freezing its overseas funds and threatening vaccine suppliers. As the Brookings Institution estimated, during the height of the pandemic in Iran, U.S. sanctions further exacerbated the spread of the virus and could have caused up to 13,000 of deaths.
Conclusion
The U.S. long-arm jurisdiction is not something new. In spite of adaptations over time in its contents and measures, the nature of the U.S. long-arm jurisdiction has not changed: it has been, since the very beginning, a hegemonic tool to maintain U.S. hegemony, suppress foreign competitors, interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and even subvert the governments of other countries. Over the last few years, the United States has abused long-arm jurisdiction by continuing to lower the threshold and intensifying measures to an unprecedented degree against wider range of targets. It not only undermines the principle of sovereign equality, violates international law, and erodes the multilateral order with the UN at its core, but also creates and intensifies tensions and conflicts among major countries, and poses a threat to the international security system established after World War II. It also interferes with and distorts normal international commercial exchanges and trade order, disrupts the supply chain of global trade, damages the interests of enterprises and raises their operating costs. The United States should renounce its illegal unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction measures, and truly take up its international responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
文章来源：中国外交部网站
视频来源：CCTV4《中国新闻》、央视新闻
道琼斯公司(Dow Jones) 创建于1882年，旗下有道琼斯指数, Barron's《巴伦周刊》, WSJ《华尔街日报》, MarketWatch, Factiva, Risk & Compliance等品牌。“道琼斯风险合规”是风险管理和合规治理全球领先品牌，由道琼斯风险合规中国团队运营。欢迎您关注公众号或联系道琼斯风险合规中国负责人：Johnson.Ma@dowjones.com