国家外汇管理局


国家外汇管理局关于下发《边境贸易外汇管理暂行办法》的通知
[97]汇管函字第021号


1997年1月23日，国家外汇管理局

国家外汇管理辽宁、吉林、黑龙江、内蒙古、新疆、西葳、广西、云南、甘肃分局：
为加强和规范边境贸易外汇管理，我局在广泛调查及征求意见的基础上，制订了《边境贸易外汇管理暂行办法》（以下简称《暂行办法》），现发给你局，请遵照执行。现就有关问题通知如下：
一、关于核定限额问题。根据《暂行办法》第二章第八条规定，边贸企业经常项目下外汇收入，在外汇局核定的最高限额内保留外汇。该限额由各有关分局根据当地情况具体核定关报我局各案，原则上最高限额不得超过边贸企业上一年进出口总额的50％。
二、“边境贸易企业外汇登记证”由各有关分局自行印制（规格见样本）。该登记证可代替“外汇帐户使用证”使用，但仅限于边贸公司开立现汇帐户之用。
三、各有关分局须结合当地实际情况，根据《暂行办法》，制订《边境贸易外汇管理暂行办法实施细则》，并报我局备案。
各有关分局今后在边境贸易外汇管理中如遇新的问题，请及时上报我局。
附件：一、边境贸易外汇管理暂行办法
二、边境贸易企业外汇登记证（略）

附件一：边境贸易外汇管理暂行办法

第一章 总 则
第一条 为了促进我国边境地区发展与毗邻国家之间的边境贸易与经济合作（以下简称“边境贸易”），规范边境贸易中的结汇、售汇、付汇及结算行为，根据《中华人民共和国外汇管理条例》第五十四条，特制定本办法。
第二条 本办法所称“边境贸易”包括边民互市贸易、边境小额贸易和边境地区对外经济技术合作。
边民互市贸易，系指边境地区边民在边境线20公里以内、经政府批准的开放点或指定的集市上，在不超过规定的金额或者数量范围内进行的商品交换活动。
边境小额贸易，系指我国边境地区经批准有边境小额贸易经营权的企业，通过国家指定的陆地边境口岸，与毗邻国家边境地区的企业或者其他贸易机构之间进行的贸易活动。
边境地区对外经济技术合作，系指我国边境地区经对外贸易经济合作部批准有对外经济技术合作经营权的企业，与我国毗邻国家边境地区开展的承包工程和劳务合作项目。
第三条 本办法所称“边贸企业”包括边境小额贸易企业和对外经济技术合作企业。
边境小额贸易企业，系指我国边境地区经对外贸易经济合作部或者其授权部门批准，有边境小额贸易经营权的企业。
对外经济技术合作企业，系指我国边境地区经对外贸易经济合作部批准，有与我国毗邻国家边境地区开展承包工程和劳务合作项目等对外经济技术合作经营权的企业。
第四条 边境地区边民在互市贸易区内进行互市贸易时，可以以可兑换货币、人民币或者毗邻国家的货币计价结算。
第五条 边贸企业与毗邻国家的企业和其他贸易机构之间进行边境贸易时，可以以可兑换货币或者人民币计价结算。
第六条 边贸企业进行边境贸易，应当按照有关进口付汇核销和出口收汇核销的管理办法办理进口和出口核销手续。
第七条 边贸企业应当在对外贸易经济合作部批准其边境小额贸易经营权和对外经济技术合作经营权之日起30日内到外汇局登记备案，凭工商局颁发的营业执照及外经贸部门的批准件领取《边境贸易企业外汇登记证》。

第二章 结汇、售付汇及外汇帐户的管理
第八条 边贸企业经常项目下外汇收入，可在外汇局核定的最高金额以内保留外汇，超出部分应当卖给外汇指定银行。
第九条 边贸企业经常项目下对外支付用汇应当按照《结汇、售汇及付汇管理规定》，持与支付方式相应的有效商业单据和有效凭证，从其外汇帐户中支付或者到外汇指定银行兑付。
第十条 易货贸易项下支付定金或贸易从属费用，经外汇局批准后可从其外汇帐户中支付或到外汇指定银行购汇。
第十一条 外汇指定银行应按照本办法为边贸企业办理结汇、售汇、付汇及结算业务，并按照规定审核相应的有效凭证和有效商业单据。
第十二条 边贸企业开立外汇帐户需经当地外汇局批准，并持“外汇帐户开户批准书”和“边境贸易企业外汇登记证”到注册地外汇指定银行开立外汇帐户，并于帐户开立后15日内持回执到外汇局备案。
第十三条 边贸企业只能开立一个外汇帐户，并且不得在异地开立外汇帐户。该帐户的收支范围，仅限于边境贸易项下的外汇收付。
第十四条 边贸企业若需变更外汇帐户开户行，应当报外汇局核准。
第十五条 外汇指定银行和边贸企业应当执行外汇帐户管理的有关规定。
第十六条 边境小额贸易中的外币现钞结算，应当按照《境内机构外币现钞收付管理暂行办法》办理。

第三章 边境贸易结算帐户的管理
第十七条 外汇指定银行可以为毗邻国家中与我国边贸企业之间进行边境贸易的企业或者其他贸易机构（以下简称“境外贸易机构”）开立可兑换货币结算帐户或者人民币结算帐户，办理边境贸易结算。
第十八条 外汇指定银行应当凭境外贸易机构本国的经营许可证明、合同，为境外贸易机构开立可兑换货币结算帐户或者人民政府结算帐户。
第十九条 外汇指定银行只能在所在口岸为一个境外贸易企业开立一个可兑换货币结算帐户、一个人民币结算帐户。
第二十条 境外贸易机构的可兑换货币结算帐户或者人民币结算帐户仅限于边境贸易结算收付。
第二十一条 境外贸易机构的可兑换货币结算帐户余额可以结汇或者汇出。
境外贸易机构的人民币结算帐户余额只能在边境地区使用。
第二十二条 外汇指定银行应当按照本办法为境外贸易机构办理可兑换货币结算帐户或者人民币结算帐户的开立并监督收付，并于每月5日前向当地外汇局报告上月的帐户开立和使用情况。

第四章 附 则
第二十三条 对违反本办法者，外汇局将依照《中华人民共和国外汇管理条例》予以处罚。
第二十四条 本办法由国家外汇管理局负责解释。
第二十五条 本办法自发布之日起施行。



Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992