<p>香港的长和集团可能会发现很难从巴拿马当局那里获得赔偿，法律专家表示，他们所参与的仲裁法庭缺乏执行权，赔偿的发放可能取决于该国自己的法院。这家由香港富豪李嘉诚家族领导的综合企业周三表示，其子公司巴拿马港口公司（PPC）于前一天对巴拿马当局提起了仲裁。此举是针对该国最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决宣布 PPC 运营两个巴拿马运河港口的特许权 “违宪”。长和表示，启动仲裁的决定是基于适用的特许合同和国际商会（ICC）的仲裁规则。香港的法律学者和专家强调了执行方面的挑战，因为 ICC 国际仲裁法院的角色是管理仲裁程序，并不具备独立的执行权。国际商业仲裁专家、香港中文大学法学院副院长严月明表示：“仲裁裁决的执行是国家法院的事务。” 她指出，如果巴拿马当局未能遵守仲裁裁决，PPC 将寻求巴拿马法院执行赔偿，根据联合国《承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》，巴拿马是该公约的缔约国。严补充说，PPC 可以在巴拿马拥有资产的其他司法管辖区追求执行，前提是这些司法管辖区是该公约的签署国。但立法者苏少聪，eBRAM 国际在线争议解决中心的主席，指出根据该公约可能存在的障碍，如果裁决违反该国的公共政策，执行可能会被拒绝。“因为执行通常必须通过当地法院，巴拿马法院会辩称它已经宣布该 [运营是] 违宪，而现在你又回到同一法院要求赔偿，” 苏说。“法院可能不会执行。” 该国最高法院上周剥夺了 PPC 运营巴拿马运河两端的巴尔博亚和克里斯托巴尔码头的特许权。PPC 最初被允许运营这两个港口直到 2047 年，此前在 2021 年续签了为期 25 年的特许权。苏补充说，寻求其他司法管辖区执行仲裁结果可能违反 “国家豁免” 原则，该原则保护主权国家及其财产，并可能阻止向 PPC 发放任何裁决。PPC 还面临其他障碍，包括举证责任，立法者表示。苏补充说，PPC 需要证明巴拿马违反了其运营港口的特许合同，才能在法庭上胜诉。“巴拿马当局可以为自己辩护，辩称即使签署了特许合同，也不能违反当地法律，” 立法者说。“而且后来发现某些事项在巴拿马法律下是不被允许的，我们称之为 ‘不可抗力’。” 根据 ICC 仲裁规则，被告应在收到仲裁请求后 30 天内提交答复，包括对争议性质和情况的评论以及对所寻求救济的回应。目前尚不清楚巴拿马是否会参与仲裁。严表示，根据规则，即使被告拒绝提交答复或选择不参与，程序仍然可以继续。她表示，任何仲裁机构在收到索赔方的通知后，首先会确定是否存在有效的仲裁协议。“仲裁协议确立了 ‘管辖权’。如果初步管辖权存在，即使被告不作回应，机构也会继续进行，” 严说。因此，即使巴拿马当局拒绝参与仲裁，PPC 仍有可能获得裁决，她说。在周三的声明中，PPC 表示，仲裁是基于近三十年来确立的特许合同和法律框架，作为 “合同法”。“巴拿马共和国违反了适用的合同和法律，” 该公司表示。“PPC 寻求基于相关财务数据评估的广泛赔偿，需迅速解决，以及可能证明必要的其他救济请求。PPC 及其投资者继续保留所有权利。” 香港大学仲裁与争议解决硕士项目主任 Shahla Ali 教授指出，投资者对国家提起索赔的商业仲裁案件的成功率在 30% 到 50% 之间。Ali 补充说，即使在巴拿马当局缺席的情况下，仲裁仍然可以进行，主持机构将确保未参与方保持知情，并提供多次参与的机会。自唐纳德·特朗普于 2025 年 1 月再次担任总统以来，美国政府已多次誓言 “收回” 对这一战略水道的控制。去年 2 月，巴拿马退出了中国的 “一带一路” 倡议。巴拿马最高法院的裁决还跟随上个月该国审计长发起的审计，审计长声称该特许权在 1997 年至 2023 年间为运营商创造了 37.8 亿美元，而该国仅获得了 2.36 亿美元。PPC 拒绝了这些发现，声称其在基础设施上投资超过 18 亿美元，并遵守了合同义务。</p>

长和(ADR)

长和

<p>香港的长和（CK Hutchison）在其港口运营被宣布为违宪后，面临从巴拿马获得赔偿的挑战。巴拿马港口公司（PPC）已对巴拿马当局提起仲裁，但法律专家警告称，任何裁决的执行可能取决于当地法院，而当地法院可能拒绝执行。国际商会（ICC）的角色仅限于管理程序，没有执行权。PPC 必须证明巴拿马违反了特许合同，潜在障碍包括国家豁免和当地法律。这类仲裁案件的成功率在 30% 到 50% 之间</p>

<p>Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison could find it hard to secure compensation from Panamanian authorities over their decision to nullify its port operation, legal experts have said, noting that the arbitral tribunal it engaged lacks enforcement power and the issuance of damages may depend on the country’s own courts. The conglomerate, led by Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing’s family, said on Wednesday that its subsidiary, the Panama Ports Company (PPC), commenced arbitration against Panamanian authorities a day earlier. The move was in response to a judgment of the country’s top court that declared PPC’s concession to operate two Panama Canal ports was “unconstitutional”. CK Hutchison said the decision to start arbitration was based on the applicable concession contract and the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Legal academics and experts in Hong Kong highlighted enforcement challenges, as the ICC International Court of Arbitration’s role was to administer the arbitration proceedings, adding that it did not possess independent enforcement powers. “Enforcement of an arbitral award is a matter for national courts,” said international commercial arbitration expert Yan Yueming, an assistant dean at the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s law faculty. She stated that PPC was seeking Panamanian courts to enforce reparations if authorities there failed to comply with an arbitral award, under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which Panama is a contracting state. Yan added that PPC could pursue enforcement in other jurisdictions where Panama had assets, provided those jurisdictions were signatories to the convention. But lawmaker Thomas So Shiu-tsung, chairman of the eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre, pointed to potential obstacles under the convention, which allows enforcement to be refused if an award contravenes the country’s public policy. “Because enforcement typically has to go through the local courts, the Panamanian court would argue that it already declared the [operation was] unconstitutional and now you come back to the same court and demand compensation,” So said. “The court may not enforce it.” The country’s Supreme Court of Justice last week stripped PPC of its concession to operate the Balboa and Cristobal terminals at either end of the Panama Canal. PPC was initially allowed to operate the two ports until 2047, after the 25-year concession was renewed in 2021. So added that seeking other jurisdictions to enforce the results of an arbitration could be against the principle of “state immunity”, which protects sovereign states and their properties, and could preclude the issuance of any award to PPC. Other hurdles also remained for PPC, including a burden of proof, the lawmaker said. So added that PPC needed to demonstrate Panama had breached the concession contract for its operation of the ports before the tribunal. “Panamanian authorities can defend themselves and argue that even though a concession contract is signed, it cannot contravene local laws,” the lawmaker said. “And it is later realised that some matters were not permitted under Panamanian law, which we call ‘force majeure’.” According to the ICC Rules of Arbitration, respondents should submit an answer, which includes their comments as to the nature and circumstances of the dispute and response to the relief sought, within 30 days from receipt of an arbitration request. It remains unclear whether Panama will participate in the arbitration. Yan said proceedings could continue even if a respondent declined to submit an answer or chose not to participate, according to the rules. She said that any arbitration institution, upon receiving a notice from a claimant, would first determine if there was room for a valid arbitration agreement. “Arbitration agreement establishes ‘jurisdiction’. If prima facie jurisdiction exists, the institution proceeds even if the respondent says nothing,” Yan said. It would therefore be possible for PPC to receive the award even if Panamanian authorities refuse to participate in the arbitration, she said. In the Wednesday statement, PPC said the arbitration was based on the concession contract and legal framework that had been enshrined over nearly three decades as a “contract law”. “The Republic of Panama has breached the applicable contract and law,” the company said. “PPC seeks extensive damages based on an assessment of relevant financial data, subject to prompt resolution, and such other requests for relief as may prove necessary. PPC and its investors continue to permanently reserve all rights.” Professor Shahla Ali, director of the University of Hong Kong’s arbitration and dispute resolution master’s programme, noted the success rate for commercial arbitration cases where investors brought claims against states was between 30 and 50 per cent. Ali added that even if the arbitration proceeded in the absence of Panamanian authorities, the presiding institution would ensure that the non-participating party remained informed and provided multiple opportunities to participate. The United States government has repeatedly vowed to “take back” control of the strategic waterway since Donald Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025. In February last year, Panama withdrew from China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The top Panamanian court’s ruling also follows an audit launched last month by the country’s comptroller general, who claimed that the concession generated US$3.78 billion for the operator between 1997 and 2023, while the country received only US$236 million. PPC rejected these findings, asserting that it had invested more than US$1.8 billion in infrastructure and complied with contractual obligations.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>香港的长和集团可能会发现很难从巴拿马当局那里获得赔偿，法律专家表示，他们所参与的仲裁法庭缺乏执行权，赔偿的发放可能取决于该国自己的法院。这家由香港富豪李嘉诚家族领导的综合企业周三表示，其子公司巴拿马港口公司（PPC）于前一天对巴拿马当局提起了仲裁。此举是针对该国最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决宣布 PPC 运营两个巴拿马运河港口的特许权 “违宪”。长和表示，启动仲裁的决定是基于适用的特许合同和国际商会（ICC）的仲裁规则。香港的法律学者和专家强调了执行方面的挑战，因为 ICC 国际仲裁法院的角色是管理仲裁程序，并不具备独立的执行权。国际商业仲裁专家、香港中文大学法学院副院长严月明表示：“仲裁裁决的执行是国家法院的事务。” 她指出，如果巴拿马当局未能遵守仲裁裁决，PPC 将寻求巴拿马法院执行赔偿，根据联合国《承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》，巴拿马是该公约的缔约国。严补充说，PPC 可以在巴拿马拥有资产的其他司法管辖区追求执行，前提是这些司法管辖区是该公约的签署国。但立法者苏少聪，eBRAM 国际在线争议解决中心的主席，指出根据该公约可能存在的障碍，如果裁决违反该国的公共政策，执行可能会被拒绝。“因为执行通常必须通过当地法院，巴拿马法院会辩称它已经宣布该 [运营是] 违宪，而现在你又回到同一法院要求赔偿，” 苏说。“法院可能不会执行。” 该国最高法院上周剥夺了 PPC 运营巴拿马运河两端的巴尔博亚和克里斯托巴尔码头的特许权。PPC 最初被允许运营这两个港口直到 2047 年，此前在 2021 年续签了为期 25 年的特许权。苏补充说，寻求其他司法管辖区执行仲裁结果可能违反 “国家豁免” 原则，该原则保护主权国家及其财产，并可能阻止向 PPC 发放任何裁决。PPC 还面临其他障碍，包括举证责任，立法者表示。苏补充说，PPC 需要证明巴拿马违反了其运营港口的特许合同，才能在法庭上胜诉。“巴拿马当局可以为自己辩护，辩称即使签署了特许合同，也不能违反当地法律，” 立法者说。“而且后来发现某些事项在巴拿马法律下是不被允许的，我们称之为 ‘不可抗力’。” 根据 ICC 仲裁规则，被告应在收到仲裁请求后 30 天内提交答复，包括对争议性质和情况的评论以及对所寻求救济的回应。目前尚不清楚巴拿马是否会参与仲裁。严表示，根据规则，即使被告拒绝提交答复或选择不参与，程序仍然可以继续。她表示，任何仲裁机构在收到索赔方的通知后，首先会确定是否存在有效的仲裁协议。“仲裁协议确立了 ‘管辖权’。如果初步管辖权存在，即使被告不作回应，机构也会继续进行，” 严说。因此，即使巴拿马当局拒绝参与仲裁，PPC 仍有可能获得裁决，她说。在周三的声明中，PPC 表示，仲裁是基于近三十年来确立的特许合同和法律框架，作为 “合同法”。“巴拿马共和国违反了适用的合同和法律，” 该公司表示。“PPC 寻求基于相关财务数据评估的广泛赔偿，需迅速解决，以及可能证明必要的其他救济请求。PPC 及其投资者继续保留所有权利。” 香港大学仲裁与争议解决硕士项目主任 Shahla Ali 教授指出，投资者对国家提起索赔的商业仲裁案件的成功率在 30% 到 50% 之间。Ali 补充说，即使在巴拿马当局缺席的情况下，仲裁仍然可以进行，主持机构将确保未参与方保持知情，并提供多次参与的机会。自唐纳德·特朗普于 2025 年 1 月再次担任总统以来，美国政府已多次誓言 “收回” 对这一战略水道的控制。去年 2 月，巴拿马退出了中国的 “一带一路” 倡议。巴拿马最高法院的裁决还跟随上个月该国审计长发起的审计，审计长声称该特许权在 1997 年至 2023 年间为运营商创造了 37.8 亿美元，而该国仅获得了 2.36 亿美元。PPC 拒绝了这些发现，声称其在基础设施上投资超过 18 亿美元，并遵守了合同义务。</p>
</div>

专家表示，长和 (ADR) 将面临艰难的斗争，以确保巴拿马港口交易的赔偿