<p>香港的長和集團可能會發現很難從巴拿馬當局那裏獲得賠償，法律專家表示，他們所參與的仲裁法庭缺乏執行權，賠償的發放可能取決於該國自己的法院。這家由香港富豪李嘉誠家族領導的綜合企業週三表示，其子公司巴拿馬港口公司（PPC）於前一天對巴拿馬當局提起了仲裁。此舉是針對該國最高法院的一項裁決，該裁決宣佈 PPC 運營兩個巴拿馬運河港口的特許權 “違憲”。長和表示，啓動仲裁的決定是基於適用的特許合同和國際商會（ICC）的仲裁規則。香港的法律學者和專家強調了執行方面的挑戰，因為 ICC 國際仲裁法院的角色是管理仲裁程序，並不具備獨立的執行權。國際商業仲裁專家、香港中文大學法學院副院長嚴月明表示：“仲裁裁決的執行是國家法院的事務。” 她指出，如果巴拿馬當局未能遵守仲裁裁決，PPC 將尋求巴拿馬法院執行賠償，根據聯合國《承認和執行外國仲裁裁決公約》，巴拿馬是該公約的締約國。嚴補充説，PPC 可以在巴拿馬擁有資產的其他司法管轄區追求執行，前提是這些司法管轄區是該公約的簽署國。但立法者蘇少聰，eBRAM 國際在線爭議解決中心的主席，指出根據該公約可能存在的障礙，如果裁決違反該國的公共政策，執行可能會被拒絕。“因為執行通常必須通過當地法院，巴拿馬法院會辯稱它已經宣佈該 [運營是] 違憲，而現在你又回到同一法院要求賠償，” 蘇説。“法院可能不會執行。” 該國最高法院上週剝奪了 PPC 運營巴拿馬運河兩端的巴爾博亞和克里斯托巴爾碼頭的特許權。PPC 最初被允許運營這兩個港口直到 2047 年，此前在 2021 年續簽了為期 25 年的特許權。蘇補充説，尋求其他司法管轄區執行仲裁結果可能違反 “國家豁免” 原則，該原則保護主權國家及其財產，並可能阻止向 PPC 發放任何裁決。PPC 還面臨其他障礙，包括舉證責任，立法者表示。蘇補充説，PPC 需要證明巴拿馬違反了其運營港口的特許合同，才能在法庭上勝訴。“巴拿馬當局可以為自己辯護，辯稱即使簽署了特許合同，也不能違反當地法律，” 立法者説。“而且後來發現某些事項在巴拿馬法律下是不被允許的，我們稱之為 ‘不可抗力’。” 根據 ICC 仲裁規則，被告應在收到仲裁請求後 30 天內提交答覆，包括對爭議性質和情況的評論以及對所尋求救濟的回應。目前尚不清楚巴拿馬是否會參與仲裁。嚴表示，根據規則，即使被告拒絕提交答覆或選擇不參與，程序仍然可以繼續。她表示，任何仲裁機構在收到索賠方的通知後，首先會確定是否存在有效的仲裁協議。“仲裁協議確立了 ‘管轄權’。如果初步管轄權存在，即使被告不作回應，機構也會繼續進行，” 嚴説。因此，即使巴拿馬當局拒絕參與仲裁，PPC 仍有可能獲得裁決，她説。在週三的聲明中，PPC 表示，仲裁是基於近三十年來確立的特許合同和法律框架，作為 “合同法”。“巴拿馬共和國違反了適用的合同和法律，” 該公司表示。“PPC 尋求基於相關財務數據評估的廣泛賠償，需迅速解決，以及可能證明必要的其他救濟請求。PPC 及其投資者繼續保留所有權利。” 香港大學仲裁與爭議解決碩士項目主任 Shahla Ali 教授指出，投資者對國家提起索賠的商業仲裁案件的成功率在 30% 到 50% 之間。Ali 補充説，即使在巴拿馬當局缺席的情況下，仲裁仍然可以進行，主持機構將確保未參與方保持知情，並提供多次參與的機會。自唐納德·特朗普於 2025 年 1 月再次擔任總統以來，美國政府已多次誓言 “收回” 對這一戰略水道的控制。去年 2 月，巴拿馬退出了中國的 “一帶一路” 倡議。巴拿馬最高法院的裁決還跟隨上個月該國審計長髮起的審計，審計長聲稱該特許權在 1997 年至 2023 年間為運營商創造了 37.8 億美元，而該國僅獲得了 2.36 億美元。PPC 拒絕了這些發現，聲稱其在基礎設施上投資超過 18 億美元，並遵守了合同義務。</p>

長和(ADR)

長和

<p>香港的長和（CK Hutchison）在其港口運營被宣佈為違憲後，面臨從巴拿馬獲得賠償的挑戰。巴拿馬港口公司（PPC）已對巴拿馬當局提起仲裁，但法律專家警告稱，任何裁決的執行可能取決於當地法院，而當地法院可能拒絕執行。國際商會（ICC）的角色僅限於管理程序，沒有執行權。PPC 必須證明巴拿馬違反了特許合同，潛在障礙包括國家豁免和當地法律。這類仲裁案件的成功率在 30% 到 50% 之間</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>香港的長和集團可能會發現很難從巴拿馬當局那裏獲得賠償，法律專家表示，他們所參與的仲裁法庭缺乏執行權，賠償的發放可能取決於該國自己的法院。這家由香港富豪李嘉誠家族領導的綜合企業週三表示，其子公司巴拿馬港口公司（PPC）於前一天對巴拿馬當局提起了仲裁。此舉是針對該國最高法院的一項裁決，該裁決宣佈 PPC 運營兩個巴拿馬運河港口的特許權 “違憲”。長和表示，啓動仲裁的決定是基於適用的特許合同和國際商會（ICC）的仲裁規則。香港的法律學者和專家強調了執行方面的挑戰，因為 ICC 國際仲裁法院的角色是管理仲裁程序，並不具備獨立的執行權。國際商業仲裁專家、香港中文大學法學院副院長嚴月明表示：“仲裁裁決的執行是國家法院的事務。” 她指出，如果巴拿馬當局未能遵守仲裁裁決，PPC 將尋求巴拿馬法院執行賠償，根據聯合國《承認和執行外國仲裁裁決公約》，巴拿馬是該公約的締約國。嚴補充説，PPC 可以在巴拿馬擁有資產的其他司法管轄區追求執行，前提是這些司法管轄區是該公約的簽署國。但立法者蘇少聰，eBRAM 國際在線爭議解決中心的主席，指出根據該公約可能存在的障礙，如果裁決違反該國的公共政策，執行可能會被拒絕。“因為執行通常必須通過當地法院，巴拿馬法院會辯稱它已經宣佈該 [運營是] 違憲，而現在你又回到同一法院要求賠償，” 蘇説。“法院可能不會執行。” 該國最高法院上週剝奪了 PPC 運營巴拿馬運河兩端的巴爾博亞和克里斯托巴爾碼頭的特許權。PPC 最初被允許運營這兩個港口直到 2047 年，此前在 2021 年續簽了為期 25 年的特許權。蘇補充説，尋求其他司法管轄區執行仲裁結果可能違反 “國家豁免” 原則，該原則保護主權國家及其財產，並可能阻止向 PPC 發放任何裁決。PPC 還面臨其他障礙，包括舉證責任，立法者表示。蘇補充説，PPC 需要證明巴拿馬違反了其運營港口的特許合同，才能在法庭上勝訴。“巴拿馬當局可以為自己辯護，辯稱即使簽署了特許合同，也不能違反當地法律，” 立法者説。“而且後來發現某些事項在巴拿馬法律下是不被允許的，我們稱之為 ‘不可抗力’。” 根據 ICC 仲裁規則，被告應在收到仲裁請求後 30 天內提交答覆，包括對爭議性質和情況的評論以及對所尋求救濟的回應。目前尚不清楚巴拿馬是否會參與仲裁。嚴表示，根據規則，即使被告拒絕提交答覆或選擇不參與，程序仍然可以繼續。她表示，任何仲裁機構在收到索賠方的通知後，首先會確定是否存在有效的仲裁協議。“仲裁協議確立了 ‘管轄權’。如果初步管轄權存在，即使被告不作回應，機構也會繼續進行，” 嚴説。因此，即使巴拿馬當局拒絕參與仲裁，PPC 仍有可能獲得裁決，她説。在週三的聲明中，PPC 表示，仲裁是基於近三十年來確立的特許合同和法律框架，作為 “合同法”。“巴拿馬共和國違反了適用的合同和法律，” 該公司表示。“PPC 尋求基於相關財務數據評估的廣泛賠償，需迅速解決，以及可能證明必要的其他救濟請求。PPC 及其投資者繼續保留所有權利。” 香港大學仲裁與爭議解決碩士項目主任 Shahla Ali 教授指出，投資者對國家提起索賠的商業仲裁案件的成功率在 30% 到 50% 之間。Ali 補充説，即使在巴拿馬當局缺席的情況下，仲裁仍然可以進行，主持機構將確保未參與方保持知情，並提供多次參與的機會。自唐納德·特朗普於 2025 年 1 月再次擔任總統以來，美國政府已多次誓言 “收回” 對這一戰略水道的控制。去年 2 月，巴拿馬退出了中國的 “一帶一路” 倡議。巴拿馬最高法院的裁決還跟隨上個月該國審計長髮起的審計，審計長聲稱該特許權在 1997 年至 2023 年間為運營商創造了 37.8 億美元，而該國僅獲得了 2.36 億美元。PPC 拒絕了這些發現，聲稱其在基礎設施上投資超過 18 億美元，並遵守了合同義務。</p>
</div>

專家表示，長和 (ADR) 將面臨艱難的鬥爭，以確保巴拿馬港口交易的賠償