2026年6月22日至7月3日，光与律师团队肖雄律师参加厦门国际法高等研究院第19届国际法前沿问题暑期研修班。这是肖雄律师连续第四次参加该项研修活动。
两周时间里，课程采用全英文授课。学员来自法国、英国、美国、巴基斯坦、印度、伊朗、越南、尼泊尔、巴西等多个国家。肖雄律师与各国学员展开了一些友好交流。
图片 图片 图片 图片
感谢厦门大学志愿者在课程期间提供的支持。
四门课程，四种观察法律的方法 本届研修班的课程兼顾理论与实务。Dr Penelope Ridings 讲授国际法中的必要勤勉义务；Prof. Martins Paparinskis 讲授国际不法行为所致损害的赔偿；Prof. Ana Filipa Vrdoljak 从文化遗产的角度讨论国际法的变革；Prof. Hannes Rösler 讲授欧盟宪法与商法。
四位教师长期从事相关领域的研究与实践。Dr Penelope Ridings 是联合国国际法委员会委员，并担任国际法中的必要勤勉义务专题特别报告员；Prof. Martins Paparinskis 是伦敦大学学院国际公法教授、联合国国际法委员会委员，并担任国际不法行为所致损害赔偿专题特别报告员；Prof. Ana Filipa Vrdoljak 是悉尼科技大学法学教授、联合国教科文组织国际法与文化遗产教席；Prof. Hannes Rösler 是德国锡根大学民法、国际私法与比较法教授。教师们各自的研究经历，也使课程不仅有理论脉络，还有对制度发展和法律实践的持续观察。
必要勤勉义务：国际法中的可变标准 联合国国际法委员会中文文件将 due diligence 译为必要勤勉义务，本文沿用这一译法，以区别并购、投资和交易中的尽职调查。课程所讨论的也不是对某项交易开展资料核查，而是国际法如何评价义务主体是否采取了合理可行的措施。它通常关注行为是否足够审慎、积极，不能仅以损害有没有发生来判断义务是否履行。
国际裁判实践曾将必要勤勉称为可变概念。科学与技术信息、相关国际规则、损害风险和紧迫程度发生变化时，所要求的注意程度也可能变化；履行方式还可能受到国家能力和可用资源的影响。但是，可变并不意味着可以任意降低要求。活动风险越高，所要求的注意程度通常越严格；能力有限也不能成为长期拖延或者不采取行动的理由。
图片
从律师实务看，这类判断需要回到具体义务和事实：风险能否预见，行为人掌握了哪些信息，当时可以采取哪些措施，行动是否及时，监督和应对是否真正落实。不同国际法领域的规则基础并不相同，因此不存在一张能够到处套用的清单。结果发生了，不等于此前一定没有尽责；文件做得齐全，也不等于现实中的风险已经得到处理。
国家责任赔偿：数字背后仍是证据与公平 Prof. Martins Paparinskis 的课程从国际不法行为讲到损害、因果关系、赔偿方式、估值、利润损失和利息。对律师而言，最有启发的地方在于：一项赔偿请求不能只说明行为错误、结果严重，还要把损害转化为可证明、可计算、可由裁判者接受的请求。
课程还提出了一个不容易回答的问题：赔偿通常以填补损失为出发点，但如果赔偿数额足以压垮责任国，裁判是否需要考虑其支付能力？形式上的同一标准，与现实中的经济差异可能发生冲突。目前，联合国国际法委员会仍在研究这一问题，尚不存在可以直接套用的统一答案。
文化遗产：法律保护的不只是物品 Prof. Ana Filipa Vrdoljak 把战争中的文化财产保护、文物非法交易与返还、文化权利以及战后和平建设放在一起讨论。历史建筑、宗教场所、文物、档案、语言和传统技艺，都与特定群体的身份和记忆相连。文化遗产一旦被毁坏或脱离原有环境，损失的不只是财产价值，还有一个社会理解自身历史的线索。
这门课也改变了我们看待古迹保护的角度。修复遗址、返还文物、保存档案和尊重文化多样性，可能关系到受损群体能否被看见，也可能影响冲突之后的和解。从课程材料看，相关国际规则和实践已不再只处理文物与遗址本身，也逐步触及文化权利、群体记忆和冲突后的恢复。
欧盟法：共同规则带来便利，也带来约束 Prof. Hannes Rösler 的课程介绍了欧盟法律秩序、机构设置、单一市场和四项自由。欧盟以共同规则减少成员国之间的制度差异，使人员、货物、服务和资本在更大市场内流动。消费者保护、劳动时间、数据保护、AI、竞争和环境等领域，也由此形成跨国适用的标准。
从中国律师的角度看，欧盟体系的力量不只来自条文，也来自统一市场。规则一旦与市场准入相连，就可能影响境外企业的产品设计、合同安排和数据处理。共同规则提高了可预期性，也会增加合规成本；成员国获得了更大的市场，同时让渡部分权力。在成员国已经授予欧盟权限的领域，欧盟法优先适用原则、机构程序、成员国差异以及英国脱欧，都能反映区域一体化在主权、效率和民主代表之间面临的张力。
把课堂中的问题带到英文演讲中 6月29日，肖雄律师参加研修班学术沙龙并作全英文演讲。演讲题目为 Due Diligence as a Variable Standard，《必要勤勉义务：一种可变标准》。
演讲从拉纳广场事故和基本劳动权利讲起，同时提出发展中国家需要就业、订单和发展空间。国际劳动标准如果提高得过快，成本又全部落到供应商身上，企业可能失去订单，也可能用更隐蔽的方式回避要求。问题因此不只是标准高不高，还包括成本由谁承担、整改需要什么条件，以及规则实施后工人的处境是否真的发生变化。
演讲借用了一个旋钮的比喻。必要勤勉义务的履行强度会根据风险、事实和能力调整，但旋钮下面应当有一条不能突破的底线。强迫劳动、童工、欠薪和不安全工作场所不能成为发展中的交换条件；在底线之上，可以根据实际能力安排时间、培训和资金支持。节奏可以不同，方向应当一致。
图片
这次演讲尝试把国际法上必要勤勉义务的可变性放进劳动法和跨国供应链之中。一个看似统一的规则进入能力并不相同的国家和企业后，谁承担成本，谁获得保护，谁又可能被排除在市场之外？这类问题提醒我们，评价一项规则不能只看文字是否正确，也要看它如何作用于现实。
收获逐渐从知识转向方法 这次学习还有一个很直观的感受：一些国际学员的学术研究能力较强。他们习惯先界定问题，再寻找条约、判例和学术文献；讨论时会区分现行规则与个人主张，也会主动追问一个观点的例外、边界和反面论据。课堂发言不只是表达态度，而是把观点放回法律材料中检验。
国际法的学习也不能停留在记住多少条约和案件。劳工保护与发展空间、统一标准与国家差异、国家责任与赔偿能力、文化财产与群体记忆、区域合作与主权让渡，这些关系往往同时存在。规则需要回应新的技术、贸易和社会条件，但每一次调整都会产生新的成本和利益分配。
连续第四次参加研修班，体会也在变化。早期更在意教授讲了哪些新内容，现在会更多追问：一项规则为什么这样设计，由谁推动，谁从中受益，谁承担执行成本，它在不同国家是否会产生不同结果。律师工作融会贯通，他山之石可以攻玉。
图片 图片 图片
厦门国际法高等研究院自2006年起举办全英文暑期研修班。此前十八届课程已有一百多位国际法学者、国际法院法官和法律专家授课，吸引近两千名来自约七十个国家和地区的学员。期待今后有更多国际学者和法律实务人士来到厦门，也期待更多中国法律人能够在这里表达自己的经验与判断。
ENGLISH VERSION
Lawyer Xiao Xiong Attends the 19th Summer Programme of the Xiamen Academy of International Law From 22 June to 3 July 2026, Lawyer Xiao Xiong of the Guangyu Legal Team attended the 19th Summer Programme on Frontiers of International Law, organised by the Xiamen Academy of International Law. This was his fourth consecutive participation in the programme.
The two-week programme was delivered entirely in English. Participants came from France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Pakistan, India, Iran, Vietnam, Nepal, Brazil and other countries. Lawyer Xiao had friendly exchanges with participants from these countries. AI translation tools now make everyday communication much easier, but accurate listening and professional discussion still require a sound command of the relevant legal terminology.
We thank the volunteers from Xiamen University for their support throughout the programme.
Four Courses, Four Ways of Looking at Law The programme combined academic analysis with legal practice. Dr Penelope Ridings lectured on due diligence in international law. Professor Martins Paparinskis examined compensation for damage caused by internationally wrongful acts. Professor Ana Filipa Vrdoljak discussed the reform of international law through the prism of cultural heritage. Professor Hannes Rösler taught EU constitutional and commercial law.
Due Diligence: A Variable Standard in International Law The Chinese-language materials of the International Law Commission translate due diligence as an obligation of necessary diligence. We follow that terminology in the Chinese version to distinguish the concept from commercial due diligence in mergers, investment and other transactions. Dr Ridings’ course concerned how international law assesses whether an obligated actor has taken reasonably available measures. The inquiry generally focuses on the adequacy of conduct rather than deciding compliance solely by whether harm ultimately occurred.
International decisions have described due diligence as a variable concept. The required degree of care may change with scientific and technological information, relevant international rules, the risk of harm and the urgency involved. Implementation may also reflect a State’s capabilities and available resources. Variation does not permit arbitrary relaxation: riskier activities usually call for greater diligence, while limited capacity does not justify indefinite delay or complete inaction.
For practising lawyers, the assessment must return to the particular obligation and facts. Was the risk foreseeable? What information was available? What measures could reasonably have been taken? Was the response timely, and were supervision and implementation effective? Different fields of international law rest on different legal rules, so no single checklist applies everywhere. Harm does not by itself prove a prior failure of diligence, while complete paperwork does not prove that the underlying risk was properly addressed.
State Responsibility: Evidence and Fairness behind the Numbers Professor Paparinskis moved from internationally wrongful acts to injury, causation, forms of reparation, valuation, loss of profits and interest. One lesson for lawyers was especially clear: a compensation claim must do more than show that the conduct was wrongful and the consequences serious. It must translate injury into a claim that can be proved, quantified and accepted by a tribunal.
The course also raised a difficult question. Compensation generally starts from repairing loss, but should a tribunal consider the responsible State’s ability to pay when an award may cripple it? A formally equal rule may collide with large differences in economic capacity. The International Law Commission is still studying this issue, and there is no single settled answer that can simply be applied.
Cultural Heritage: Law Protects More Than Objects Professor Vrdoljak connected cultural property in armed conflict, illicit trade and restitution, cultural rights and post-conflict peacebuilding. Historic buildings, religious sites, cultural objects, archives, languages and traditional skills are connected with the identity and memory of communities. When heritage is destroyed or removed from its setting, the loss extends beyond its market value. A society may lose part of the evidence through which it understands its own history.
The course also changed our view of heritage protection. Restoring sites, returning objects, preserving archives and respecting cultural diversity may affect whether communities harmed by conflict are recognised and how reconciliation proceeds. The course materials showed that relevant international rules and practice now address not only objects and sites but also cultural rights, collective memory and post-conflict recovery.
EU Law: Common Rules Bring Both Convenience and Constraint Professor Rösler introduced the EU legal order, its institutions, the single market and the four freedoms. Common rules reduce legal differences among Member States and allow people, goods, services and capital to move across a larger market. Shared standards have also developed in consumer protection, working time, data protection, AI, competition and environmental law.
From the perspective of a Chinese lawyer, the influence of the EU system comes not only from legal texts but also from the scale of its market. Once rules are tied to market access, they may affect product design, contracts and data processing outside Europe. Common rules improve predictability but also increase compliance costs. Member States gain access to a larger market while transferring part of their authority. In fields where competences have been conferred on the EU, the primacy of EU law, institutional complexity, differences among Member States and Brexit all illustrate continuing tensions among sovereignty, efficiency and democratic representation.
Taking a Classroom Question into an English Presentation On 29 June, Lawyer Xiao delivered an English presentation at the Academy Salon entitled Due Diligence as a Variable Standard.
The presentation began with the Rana Plaza disaster and basic labour rights, while also recognising that developing countries need jobs, orders and room to develop. If international labour standards rise too quickly and all costs are pushed onto suppliers, businesses may lose orders or move non-compliance out of sight. The question is therefore not simply whether the standard is high enough. It also concerns who bears the cost, what conditions remediation requires and whether workers’ lives actually improve.
The presentation used the image of a dial. Due diligence adjusts to risk, facts and capacity, but the dial must have a floor. Forced labour, child labour, unpaid wages and unsafe workplaces cannot become bargaining chips for development. Above that floor, time, training and financial support may be adjusted to actual capacity. The pace may differ, but the direction should remain shared.
For Lawyer Xiao, the presentation was not a repetition of the course. It was an attempt to place the variable standard of international law into labour law and global supply chains. When a formally uniform rule enters countries and businesses with unequal capacities, who pays, who receives protection and who may be excluded from the market? Assessing a rule requires attention not only to the correctness of its text but also to its operation in practice.
A Fourth Programme: From Acquiring Knowledge to Learning a Method Another strong impression from the programme was the research ability of many international participants. They tended to define a question before turning to treaties, cases and scholarship. In discussion, they distinguished existing law from their preferred rule and actively tested exceptions, boundaries and counterarguments. A classroom contribution was not merely a statement of attitude; it was a proposition tested against legal materials.
The study of international law cannot stop at remembering treaties and cases. Labour protection and development space, uniform standards and national differences, State responsibility and capacity to pay, cultural property and collective memory, regional cooperation and transferred sovereignty often coexist. Rules must respond to new technology, trade and social conditions, but each adjustment also changes the distribution of costs and benefits.
After four consecutive programmes, the experience has changed. In earlier years, the emphasis was on what new material the professors presented. Now the questions go further: Why was a rule designed this way? Who promoted it? Who benefits? Who bears the cost of implementation? Does it produce different results in different countries? Bringing these questions back into legal practice is more valuable than simply adding several international-law concepts to one’s vocabulary.
The Xiamen Academy of International Law has offered its English-language Summer Programme since 2006. Across its first eighteen sessions, more than one hundred international law scholars, judges of the International Court of Justice and legal experts taught nearly two thousand participants from around seventy countries and regions. We look forward to seeing more international scholars and practitioners in Xiamen, and more Chinese lawyers sharing their own experience and judgment with the world.