亚太经合组织（APEC）成立30余年来，始终致力于引领亚太地区开放型经济发展。当前，在全球化遭遇逆流、地缘政治风险加剧的背景下，跨境投资的法律合规性与风险管控已成为APEC成员企业境外投资的核心议题。本文立足于国际投资法与比较法视角，系统探讨APEC框架下境外投资的法律机制演进、主要合规挑战及务实应对策略，以期为区域投资治理与相关法律实务提供参考。

Over the past three decades, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) has been dedicated to fostering an open economy in the Asia-Pacific region. In the current context of globalization facing headwinds and intensifying geopolitical risks, legal compliance and risk management in cross-border investment have become central concerns for enterprises from APEC member economies engaged in overseas investment. From the perspectives of international investment law and comparative law, this paper systematically explores the evolution of legal mechanisms for overseas investment under the APEC framework, the primary compliance challenges, and pragmatic response strategies. It aims to provide insights for regional investment governance and related legal practice.

一、APEC框架下贸易与投资自由化的法律机制演进与结构性特征Evolution and Structural Characteristics of Legal Mechanisms for Trade and Investment Liberalization under the APEC Framework

自1994年确立“茂物目标”以来，APEC逐步构建了一套以“非约束性承诺＋单边行动计划”为特色的区域投资治理模式。区别于具有强制约束力的自由贸易协定（FTA），APEC主要通过《APEC非约束性投资原则》《APEC投资便利化行动计划》等软法性文件推动投资自由化。此类机制虽在法律强制力上弱于传统条约义务，却为各成员提供了政策协调与国内法调整的弹性空间，形成了一种“渐进式、共识型”的区域规则形成路径。值得关注的是，APEC的软法机制在实践中常通过“最佳实践指南”“集体行动计划”等形式，逐步推动成员国内法的趋同，其影响力不容忽视。

Since the establishment of the "Bogor Goals" in 1994, APEC has gradually developed a regional investment governance model characterized by "non-binding commitments + individual action plans." Unlike Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with binding obligations, APEC primarily promotes investment liberalization through soft-law instruments such as the APEC Non-Binding Investment Principles and the APEC Investment Facilitation Action Plan. Although these mechanisms possess weaker legal enforceability than traditional treaty obligations, they offer members flexibility for policy coordination and domestic legal adjustment, forming a "gradual, consensus-based"path for regional rule-making. Notably, APEC's soft-law mechanisms often drive convergence among members' domestic laws through instruments like "best practice guidelines" and "collective action plans,"and their influence should not be underestimated.

1.贸易便利化的法律基础设施

1.Legal Infrastructure for Trade Facilitation

APEC在贸易自由化方面的努力主要体现在关税减让和非关税壁垒的消除上。通过多边和区域层面的谈判，APEC成员间的平均关税水平显著下降，贸易成本得以降低。1同时，APEC也积极推动贸易便利化措施，例如简化海关程序、推广电子贸易、提高贸易透明度等。2025年8月第二次APEC海关程序小组委员会会议在韩国仁川召开，会议聚焦以人工智能和数字创新提升贸易效率、韧性与安全为主题，代表了贸易便利化与数字化转型的融合趋势。这些措施虽不具强制约束力，却通过APEC各工作组的能力建设与技术援助，实质性地促进了成员国国内相关立法的渐进共识。APEC推动的“单一窗口”互联互通，不仅是技术层面的对接，更是对成员间行政程序、数据交换标准乃至商业秘密保护规则的深度协调，其法律整合意义远超贸易效率提升本身。

APEC's efforts in trade liberalization are reflected mainly in tariff reduction and the elimination of non-tariff barriers. Through multilateral and regional negotiations, average tariff levels among APEC members have decreased significantly, reducing trade costs. Concurrently, APEC has actively promoted trade facilitation measures such as simplifying customs procedures, promoting digital trade, and enhancing transparency. In August 2025, the second APEC Sub-Committee on Customs Procedures meeting was held in Incheon, South Korea, focusing on enhancing trade efficiency, resilience, and security through artificial intelligence and digital innovation. This exemplifies the trend of integrating trade facilitation with digital transformation. Although non-binding, these measures have substantially promoted consensus and alignment in relevant domestic legislation among member economies through capacity building and technical assistance by various APEC working groups. The "single window" interconnectivity promoted by APEC involves not only technical linkage but also deep coordination of administrative procedures, data exchange standards, and even commercial confidentiality rules. Its significance for legal integration extends far beyond mere trade efficiency gains.

2.投资自由化的法律承诺与局限性

2.Legal Commitments and Limitations of Investment Liberalization

投资自由化与便利化是APEC的另一个核心支柱。APEC倡导各成员方放宽外商投资准入限制，提升投资领域透明度，优化投资审批流程，同时强化对投资者合法权益的保护。然而，这一进程呈现出显著的非约束性与渐进性特征：各成员经济体基于自身发展水平，其承诺与实践存在巨大差异。例如，以新加坡、中国香港为代表的部分发达成员，已通过成熟、透明的法律体系实现了高度的投资便利化；而许多发展中成员仍不同程度地保留着外资准入的逐案审批机制，这在实践中带来了政策透明度与法律确定性的挑战。对于投资者而言，APEC框架下的核心制度性风险在于其缺乏具有强制约束力的多边争端解决机制。投资权益的保障主要依赖于东道国的国内法律体系及与之签订的双边投资协定。因此，企业在进行投资决策时，必须进行针对性的国别法律尽职调查，重点关注三大核心领域：一、准入壁垒：精确解读东道国发布的外商投资准入特别管理措施（负面清单），明确禁止与限制的行业范围；二、安全审查：深入了解并评估国家安全审查机制的触发门槛、流程与潜在风险；三、履行要求：核查当地法律中关于本地化含量要求、技术转让、外汇管制等可能影响企业经营与盈利能力的具体规定。

Investment liberalization and facilitation constitute another core pillar of APEC. APEC advocates for member economies to relax foreign investment access restrictions, enhance transparency in investment policies, streamline approval procedures, and strengthen protection for investors' legitimate rights and interests. However, this process is markedly non-binding and gradual, with significant disparities in commitments and practices among economies based on their respective development levels. For instance, some developed members, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, China, have achieved high levels of investment facilitation through mature and transparent legal systems. In contrast, many developing members still retain varying degrees of case-by-case approval mechanisms for foreign investment, posing challenges in terms of policy transparency and legal certainty. For investors, a core institutional risk under the APEC framework is the absence of a binding multilateral dispute settlement mechanism. Protection of investment rights relies primarily on the host country's domestic legal system and any applicable Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Consequently, enterprises must conduct targeted, country-specific legal due diligence when making investment decisions, focusing on three core areas:

Market Access Barriers: Accurately interpreting the host country's Foreign Investment Negative List to clarify prohibited and restricted industries.

Security Review Mechanisms: Thoroughly understanding and assessing the triggering thresholds, procedures, and potential risks of the national security review process.

Performance Requirements: Verifying specific provisions in local laws regarding local content requirements, technology transfer, foreign exchange controls, and other factors that may impact operational viability and profitability.

3.RCEP与APEC机制的协同效应

3.Synergistic Effects of RCEP and APEC Mechanisms

《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》（RCEP）作为亚太地区最大的自由贸易协定，填补了APEC软法机制的不足，其确立了“准入前国民待遇+负面清单”模式，并纳入禁止业绩要求条款，其效力显著高于APEC的非约束性承诺。RCEP进一步降低了区域内的关税壁垒，确立区域累积原产地规则，该规则允许产品原产价值在RCEP区域内进行累计计算，但其法律适用也更为复杂。为充分享受关税优惠并规避风险，企业必须建立专业的原产地合规管理体系，确保产品在区域价值链中的加工与增值能够严格符合《协定》项下产品特定原产地规则的技术标准，从而有效防范因原产地认定错误引发的关税补缴、行政处罚乃至法律争议。RCEP的实施与APEC的“茂物目标”和《APEC互联互通蓝图》相互补充，共同推动了亚太区域经济一体化向更高层次迈进。

As the largest free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) complements APEC's soft-law framework. It establishes a "pre-establishment national treatment + negative list" model and includes provisions prohibiting performance requirements, yielding significantly stronger legal effect than APEC's non-binding commitments. RCEP has further reduced regional tariff barriers and established regional cumulation rules of origin. These rules allow for the cumulative calculation of a product's originating content within the RCEP area, though their legal application is complex. To fully utilize tariff preferences and mitigate risks, enterprises must establish professional origin compliance management systems. This ensures that processing and value addition within the regional value chain strictly comply with the Agreement's Product-Specific Rules (PSR) of origin, thereby effectively preventing legal disputes arising from incorrect origin determination, such as duty recovery claims, administrative penalties, and litigation. RCEP's implementation complements APEC's "Bogor Goals"and the APEC Connectivity Blueprint, jointly advancing Asia-Pacific regional economic integration to a higher level.

二、APEC成员境外投资的法律驱动与合规挑战Legal Drivers and Compliance Challenges of Overseas Investment by APEC Members

1.投资类型多元化引发的法律结构复杂性

1.Legal Complexity Arising from Diversification of Investment Types

当前，APEC区域内境外投资的形式已超越传统的绿地投资，逐步扩展至跨境并购、特殊目的收购公司上市、可变利益实体架构等更为复杂的交易形态。各类投资形式所适用的法律监管框架存在显著差异，例如：一、跨境并购除需满足一般公司法律要求外，通常还须完成东道国的反垄断申报并通过外商投资安全审查程序；二、数字经济投资主要面临数据跨境流动管制（如遵守中国《数据出境安全评估办法》及东盟《数字数据治理框架》等）与算法备案等新型合规要求；三、基础设施投资多涉及特许经营权、政府与社会资本合作等特殊法律安排，需重点关注政治风险担保机制及相关主权豁免法律问题。

Current forms of overseas investment within the APEC region extend beyond traditional greenfield investment to include more complex transactions such as cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A), Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) listings, and Variable Interest Entity (VIE) structures. The legal and regulatory frameworks applicable to these different forms vary significantly. For example:

Cross-border M&A must comply not only with general corporate law but also complete the host country's merger control filings and clear the foreign investment security review process.

Digital Economy Investment primarily faces emerging compliance requirements such as cross-border data flow regulations (e.g., compliance with China's Measures for Security Assessment of Outbound Data Transfer and the ASEAN Digital Data Governance Framework) and algorithm filing obligations.

Infrastructure Investment often involves special legal arrangements like concession agreements and Public-Private Partnerships, requiring close attention to political risk guarantee mechanisms and related sovereign immunity issues.

2.境外投资的核心法律风险

2.Core Legal Risk for Overseas Investment

基于近年国际投资仲裁案例、主要经济体监管动态及国际条约实践，APEC区域境外投资所面临的法律风险已形成一套相互关联的系统性矩阵。这些风险不仅源于东道国国内法的变动，更与国际规则演进、大国政策博弈紧密交织，主要包含以下四种：

第一，政策法律变更风险：主要包括东道国修订外资法、实施征收或国有化措施。企业可依据投资协定中的“保护伞条款”主张合同权利条约化，并通过多边投资担保机构等风险保险工具进行风险缓释。

第二，合规监管风险：涵盖反腐败（如美国《反海外腐败法》、英国《反贿赂法》）、出口管制（如美国《出口管理条例》）、经济制裁等多维合规义务。企业应建立并实施系统的合规管理体系。

第三，税务法律风险：主要涉及转让定价调查、数字服务税开征以及常设机构认定等挑战。企业可依托区域协定中的税收协定网络，开展供应链税务架构优化，以提升税务合规性与效率。

第四，争议解决风险：包括东道国司法干预、仲裁裁决承认与执行受阻等情形。企业需在投资架构中善用投资者-国家争端解决机制条款，并谨慎选择仲裁地与适用法律，以保障争议解决机制的可操作性与有效性。

Based on recent international investment arbitration cases, regulatory trends in major economies, and international treaty practices, legal risks for overseas investment in the APEC region form an interconnected matrix. These risks stem not only from changes in host country domestic law but are also intertwined with the evolution of international rules and major power policy competition. They primarily include the following four categories:

Policy and Legal Change Risks: Primarily involving host country amendments to foreign investment laws and implementation of expropriation or nationalization measures. Enterprises may invoke the "umbrella clause" in investment treaties to seek protection for contractual rights and mitigate risks through insurance tools such as those provided by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

Compliance and Regulatory Risks: Encompassing multi-dimensional obligations including anti-corruption (e.g., the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the UK Bribery Act), export controls (e.g., the U.S. Export Administration Regulations), and economic sanctions. Enterprises should establish and implement systematic compliance management systems.

Tax Legal Risks: Mainly involving challenges such as transfer pricing investigations, the introduction of digital service taxes, and the determination of permanent establishments. Enterprises can leverage the tax treaty network within regional agreements to optimize supply chain tax structures and enhance tax compliance efficiency.

Dispute Resolution Risks: Including host country judicial intervention and obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Enterprises need to strategically utilize Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses in investment structures and carefully select arbitration venues and governing law to ensure the operability and effectiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms.

3.地缘政治风险的法律对冲机制

3.Legal Hedging Mechanisms for Geopolitical Risks

在大国竞争背景下，经济制裁与长臂管辖已成为影响APEC区域投资的关键法律变量。美国的《以制裁反击美国敌人法案》、《芯片与科学法案》等立法所构建的次级制裁机制，对涉及敏感技术、关键矿产的投资构成重大合规障碍。为有效对冲风险，企业应建立动态的制裁合规筛查系统，对交易对手及最终受益人进行受限方清单核查；同时在关键交易文件中嵌入精细化的制裁条款与法律变更应对机制，明确风险分配，并可善用中国《反外国制裁法》等司法工具寻求救济。

Against the backdrop of major power competition, economic sanctions and extraterritorial jurisdiction have become key legal variables affecting overseas investment in the APEC region. Secondary sanctions mechanisms established by U.S. legislation such as the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) and the CHIPS and Science Act pose significant compliance hurdles for investments involving sensitive technologies and critical minerals. To hedge these risks effectively, enterprises should:

Establish a dynamic sanctions compliance screening system to vet transaction counterparties and ultimate beneficial owners against relevant restricted party lists.

Embed precise sanctions clauses and legal change adaptation mechanisms in key transaction documents to clarify risk allocation.

Utilize defensive legal tools such as China's Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law to seek potential relief.

三、境外投资法律风险的系统性应对与合规治理Systematic Response to Overseas Investment Legal Risks and Compliance Governance

尽管《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》（RCEP）在深化区域合作、释放一体化红利方面成效显著，但其落地实施仍面临多重挑战，在境外投资领域尤为突出。当前，逆全球化浪潮与贸易保护主义抬头，直接阻碍了APEC区域内的贸易投资自由化进程；叠加大国竞争所引发的地缘政治紧张，进一步侵蚀了区域经济合作的稳定性，为跨境投资带来显著不确定性。尽管APEC持续推动投资便利化，但成员国在投资准入、监管政策、劳工标准、环境保护等方面仍存在显著差异，大幅提升了境外投资的复杂性与合规风险。与此同时，全球疫情与地缘冲突暴露了供应链的脆弱性，推动企业重新布局境外投资、提升供应链韧性，以强化国际竞争力。2数字经济的迅猛发展也对现有规则体系构成新挑战，APEC在数据跨境流动、数字税收、网络安全等关键领域的规则构建仍处于探索阶段，统一标准缺失问题突出。3例如，虽已推出互联网经济合作倡议，但尚未建立数字贸易基础设施网络安全的统一规则。这些规则空白与标准分歧，不仅推高了贸易成本与合规风险，也制约了区域数字贸易一体化的高质量发展。

Despite the significant achievements of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) in deepening regional cooperation and delivering integration benefits, its implementation faces multiple challenges, particularly in overseas investment. Currently, the wave of anti-globalization and rising trade protectionism directly impedes the process of trade and investment liberalization within the APEC region. Coupled with geopolitical tensions stemming from major power competition, these factors further erode the stability of regional economic cooperation and create substantial uncertainty for cross-border investment. Although APEC continues to promote investment facilitation, significant disparities persist among member economies regarding investment market access, regulatory policies, labor standards, and environmental protection requirements. These differences substantially increase the complexity and compliance risks associated with overseas investment. Concurrently, the global pandemic and geopolitical conflicts have exposed the fragility of global supply chains, prompting enterprises to restructure their overseas investments and enhance supply chain resilience to strengthen international competitiveness. The rapid development of the digital economy further poses novel challenges to the existing rule-based system. APEC remains in an exploratory stage regarding rule-making in key areas such as cross-border data flows, digital taxation, and cybersecurity, with a notable absence of unified standards. For instance, while it has launched initiatives like the Internet and Digital Economy Roadmap, it has yet to establish unified rules for the cybersecurity of digital trade infrastructure. These regulatory gaps and standard discrepancies not only elevate trade costs and compliance risks but also constrain the high-quality, integrated development of regional digital trade.

为应对上述挑战，推动APEC框架下贸易投资自由化、便利化与境外投资的持续健康发展，各方需共同秉持开放合作原则，凝聚共识抵制保护主义，维护以WTO为核心的多边贸易体制，共建开放型世界经济。在此基础上，应着力推动更高水平自贸协定落地实施，以RCEP全面执行为基石，积极探索对接CPTPP等高标准经贸协定，进一步削减关税与非关税壁垒，扩大市场准入，并在数字经济、绿色规则、劳工标准等新兴领域推动规则协同，不断拓展境外投资的发展空间。4

To address these challenges and foster the sustained, healthy development of trade and investment liberalization, facilitation, and overseas investment under the APEC framework, all parties must jointly adhere to the principle of open cooperation, build consensus to resist protectionism, uphold the multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its core, and collectively contribute to an open world economy. On this basis, efforts should focus on advancing the implementation of higher-standard free trade agreements. Using the full implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) as a cornerstone, stakeholders should actively explore its convergence with high-standard agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This will further reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, expand market access, and promote rule coordination in emerging fields like the digital economy, green standards, and labor, thereby expanding development space for overseas investment.

在要素流动与新兴领域，需突破关键瓶颈以释放投资动能。一方面应促进商务人员、专业人才等跨境流动，发挥APEC经济体吸引国际人才对区域融合的带动作用，为投资合作提供人力资源支撑；另一方面应深化数字经济合作，聚焦数据跨境流动、数字税收、网络安全等核心议题，推动数字基础设施互联互通与规则互认，为数字经济背景下的境外投资开辟新赛道。5

Regarding factor mobility and emerging sectors, it is crucial to break through key bottlenecks to unlock investment momentum. On one hand, facilitating the cross-border mobility of business personnel and professional talent can harness the role of APEC economies in attracting international talent within regional integration, providing human resource support for investment cooperation. On the other hand, deepening digital economy cooperation is essential, focusing on core issues such as cross-border data flows, digital taxation, and cybersecurity, promoting the interoperability and mutual recognition of digital infrastructure, and opening new avenues for overseas investment in the digital context.

此外，应系统构建供应链韧性体系并提升区域规则话语权。鼓励企业依托自贸协定优化供应链布局，推动供应链多元化、区域化发展，增强产业链抗风险能力——例如通过双边自贸协定强化跨境电商供应链的稳定性。同时，应以APEC为核心平台，积极参与并引领国际经贸规则制定与改革，持续提升亚太区域在全球经济治理中的影响力和制度性话语权，为境外投资营造更加稳定、可预期的国际制度环境。6

Furthermore, a systematic approach to building supply chain resilience should be adopted to enhance regional rule-making influence. Enterprises should be encouraged to optimize their supply chain layouts leveraging free trade agreements, promoting diversification and regionalization of supply chains to bolster industrial chain risk resistance. For example, leveraging bilateral FTA can strengthen the stability of cross-border e-commerce supply chains. Simultaneously, APEC should serve as a core platform for actively participating in and leading the formulation and reform of international economic and trade rules. This will continuously strengthen the Asia-Pacific region's influence and institutional discourse power in global economic governance, creating a more stable and predictable international institutional environment for overseas investment.

四、中国参与APEC投资治理的法律角色贡献与未来应对China's Legal Role and Future Approach in APEC Investment Governance

近年来，中国的对外直接投资快速增长，成为全球重要的对外投资国之一，中国对APEC国家的直接投资效率不断提高，中国企业在APEC区域内的投资涵盖了基础设施建设、能源、制造业、服务业、高科技等多个领域，为当地经济发展和就业增长做出了积极贡献，中国已从国际投资规则的接受者转变为参与者与引领者。7

In recent years, China's outward direct investment (ODI) has grown rapidly, establishing China as a major global source of ODI. The efficiency of China's direct investment in APEC economies has continually improved. Chinese enterprises' investments in the APEC region span infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, services, high-technology, and other sectors, making positive contributions to local economic development and job creation. China has thus evolved from a recipient of international investment rules to an active participant and emerging leader.

中国通过国内法治环境的系统优化与有效对外投射，为APEC区域投资治理提供了具有示范意义的实践。其一，在市场准入层面，2024年版《外商投资准入特别管理措施（负面清单）》将限制措施缩减至29条，并于制造业领域实现全面“清零”，以高水平的开放实践为APEC成员推行准入前国民待遇提供了成熟的立法范本。其二，在投资保护层面，《外商投资法》确立了投资促进、保护与管理三位一体的法律框架，其关于禁止强制技术转让、完善征收补偿等核心条款，与APEC倡导的非约束性投资原则深度契合，增强了外资制度的可预期性。其三，在争端解决层面，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）推出的国际投资争端仲裁规则，为APEC区域提供了独立于国际投资争端解决中心（ICSID）的多元化纠纷解决平台，丰富了区域争议解决的制度供给。这三方面举措共同体现了中国国内法改革与区域规则倡导的联动，为亚太投资环境的完善作出了制度性贡献。

In recent years, China's outward direct investment (ODI) has grown rapidly, establishing China as a major global source of ODI. The efficiency of China's direct investment in APEC economies has continually improved. Chinese enterprises' investments in the APEC region span infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, services, high-technology, and other sectors, making positive contributions to local economic development and job creation. China has thus evolved from a recipient of international investment rules to an active participant and emerging leader.

中国的“一带一路”倡议与APEC投资治理框架在制度层面形成了战略协同与功能互补。“一带一路”通过升级双边投资协定、创新争端解决机制（如推动设立“一带一路”国际商事争端预防与解决组织），与APEC倡导的软法协调与区域合作形成有效衔接。尤其在基础设施互联互通领域，中国倡导的《APEC互联互通蓝图》与“一带一路”具体项目的对接。需重点关注以下法律协同议题：在融资结构上，需合理设计主权担保与有限追索项目融资模式，清晰界定政府与市场的责任边界与风险分担机制；在合同规范上，应积极推广使用国际通用的FIDIC合同条件与符合中国实践的外承包工程标准合同，促进文本融合，以降低跨国项目法律适用冲突；在可持续性上，需将环境、社会和治理（ESG）标准实质性纳入项目协议，使其直接呼应APEC的可持续发展目标。这些关键法律环节的妥善设计，是实现两大框架规则互通、风险共管与发展共赢的重要基石。

China's Belt and Road Initiative exhibits strategic synergy and functional complementarity with the APEC investment governance framework at the institutional level. The BRI has driven the upgrade of Bilateral Investment Treaties and innovated dispute resolution mechanisms (e.g., promoting the establishment of the "Belt and Road" International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Resolution Organization), effectively interfacing with APEC's advocacy for soft-law coordination and regional cooperation. Particularly in infrastructure connectivity, aligning China-supported initiatives like the APEC Connectivity Blueprint with specific BRI projects requires attention to key legal synergies: In financing structures, it is necessary to prudently design models involving sovereign guarantees and limited-recourse project financing, clearly delineating the boundaries of responsibility and risk-sharing mechanisms between governments and markets. In contract standardization, actively promoting the use of internationally recognized FIDIC contract conditions alongside standard contracts for overseas projects that reflect Chinese practice can foster textual harmonization and reduce legal conflicts in transnational projects. Regarding sustainability, substantively integrating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards into project agreements directly echoes APEC's sustainable development goals. The proper design of these key legal aspects is a crucial foundation for achieving regulatory interoperability, risk co-management, and mutually beneficial development between the two frameworks.

在中美战略竞争深化的背景下，中国参与APEC投资治理需采取多元、务实且富有前瞻性的法律战略。这一战略的核心在于通过不同层面的机制安排，主动塑造于己有利的区域规则环境：其一，积极依托并深化《区域全面经济伙伴关系协定》（RCEP）合作，该协定作为美国未参与的最高标准区域贸易安排，为中国企业优化区域供应链布局提供了关键的“制度安全港”；其二，以申请加入《全面与进步跨太平洋伙伴关系协定》（CPTPP）为重大契机，主动对标其在劳工、环境、国有企业及补贴等领域的高标准规则，以此倒逼并引领国内竞争中性原则的立法落地与监管透明度改革；其三，在APEC互联网与数字经济路线图等区域框架下，积极倡导并参与数字贸易规则的构建，致力于在保障数据主权与安全的前提下，推动建立平衡、包容的数据跨境流动规则，为数字时代的投资与贸易开辟新空间。这套组合战略，体现了中国从国际规则的“接受者”向“建设者”和“引领者”转变的主动布局。

Within the context of deepening strategic competition between China and the U.S., China's participation in APEC investment governance requires a multi-faceted, pragmatic, and forward-looking legal strategy. The core of this strategy lies in actively shaping a favorable regional rule environment through various institutional channels: First, actively relying on and deepening cooperation within the RCEP framework. As the highest-standard regional trade arrangement not including the United States, this agreement provides a crucial "institutional safe harbor" for Chinese enterprises optimizing their regional supply chain layouts. Second, treating the application to join the CPTPP as a significant opportunity to proactively align with its high-standard rules in areas such as labor, environment, state-owned enterprises, and subsidies. This can serve as a catalyst for domestic reforms promoting competitive neutrality and regulatory transparency. Third, under regional frameworks like the APEC Internet and Digital Economy Roadmap, actively advocating for and participating in the construction of digital trade rules. The goal should be to establish balanced and inclusive rules for cross-border data flows that safeguard data sovereignty and security, thereby creating new space for investment and trade in the digital era. This combined strategy reflects China's active progression from a "rule-taker" to a "rule-shaper" and "rule-maker" in the international arena.

五、结语Conclusion

APEC框架下的贸易与投资自由化进程，正呈现出从“软法协调”向“硬法融合与规则竞争并存”的深刻演进。面对全球化逆流与地缘政治冲突加剧的复杂环境，法律合规能力与系统性风险治理已超越传统成本范畴，成为决定境外投资成败的核心竞争力。归根结底，唯有通过坚定的制度型开放与深入的法治化合规建设，企业方能在充满不确定性的全球浪潮中，驾驭风险，确保境外投资的稳健与长远发展。

The process of trade and investment liberalization under the APEC framework is undergoing a profound evolution from "soft-law coordination" toward a hybrid state of "hard-law integration and rule competition." Confronted with a complex environment marked by a backlash against globalization and intensified geopolitical friction, legal compliance capabilities and systematic risk governance have transcended traditional cost considerations to become core competencies determining the success or failure of overseas investment. Ultimately, only through steadfast institutional openness and robust compliance systems grounded in the rule of law can enterprises navigate the uncertainties of the global landscape, effectively manage risks, and ensure the stability and long-term success of their overseas investments.

注释：

1.于鹏、于学卿：《APEC贸易便利化合作效果评估及其发展方向》，载《对外经贸实务》2017年第8期，第8-11页。

2.李娅：《双边自由贸易协定与跨境电商企业供应链韧性——供应链冗余的调节作用》，载《商业经济研究》2024年第17期，第143-146页。

3.张天桂：《印太经济框架新进展及其对亚太区域经济一体化的影响》，载《国际论坛》2024年第26卷第4期，第137-154页。

4.朱思翘：《RCEP与CPTPP的比较和融合之道》，载《中国对外贸易》2024年第9期，第68-70页。

5.同前注3，张天桂：《印太经济框架新进展及其对亚太区域经济一体化的影响》，载《国际论坛》2024年第26卷第4期，第137-154页。

6.张海冰：《全球经济治理格局中的APEC:角色、挑战与前景》，载《国际经济合作》2014年第11期，第13-17页。

7.丁玮航、王泽涵、赖俊芃等：《RCEP协定实施对我国进出口贸易的评估——以汽车产业为例》，载《现代商贸工业》2024年第45卷第21期，第61-63页。