美国屡次奉行单边主义，滥用长臂管辖，肆意对中国组织和公民实施单边制裁，严重侵害中国组织、公民的合法权益。随着俄乌冲突的发展，美国及其盟友开始对俄形成全面围剿。我国深刻认识到开展涉外法治工作的重要性和紧迫性。2020至2021年间，《不可靠实体清单规定》、《阻断外国法律与措施不当域外适用办法》和《反外国制裁法》三部专门性法律法规陆续出台，建立起我国反外国制裁的法律体系框架。2023年，统领涉外法治的《对外关系法》颁布。

此后，习近平总书记仍多次强调，要坚持统筹推进国内法治和涉外法治，加强涉外领域立法，进一步完善反制裁、反干涉、反制“长臂管辖”法律法规，推动中国法域外适用的法律体系建设。本文以我国反制裁法律的实施困境为研究对象，主要采用法条分析法、比较研究法和案例分析法，首先梳理我国反制裁立法的发展，分析已出台反制裁法律法规的制度内容，并考察中国反制裁的实践情况；其次论证中国反制裁法律的合法性；随后指出我国反制裁法律实施存在的困境；最后借鉴俄罗斯与欧盟的反制裁法律实施的经验，结合我国实际提出应对困境之策，为将来开展反制裁工作夯实基础，强化支撑。

本文认为，我国反制裁的法治建设相较于西方国家起步较晚，其法律实施存在以下困境：一是反制清单利用不充分，我国当前发布的反制清单及不可靠实体清单，是针对特定事件的“一次性”清单，这使其施展空间十分受限，不足以产生足够的震慑和预防作用；二是追偿机制的实施缺乏指引，减损法律可操作性；三是实施方面缺少通知和协商的前置程序，上位法豁免机制缺位，与国际法原则规则不相符；四是部分基础概念模糊不清，如“歧视性限制措施”“协助执行”概念等；五是缺乏多边救济措施，相比于通过国内立法实施反制裁，多边体系制裁的公信力和威慑力都更胜一筹，然而我国欠缺利用多边机制获取合法救济的途径。基于前述问题，本文提出以下对策：一是优化反制清单，增强反制清单的统筹性、权威性、指导性；二是强化国内法院的管辖权，以确保受制裁的中国实体能够有效地在本国法院寻求救济；三是补充救济程序，提高反制裁的国际合法性，有效衔接不同法律法规的豁免救济机制；四是明确基础概念；五是加强国际合作，发挥联合国常任理事国作用，持续推进“一带一路”倡议的法治建设。

解决反制裁法律实施困境的根本目的在于提升我国反制裁能力，在国际社会日益频繁的博弈摩擦中尽力保障国家与民众的利益，同时推进国际秩序法治化。完善反制裁制度建设，不仅能充实我国涉外法治“工具箱”，提升运用法律武器抵抗单边制裁的能力，维护自身合法权益，而且能为众多受制裁的国家提供应对非法单边制裁的中国方案，有助于促进世界和平与发展。

In recent years, The United States has repeatedly pursued unilateralism, abused extraterritorial jurisdiction, and imposed direct sanctions on Chinese organizations and citizens, seriously infringing upon China’s core national interests and the legitimate rights of Chinese organizations and citizens. As the conflict between Russia and Ukraine develops, the United States and its allies have begun to form a comprehensive encirclement and suppression of Russia. China profoundly recognizes the importance and urgency of conducting foreign-related legal work. From 2020 to 2021, three specialized laws and regulations, namely the “Regulations on Unreliable Entity List”, the “Measures for Blocking Improper Extraterritorial Application of Foreign Laws and Measures”, and the “Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law”, were swiftly enacted, thus establishing the legal framework for China’s anti-foreign sanctions system. In 2023, the “Foreign Relations Law”, which guides the foreign-related rule of law, was promulgated.

General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized the need to coordinate the advancement of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law, and to promote the development of China’s legal system for extraterritorial application. This article takes the implementation difficulties of China’s anti-sanctions laws as the research object, ,primarily using legal analysis, comparative research, and case analysis. Firstly, it sorts out the development of China’s anti-sanction legislation, analyzes the institutional content of the anti-sanction laws and regulations that have been issued, and examines the practice of China's anti-sanctions; secondly, it demonstrates the legitimacy of Chin’s anti-sanction laws; then points out the difficulties in implementing China's anti-sanction laws; finally, it draws on the experience of implementing anti-sanctions laws in Russia and the European Union, and proposes countermeasures based on China’s actual situation to lay a solid foundation and strengthen support for future anti-sanction work.

This article believes that the construction of the rule of law against sanctions in China started late compared to Western countries, and its legal implementation faces the following difficulties. First, the utilization of counter-sanctions lists is insufficient. China’s currently published counter-sanctions lists and unreliable entity lists are “one-time” lists targeting specific events, which limits their scope of application and is not sufficient to generate adequate deterrence and preventive effects. Second, there is a lack of guidance for the implementation of recovery mechanisms, reducing the operability of the law. Third, there is a lack of pre-procedures for notification and consultation in implementation, and the absence of an exemption mechanism in the higher-level law is inconsistent with the principles and rules of international law. Fourth, some basic concepts are vague, such as “discriminatory restrictive measures” and “assistance in execution”. Fifth, there is a lack of multilateral remedies. Compared to implementing anti-sanctions through domestic legislation, the credibility and deterrence of multilateral system sanctions are more effective. However, China lacks avenues to utilize multilateral mechanisms to obtain legitimate remedies. Based on the aforementioned issues, this article proposes the following countermeasures. First, optimize the counter-sanctions list to enhance its overall planning, authority, and guidance. Second, strengthen the jurisdiction of domestic courts to ensure that sanctioned Chinese entities can effectively seek relief in domestic courts. Third, supplement relief procedures to improve the international legitimacy of anti-sanctions and effectively link exemption and relief mechanisms of different laws and regulations. Fourth, clarify basic concepts. Fifth, enhance international cooperation. China should leverage the role of permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and advance the rule of law construction under the “Belt and Road” initiative in a further way.

The fundamental purpose of solving the difficulties in implementing anti-sanctions laws is to better safeguard national and people’s interests by utilizing the weapon of law, and to promote the progress of international rule of law, as well as pushing for the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity. Strengthening foreign-related rule of law work in China and improving the system of anti-sanction laws can not only enrich Chin’s toolbox of foreign-related rule of laws, and enhance the ability to resist unilateral sanctions using legal means, and safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, but also can provide a Chinese solution for many countries subject to illegal unilateral sanctions, which helps promote world peace and development.