近年来，伴随着中国企业的大量境外上市融资交易以及国际证券市场一体化趋势的发展，跨境证券的发行与投资行为也更加频繁，由此而生的证券纠纷也将更加频发。2019年12月《证券法修订草案》提请十三届全国人大常委会第十五次会议四次审议，四审稿明确了必要的域外适用效力，体现在《证券法》（2019年修订）第二条第四款，于2020年3月1日起施行。2020年4月2日，瑞幸咖啡自曝其与虚假交易相关的总销售额约为22亿元人民币，其虚假陈述行为引发对《证券法》域外适用必要性的讨论。从事后来看，证监会并未依据第二条第四款对相关主体进行行政处罚，厦门中级人民法院和上海金融法院于2021年4月已就国内投资者提起的诉讼立案，但截至本文形成之日，此类案件并无裁判信息公开。由此可见，我国《证券法》的域外适用面临些许困境。

本文将首先厘清《证券法》第二条第四款的性质和定位，明确《证券法》第二条第四款既是域外管辖条款又是域外适用条款，且区别于我国涉外民事诉讼程序的管辖及法律适用规定；其次对《证券法》第二条第四款进行文本分析，理解该条款的各项构成要件；再次从多方面分析《证券法》无法域外适用于“瑞幸咖啡财务造假事件”的因由；最后，论述《证券法》域外适用体系的发展与存在的问题并提出完善路径。本文认为，积极推进《证券法》的域外适用有利于实现对中概股企业的严格监管，减少法律监管灰色地带的存在，进而达到《证券法》的目的，即打击证券不法行为，保护投资者合法权益。同时，《证券法》的域外适用应当保持适当的限度，避免违背“国际礼让原则”，即适当提高域外适用的门槛，推动跨境监管合作。具体而言，完善《证券法》的域外适用体系，第一，需要提高适用门槛，即在“不方便法院原则”的基础上，考虑利益因素和最密切联系因素；第二，需要细化行政机关执法依据，即明确证监会可以采取的取证手段，以及对跨境证券不法行为的处罚上下限；第三，需要建立跨境监管互信，即强化跨境执法协作力度，不断磋商达成合作协议，通过合力打击资本市场违法违规行为。

In recent years, along with a large number of overseas listing and financing transactions of Chinese enterprises and the development of the trend of international securities market integration, cross-border securities issuance and investment practices have become more frequent, and the resulting securities disputes will also become more frequent. In December 2019, the Fourth Draft Revision of the Securities Law clarified the necessary extraterritorial effect in Article 2(4) of the Securities Law (as amended in 2019), which came into effect on 1 March 2020. On 2 April 2020, Luckin Coffee exposed its total sales of approximately 2.2 billion related to false transactions, and its misrepresentation triggered a discussion on the necessity of extraterritorial application of the Securities Law. The CSRC did not impose administrative penalties on the relevant subjects pursuant to Article 2(4), and the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court and the Shanghai Financial Court have filed lawsuits against domestic investors in April 2021, but no adjudicative information on such cases is publicly available as of the date of this article's formation. Thus, the extraterritorial application of China's Securities Law faces some difficulties.

In this paper, we will first clarify the nature and position of Article 2(4) of the Securities Law, and make it clear that Article 2(4) of the Securities Law is both an extraterritorial jurisdictional provision and an extraterritorial application provision, and is different from the jurisdictional and application provisions of China's foreign-related civil proceedings; secondly, we will analyze the text of Article 2(4) of the Securities Law to understand the constituent elements of the provision; and then we will analyze the inability of the Securities Law to be applied extraterritorially from various aspects. Finally, it discusses the development and problems of the extraterritorial application of the Securities Law and proposes the ways to improve it. This paper argues that the active promotion of the extraterritorial application of the Securities Law is conducive to the strict regulation of Chinese companies, reducing the existence of legal regulatory gray areas, and thus achieving the purpose of the Securities Law, i.e., to combat securities misconduct and protect the legitimate rights and interests of investors. At the same time, the extraterritorial application of the Securities Act should be kept within appropriate limits to avoid violating the "international comity principle", i.e., to appropriately raise the threshold of extraterritorial application and promote cross-border regulatory cooperation, so as to jointly punish securities wrongdoings. In conclusion, the extraterritorial application of the Securities Law has a long way to go and will face a lot of market uncertainties, but this cannot be a reason for the laws and regulations to lag behind the practice, and the continuous refinement and improvement of the relevant system is the necessary way to promote the healthy development of domestic and foreign capital markets.