本文選題：公司 + 公司人化��； 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：公司自然人化產(chǎn)生于美國,在這個(gè)過程中,美國法院的司法判決功不可沒,美國公司的“人”化演進(jìn)過程也是一系列司法判決推演的過程。美國公司人化影響深遠(yuǎn),歐洲、澳大利亞、新西蘭、臺(tái)灣、日本等紛紛借鑒美國,通過最高法院司法判例的形式或者通過憲法條款明文規(guī)定的方式賦予公司“人”的憲法地位。 凱恩斯學(xué)派倡導(dǎo)國家干預(yù)有一個(gè)理論假設(shè)：政府是“無所不能與仁慈的”或“聰明且意愿良好”的政府。但是,這一基礎(chǔ)理論假設(shè)僅僅是一種假說,沒有證據(jù)證明政府比市場更聰明,那由政府對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)行調(diào)節(jié)的充分理由是什么呢?市場經(jīng)濟(jì)并非排斥政府的干預(yù),政府對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的干預(yù)也體現(xiàn)了某種必然性,政府調(diào)控經(jīng)濟(jì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)立法是普遍的,在大部分情況下經(jīng)濟(jì)立法的目的是好的,但這并不能保證經(jīng)濟(jì)立法適度。經(jīng)濟(jì)立法者不能既充當(dāng)運(yùn)動(dòng)員又充當(dāng)裁判,其經(jīng)濟(jì)立法的目的有無實(shí)現(xiàn)的可能性,其立法手段與立法目的是否相符,不能由經(jīng)濟(jì)立法者自己證明。而且,由于經(jīng)濟(jì)立法者不是經(jīng)濟(jì)調(diào)控的對(duì)象,其對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)立法的不適度導(dǎo)致的不良后果,只有當(dāng)損失已實(shí)際發(fā)生并且已經(jīng)累積到一定數(shù)量時(shí)才會(huì)意識(shí)到,具有明顯的滯后性,而公司作為經(jīng)濟(jì)調(diào)控的受調(diào)控方,是與經(jīng)濟(jì)調(diào)控直接相關(guān)的利益相關(guān)方,是以最小的社會(huì)成本感知經(jīng)濟(jì)立法不適度的主體。通過賦予公司以自然人的權(quán)利,當(dāng)經(jīng)濟(jì)調(diào)控的不適度侵犯了公司的基礎(chǔ)性經(jīng)濟(jì)權(quán)利,公司會(huì)及時(shí)對(duì)政府的侵權(quán)作出回應(yīng),通過行使訴權(quán)由法院對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)立法的適度與否作出判決。通過賦予公司自然人權(quán)利以對(duì)抗國家的不當(dāng)干預(yù)符合經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)最基本的邏輯——成本收益的比較分析,以最小的社會(huì)成本實(shí)現(xiàn)最大的社會(huì)收益。 文章分為四個(gè)章節(jié),分別從美國公司法民主化與人格化的關(guān)系、美國公司人格化的司法歷程、美國公司人格化的意義以及美國公司人格化對(duì)我國公司的啟示四個(gè)方面進(jìn)行分析。 第一章,對(duì)美國公司法的民主化歷程進(jìn)行概述,并對(duì)其與公司人格化的關(guān)系進(jìn)行分析。 第二章,分別闡述了在公司是人造之物的“授予權(quán)”理論下、自然實(shí)體理論下的司法判例以及對(duì)公司取得每一項(xiàng)具體人權(quán)產(chǎn)生重大影響的司法判例。 第三章,分別從國家干預(yù)與經(jīng)濟(jì)自由之間的平衡、為經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮保駕護(hù)航以及對(duì)其他國家的影響的角度闡述了美國公司人格化的意義。 第四章,美國公司人格化對(duì)我國公司的啟示,從我國公司人權(quán)缺失的實(shí)例入手,根據(jù)我國的實(shí)際情況探討出公司人權(quán)在我國的實(shí)現(xiàn)路徑。
[Abstract]:The naturalization of the corporation comes into being in the United States. In this process, the judicial decision of the American court can not be ignored, and the evolution of the "personalization" of the American company is also the process of a series of judicial decision deduction.In Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan and so on, we have drawn lessons from the United States to endow the company with the constitutional status of "person" through the form of judicial precedents of the Supreme Court or by the way expressly stipulated in the Constitution.The Keynesian school advocated state intervention on the theoretical assumption that government is "omnipotent and merciful" or "smart and well-intentioned".However, this basic hypothesis is only a hypothesis, there is no evidence that the government is smarter than the market, so what is the good reason for the government to regulate the economy?The market economy is not exclusive of the government's intervention. The government's intervention in the economy also reflects a certain inevitability. The economic legislation governing the economy by the government is universal, and in most cases the purpose of the economic legislation is good.But this does not guarantee moderate economic legislation.Economic legislator can not act as both athlete and judge, the possibility of whether the purpose of economic legislation can be realized or not, and whether the legislative means are consistent with the legislative purpose can not be proved by the economic legislator himself.Moreover, since economic legislators are not the object of economic regulation and control, the undesirable consequences of their improper economic legislation will only be realized when the losses have actually occurred and have accumulated to a certain amount.As the regulated party of the economic regulation, the company is the stakeholder directly related to the economic regulation and control, and is the subject that perceives the economic legislation with the minimum social cost.By endowing the company with the right of natural person, when the economic regulation and control has violated the basic economic rights of the company, the company will respond to the infringement of the government in time, and the court will decide whether the economic legislation is moderate or not through the exercise of the right of action.By giving the natural person the right to resist the improper intervention of the state, it is in line with the most basic logic of economics, the comparative analysis of the cost and benefit, to realize the maximum social benefit with the minimum social cost.The article is divided into four chapters. It analyzes the relationship between the democratization and personalization of American corporate law, the judicial process of corporate personalization in the United States, the significance of personalization of American companies and the enlightenment of personalization of American companies to Chinese companies.The first chapter summarizes the democratization process of American Company Law and analyzes its relationship with corporate personalization.In the second chapter, the judicial precedents under the theory of "granting power" of the company's artificial objects and the judicial precedents which have a significant impact on the company's acquisition of each specific human right are expounded respectively.The third chapter discusses the significance of American company personalization from the point of view of the balance between state intervention and economic freedom to protect economic prosperity and influence on other countries.The fourth chapter, the American company personalization to our country company enlightenment, starts from our country company human rights flaw example, according to our country actual situation discusses the company human rights realization path in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2;DD912.29;DD916.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 陳濟(jì)海;經(jīng)濟(jì)人思想和政府人基調(diào)[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2005年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1756343