【摘要】：發(fā)生在法域之間的司法民商事判決的承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行歷來是國際私法研究和關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)問題。其中，管轄權(quán)審查又是一國或一地區(qū)法院是否承認(rèn)并執(zhí)行其他法域法院民商事判決的重要因素。中國作為一個單一制且多法域的國家，，管轄權(quán)沖突以及在承認(rèn)執(zhí)行階段的審查在區(qū)際民商事判決承認(rèn)執(zhí)行中比較常見，然而不管是大陸與港澳臺之間的《安排》，還是國內(nèi)立法均缺乏具體的管轄權(quán)審查規(guī)則。管轄權(quán)規(guī)則的相對缺失是我國區(qū)際間民商事判決難以得到及時承認(rèn)執(zhí)行的重要原因，也成為大陸與港澳臺之間民商事正常交往的阻礙。 與此相應(yīng)的是，國際上關(guān)于法域間管轄權(quán)規(guī)則的協(xié)調(diào)已經(jīng)存在國際條約形式的實踐。其中1968年《布魯塞爾關(guān)于民商事案件管轄權(quán)以及判決執(zhí)行公約》秉承歐共體的精神和法律框架，率先在歐共體國家之間實現(xiàn)了民商事判決的自由流動。該條約創(chuàng)造性地分別對直接和間接管轄權(quán)規(guī)則進(jìn)行規(guī)定，將各個參加國的國內(nèi)管轄權(quán)規(guī)則以黑白名單的形式加以列舉，這也是目前為止主權(quán)國家之間簽署的規(guī)定最為嚴(yán)格的關(guān)于管轄權(quán)規(guī)則的國際公約。另外，由海牙國際私法協(xié)會主導(dǎo)起草的一系列海牙公約，經(jīng)歷了幾次修改，最終形成2005年海牙《選擇法院協(xié)議公約》，其僅選擇僅將管轄權(quán)規(guī)則的統(tǒng)一限制在協(xié)議選擇管轄權(quán)領(lǐng)域的立約方法，在主權(quán)國家之間取得了最大程度的共識。我國參與了1999海牙公約（草案）和2005年海牙公約的起草，并且已經(jīng)將后者成果運(yùn)用在幾年前出臺的《內(nèi)港安排》關(guān)于判決執(zhí)行規(guī)則的規(guī)定中，在管轄權(quán)規(guī)則統(tǒng)一的領(lǐng)域，當(dāng)然也可以借鑒這些有益的經(jīng)驗。 本文一共分為三個部分： 第一部分是關(guān)于我國區(qū)際民商事管轄權(quán)沖突的概述。此部分主要介紹民商事管轄權(quán)沖突的概念和類型，以及中國大陸與港澳臺三地管轄權(quán)沖突的現(xiàn)狀，并試圖找到相對應(yīng)的原因。 第二部分著重分析相關(guān)國際條約的不同模式及其經(jīng)驗得失。 第三部分回到我國區(qū)際管轄權(quán)沖突的問題上來，重在找到一條協(xié)調(diào)中國民商事管轄權(quán)沖突的解決之道。
[Abstract]:The recognition and enforcement of judicial civil and commercial judgments between jurisdictions has always been a hot issue in private international law. Jurisdiction examination is also an important factor for a country or a district court to recognize and enforce civil and commercial judgments in other jurisdictions. As a country with a single system and multiple jurisdictions, conflicts of jurisdiction and review at the stage of recognition and enforcement are more common in interregional civil and commercial judgment recognition enforcement. However, neither the arrangement between the mainland, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, nor the domestic legislation has specific jurisdiction review rules. The relative absence of jurisdiction rules is the important reason why the inter-regional civil and commercial judgments in our country are difficult to be recognized and executed in time, and also the obstacles to the normal civil and commercial exchanges between the mainland and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Accordingly, international practice on the coordination of jurisdictional rules between jurisdictions already exists in the form of international treaties. The Brussels Convention on jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial cases and the Enforcement of judgments in 1968, in keeping with the spirit and legal framework of the European Community, took the lead in realizing the free flow of civil and commercial judgments among the EC countries. The Treaty creatively provides for the rules of direct and indirect jurisdiction, listing the domestic jurisdiction rules of each participating State in a black-and-white list, It is also the most stringent international convention on jurisdiction rules ever signed between sovereign states. In addition, a series of Hague conventions, drafted under the auspices of the Hague Institute of Private International Law, have undergone several amendments. Finally, the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Agreement of 2005 was formed, which only chose to limit the unification of jurisdiction rules to the treaty method in the field of jurisdiction selection by agreement, and gained the most consensus among sovereign states. Our country has participated in the drafting of the 1999 Hague Convention (draft) and the 2005 Hague Convention, and has applied the latter results to the provisions on the enforcement rules of judgments issued a few years ago in the area of uniform jurisdiction rules. Of course, we can learn from these useful experiences. This paper is divided into three parts: the first part is about the conflict of civil and commercial jurisdiction. This part mainly introduces the concept and type of civil and commercial jurisdiction conflicts, and the status quo of jurisdiction conflicts between mainland China and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, and tries to find the corresponding reasons. The second part focuses on the analysis of the different models of relevant international treaties and their experience. The third part comes back to the problem of interregional jurisdiction conflict in China, and focuses on finding a solution to coordinate the conflict of civil and commercial jurisdiction in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D997.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 黃風(fēng);;試論中國未來的區(qū)際司法協(xié)助[J];法學(xué)家;1995年04期

2 蔡鎮(zhèn)順;楊云君;;中國內(nèi)地與香港民商事判決相互承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行問題的探討[J];廣東外語外貿(mào)大學(xué)學(xué)報;2008年05期

3 黃潔;;中國多邊區(qū)際民商事判決承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行安排——對解決四大難題的建議[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2010年06期

4 徐卉;;涉外民商事訴訟管轄權(quán)沖突的解決途徑[J];訴訟法論叢;2000年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 劉力;國際民事訴訟管轄權(quán)研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2003年

2 李繼;中國區(qū)際民商事司法協(xié)助法律問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年

3 王吉文;2005年海牙《選擇法院協(xié)議公約》研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

本文編號：2130077