論承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決中的程序公正
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-14 18:03
【摘要】：作為國(guó)際民事訴訟程序法的重要組成部分，外國(guó)法院判決的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行是國(guó)際私法協(xié)助的一項(xiàng)重要內(nèi)容。符合程序公正要求是外國(guó)法院判決得以承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的必要條件之一。因此，各國(guó)和國(guó)際公約均以法律規(guī)范的形式明確了程序公正的內(nèi)容，其重要程度可見一斑。然而，我國(guó)立法目前對(duì)其竟沒有明確的規(guī)定。為此，本文在對(duì)程序公正概念界定明確的基礎(chǔ)上，就程序公正原則在各國(guó)乃至國(guó)際的立法和實(shí)踐加以探討，并結(jié)合我國(guó)的現(xiàn)實(shí)狀況，提出適合我國(guó)的建議。本文分為四部分： 第一部分：外國(guó)法院判決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行及程序公正概述。首先闡釋外國(guó)法院判決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的幾個(gè)相關(guān)概念：一是外國(guó)法院的界定；二是判決的范圍；三是承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行。隨后簡(jiǎn)要介紹各國(guó)在承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決時(shí)，普遍采納的各項(xiàng)條件，從中指出“程序公正”是一國(guó)法院在決定承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決時(shí)需要考慮的一個(gè)重要條件。其次，界定程序公正的內(nèi)涵，并對(duì)程序公正原則的歷史發(fā)展脈絡(luò)進(jìn)行梳理。最后，分析“欺詐例外”和“公共秩序”這兩個(gè)概念與程序公正之間的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系。 第二部分：承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決中的程序公正之法律表現(xiàn)�？偨Y(jié)了各國(guó)立法及國(guó)際公約中對(duì)程序公正原則的具體規(guī)定及相關(guān)解釋。當(dāng)事人是否得到了合法的送達(dá)和合理的辯護(hù)機(jī)會(huì)是程序公正普遍關(guān)注的對(duì)象。普通法系國(guó)家和大陸法系國(guó)家最明顯的不同在于：普通法國(guó)家一般將欺詐事項(xiàng)歸于程序公正范疇，而大陸法國(guó)家則以公共秩序例外護(hù)衛(wèi)程序公正原則。而國(guó)際公約，尤其是2005年海牙《選擇法院協(xié)議公約》對(duì)欺詐例外和程序性公共秩序都作了規(guī)定，體現(xiàn)了對(duì)各國(guó)法律制度的尊重。 第三部分：承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決中程序公正的司法實(shí)踐。本部分通過幾個(gè)經(jīng)典案例的分析，提出了在司法實(shí)踐中，法院在具體的案件中主要是審查訴訟文書的送達(dá)、欺詐情節(jié)以及程序性公共秩序例外。而適當(dāng)送達(dá)一般是關(guān)注送達(dá)是否符合及時(shí)性要求、送達(dá)的訴訟文書是否包含必要的信息以及該文書提供的語言是否是當(dāng)事人能夠理解的。關(guān)于欺詐例外和公共秩序的適用，各國(guó)傾向于加以嚴(yán)格限制，，只有在當(dāng)事人的訴訟權(quán)利受到嚴(yán)重侵害時(shí)方可援引。 第四部分：中國(guó)承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決之程序公正。結(jié)合我國(guó)的立法和司法實(shí)踐，對(duì)我國(guó)承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決中的程序公正審查的現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析，并對(duì)如何完善我國(guó)在該領(lǐng)域的立法提出了自己的見解。
[Abstract]:As an important part of international civil procedure law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments is an important part of private international law assistance. Meeting the requirements of procedural justice is one of the necessary conditions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions. Therefore, all countries and international conventions define the content of procedural justice in the form of legal norms, the importance of which can be seen. However, the legislation of our country at present does not have the explicit stipulation to it. Therefore, on the basis of defining the concept of procedural justice clearly, this paper probes into the legislation and practice of the principle of procedural justice in various countries and even international countries, and puts forward some suggestions suitable for our country according to the reality of our country. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part: an overview of the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and procedural justice. This paper first explains several related concepts of the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments: first, the definition of foreign courts; second, the scope of judgments; and third, recognition and enforcement. Then it briefly introduces the conditions generally adopted by various countries in recognizing and enforcing the judgments of foreign courts, and points out that "procedural justice" is an important condition to be considered by the courts of a country in deciding to recognize and enforce the judgments of foreign courts. Secondly, define the connotation of procedural justice, and sort out the historical development of procedural justice principle. Finally, the relationship between the two concepts of "fraud exception" and "public order" and procedural justice is analyzed. The second part: the legal performance of procedural justice in the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions. This paper summarizes the specific provisions and related interpretations of the principle of procedural justice in national legislation and international conventions. Whether the litigant gets legal service and reasonable defense opportunity is the object of general concern about procedural justice. The most obvious difference between common law countries and civil law countries lies in the fact that common law countries generally attribute fraud matters to procedural justice, while civil law countries use the principle of public order exception to protect procedural justice. International conventions, especially the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court in 2005, provide for the exception of fraud and procedural public order, reflecting respect for the legal systems of various countries. The third part: the judicial practice of recognizing and enforcing the procedural justice in the judgment of foreign courts. Through the analysis of several classic cases, this part points out that in the judicial practice, the court mainly reviews the service of litigation documents, the circumstances of fraud and the exception of procedural public order in specific cases. The proper service is generally concerned about whether the service meets the requirement of timeliness, whether the service document contains the necessary information and whether the language provided by the document can be understood by the parties. With regard to the application of fraud exceptions and public order (ordre public), States tend to impose strict restrictions that can be invoked only if the litigants' rights are seriously infringed. Part IV: the procedural justice of China's recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. Combined with our country's legislation and judicial practice, this paper analyzes the current situation of procedural justice examination in the recognition and execution of foreign court judgments in China, and puts forward some opinions on how to perfect our legislation in this field.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D916.2
本文編號(hào)：2331899
[Abstract]:As an important part of international civil procedure law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments is an important part of private international law assistance. Meeting the requirements of procedural justice is one of the necessary conditions for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions. Therefore, all countries and international conventions define the content of procedural justice in the form of legal norms, the importance of which can be seen. However, the legislation of our country at present does not have the explicit stipulation to it. Therefore, on the basis of defining the concept of procedural justice clearly, this paper probes into the legislation and practice of the principle of procedural justice in various countries and even international countries, and puts forward some suggestions suitable for our country according to the reality of our country. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part: an overview of the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and procedural justice. This paper first explains several related concepts of the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments: first, the definition of foreign courts; second, the scope of judgments; and third, recognition and enforcement. Then it briefly introduces the conditions generally adopted by various countries in recognizing and enforcing the judgments of foreign courts, and points out that "procedural justice" is an important condition to be considered by the courts of a country in deciding to recognize and enforce the judgments of foreign courts. Secondly, define the connotation of procedural justice, and sort out the historical development of procedural justice principle. Finally, the relationship between the two concepts of "fraud exception" and "public order" and procedural justice is analyzed. The second part: the legal performance of procedural justice in the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions. This paper summarizes the specific provisions and related interpretations of the principle of procedural justice in national legislation and international conventions. Whether the litigant gets legal service and reasonable defense opportunity is the object of general concern about procedural justice. The most obvious difference between common law countries and civil law countries lies in the fact that common law countries generally attribute fraud matters to procedural justice, while civil law countries use the principle of public order exception to protect procedural justice. International conventions, especially the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court in 2005, provide for the exception of fraud and procedural public order, reflecting respect for the legal systems of various countries. The third part: the judicial practice of recognizing and enforcing the procedural justice in the judgment of foreign courts. Through the analysis of several classic cases, this part points out that in the judicial practice, the court mainly reviews the service of litigation documents, the circumstances of fraud and the exception of procedural public order in specific cases. The proper service is generally concerned about whether the service meets the requirement of timeliness, whether the service document contains the necessary information and whether the language provided by the document can be understood by the parties. With regard to the application of fraud exceptions and public order (ordre public), States tend to impose strict restrictions that can be invoked only if the litigants' rights are seriously infringed. Part IV: the procedural justice of China's recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments. Combined with our country's legislation and judicial practice, this paper analyzes the current situation of procedural justice examination in the recognition and execution of foreign court judgments in China, and puts forward some opinions on how to perfect our legislation in this field.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D916.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 王克玉;;“布魯塞爾體系”和“海牙公約體系”下的正當(dāng)程序比較研究——基于外國(guó)判決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的目的[J];比較法研究;2009年03期
2 徐唐棠;國(guó)際私法法律適用的確定性與靈活性之間的張力關(guān)系[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年11期
3 李薇薇;論《布魯塞爾公約》與外國(guó)民商事判決的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行[J];中國(guó)司法;2000年05期
4 李玲;;WTO與外國(guó)法院判決的承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行——評(píng)《判決的國(guó)際承認(rèn):私法解決方案和公法解決方案之爭(zhēng)》兼及WTO決策程序中的單邊主義[J];國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)刊;2006年03期
5 華小鵬;外國(guó)法院判決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行的因素分析[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年06期
6 孫建;對(duì)國(guó)際私法上公共秩序問題的探討——兼評(píng)《中華人民共和國(guó)民法(草案)》第九編中的公共秩序問題[J];南開學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期
7 蔣志培;承認(rèn)執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決的條件與程序[J];人民司法;1994年06期
8 宋連斌;淺析司法實(shí)踐對(duì)中國(guó)國(guó)際私法研究方法的挑戰(zhàn)[J];法學(xué)論壇;2003年03期
9 曾濤;外國(guó)法院判決承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行條件領(lǐng)域的新發(fā)展[J];法治論叢;2003年04期
10 王克玉;;外國(guó)判決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行視角下的正當(dāng)法律程序探析[J];政法論壇;2009年01期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 覃孟孚;論承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行外國(guó)法院判決中的程序公正審查[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2010年
本文編號(hào)：2331899
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2331899.html
最近更新
教材專著
