聯(lián)合國跨境破產(chǎn)示范法及其參考意義
發(fā)布時間：2019-01-02 20:57
【摘要】：進入20世紀以來,經(jīng)濟全球化已經(jīng)成為不可扭轉(zhuǎn)的趨勢,國際貿(mào)易日益昌盛,一批批跨國公司的崛起與衰落,造就了國際范圍內(nèi)有識之士對于進行跨境破產(chǎn)立法研究的強烈呼聲。 本文首先簡單闡釋了“跨境破產(chǎn)”的相關定義以及適用范圍,然后通過分析比較破產(chǎn)法學界長期相對并存兩種理論:屬地主義原則和普遍主義原則,進一步解釋每一原則的可取與不足之處。研究兩種理論的主要目的在于探究每一種法哲學背后所蘊含的利益沖突,為下一步介紹兩個原則的延伸理論發(fā)展打下基礎。合作屬地主義及修正普遍主義作為兩種古典理論的發(fā)展派生,分別在各國破產(chǎn)立法跨境條款指導原則中占有一席之地,也各有利弊。但跨境破產(chǎn)法學界更傾加向于修正普遍主義,因該指導思想下立法賦予外國債權人同等待遇,更加符合破產(chǎn)法的立法原則。 在第二章中,作者詳細介紹了聯(lián)合國貿(mào)易法委員會在修正普遍主義作為主要指導思想下,綜合專家學者意見,借鑒各國經(jīng)驗教訓的立法成果——《聯(lián)合國貿(mào)易委員會跨境破產(chǎn)示范法》,通過評述其特色條款內(nèi)容,譬如關于如何簡化、快捷的承認他國破產(chǎn)程序,以及承認程序之后所能給予的救濟措施。進而說明當今國際破產(chǎn)法現(xiàn)狀下如何最大化債務人資產(chǎn)價值,最大程度的保護全球范圍內(nèi)債務人利益。 由于《示范法》僅為世界各國制定跨境破產(chǎn)相關條款提供參考性法律框架,其文本價值只在被一國采納后具體實施中,才能得以體現(xiàn)。本文第三章通過采納《示范法》后的美國新破產(chǎn)法第15章與其原有第304條的對比,闡述了破產(chǎn)立法改革后的美國破產(chǎn)法如何在實踐中協(xié)調(diào)承認外國破產(chǎn)程序,更好的保護國內(nèi)外債權人的利益。美國跨境破產(chǎn)規(guī)定中進一步具體明確了有《示范法》中提出的債務人主要利益中心(center of main interest)這一概念,不過由于司法實踐中,通過事先推定債務人注冊所在地為利益中心所在地的方式,仍然缺乏如何通過遞交相反證據(jù)證明債務人的主要利益中心在其它地域,賦予法官過寬的自由裁量權也造成了有關案件的標準不一。 最后,本文簡略介紹了2007年我國新破產(chǎn)法中第五條關于跨境破產(chǎn)的相關規(guī)定,新破產(chǎn)法的出臺,一定程度上彌補了國家范圍內(nèi)跨境破產(chǎn)立法的空白,但具體措施略顯簡略,尤其是面對我國兩岸三地港澳的不同法律制度以及相差頗為懸殊的破產(chǎn)法規(guī),致使司法實踐中很難處理過于復雜的跨境破產(chǎn)狀況。
[Abstract]:Since the 20th century, economic globalization has become an irrevocable trend, international trade is flourishing day by day, the rise and decline of a number of multinational corporations, Has created the international scope of insight for cross-border bankruptcy legislation research strong voice. This paper first briefly explains the definition of "cross-border bankruptcy" and its scope of application, and then analyzes and compares two theories: territorialism principle and universalism principle, which exist in bankruptcy law circles for a long time. Further explain the merits and shortcomings of each principle. The main purpose of the study of the two theories is to explore the conflicts of interest behind each philosophy of law, and to lay a foundation for the further development of the extended theory of the two principles. As the development and derivation of two classical theories, cooperative territorialism and modified universalism have their own advantages and disadvantages respectively in the guiding principles of cross-border clauses in bankruptcy legislation of various countries. However, the law of cross-border bankruptcy is more inclined to amend universalism, because the guiding ideology of legislation gives foreign creditors equal treatment, more in line with the legislative principles of bankruptcy law. In the second chapter, the author gives a detailed introduction to the United Nations Commission on Trade Law (UNCITRAL), which synthesizes the opinions of experts and scholars under the principle of revised universalism. Drawing on the legislative results of countries' experiences and lessons-the United Nations Trade Commission Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, by commenting on its distinctive provisions, such as how to simplify and quickly recognize insolvency proceedings in other countries, And relief measures that can be granted after the recognition procedure. Then it explains how to maximize the value of debtors' assets and protect the interests of debtors in the world under the current situation of international bankruptcy law. Since the Model Law only provides a reference legal framework for countries in the world to formulate relevant provisions on cross-border insolvency, its text value can only be reflected in the concrete implementation after being adopted by one country. In the third chapter, by comparing Chapter 15 of the new bankruptcy law of the United States after the adoption of the Model Law with its original article 304, the author expounds how the bankruptcy law of the United States after the bankruptcy legislation reform conciliates the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings in practice. Better protect the interests of creditors at home and abroad. The concept of the debtor's centre of main interests (center of main interest) as set forth in the Model Law is further specified in the United States cross-border insolvency provisions, but due to judicial practice, By presupposing the location of the debtor's registration as the location of the centre of interest, there is still a lack of evidence to the contrary that the debtor's centre of main interests is located in other regions, Giving judges too much discretion has also led to differing standards in cases. Finally, this paper briefly introduces the relevant provisions of Article 5 on cross-border bankruptcy in 2007, the introduction of the new bankruptcy law, to a certain extent, to make up for the gap in cross-border bankruptcy legislation in the country, but the specific measures are a bit brief. Especially in the face of the different legal systems of Hong Kong and Macao on both sides of the strait and the quite different bankruptcy laws and regulations, it is very difficult to deal with the complicated cross-border bankruptcy in judicial practice.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996
本文編號：2398983
[Abstract]:Since the 20th century, economic globalization has become an irrevocable trend, international trade is flourishing day by day, the rise and decline of a number of multinational corporations, Has created the international scope of insight for cross-border bankruptcy legislation research strong voice. This paper first briefly explains the definition of "cross-border bankruptcy" and its scope of application, and then analyzes and compares two theories: territorialism principle and universalism principle, which exist in bankruptcy law circles for a long time. Further explain the merits and shortcomings of each principle. The main purpose of the study of the two theories is to explore the conflicts of interest behind each philosophy of law, and to lay a foundation for the further development of the extended theory of the two principles. As the development and derivation of two classical theories, cooperative territorialism and modified universalism have their own advantages and disadvantages respectively in the guiding principles of cross-border clauses in bankruptcy legislation of various countries. However, the law of cross-border bankruptcy is more inclined to amend universalism, because the guiding ideology of legislation gives foreign creditors equal treatment, more in line with the legislative principles of bankruptcy law. In the second chapter, the author gives a detailed introduction to the United Nations Commission on Trade Law (UNCITRAL), which synthesizes the opinions of experts and scholars under the principle of revised universalism. Drawing on the legislative results of countries' experiences and lessons-the United Nations Trade Commission Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, by commenting on its distinctive provisions, such as how to simplify and quickly recognize insolvency proceedings in other countries, And relief measures that can be granted after the recognition procedure. Then it explains how to maximize the value of debtors' assets and protect the interests of debtors in the world under the current situation of international bankruptcy law. Since the Model Law only provides a reference legal framework for countries in the world to formulate relevant provisions on cross-border insolvency, its text value can only be reflected in the concrete implementation after being adopted by one country. In the third chapter, by comparing Chapter 15 of the new bankruptcy law of the United States after the adoption of the Model Law with its original article 304, the author expounds how the bankruptcy law of the United States after the bankruptcy legislation reform conciliates the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings in practice. Better protect the interests of creditors at home and abroad. The concept of the debtor's centre of main interests (center of main interest) as set forth in the Model Law is further specified in the United States cross-border insolvency provisions, but due to judicial practice, By presupposing the location of the debtor's registration as the location of the centre of interest, there is still a lack of evidence to the contrary that the debtor's centre of main interests is located in other regions, Giving judges too much discretion has also led to differing standards in cases. Finally, this paper briefly introduces the relevant provisions of Article 5 on cross-border bankruptcy in 2007, the introduction of the new bankruptcy law, to a certain extent, to make up for the gap in cross-border bankruptcy legislation in the country, but the specific measures are a bit brief. Especially in the face of the different legal systems of Hong Kong and Macao on both sides of the strait and the quite different bankruptcy laws and regulations, it is very difficult to deal with the complicated cross-border bankruptcy in judicial practice.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前8條
1 張玲;;跨境破產(chǎn)國際合作的模式[J];甘肅政法學院學報;2009年01期
2 張玲;跨國破產(chǎn)國際合作的框架——聯(lián)合國跨界破產(chǎn)示范法述評[J];經(jīng)濟論壇;2004年22期
3 季立剛;解正山;;美國跨國破產(chǎn)立法的最新發(fā)展及對我國的借鑒意義[J];暨南學報(哲學社會科學版);2010年05期
4 辜曉丹;;我國新破產(chǎn)法中的跨界破產(chǎn)制度分析[J];今日科苑;2010年06期
5 李曙光,賀丹;破產(chǎn)法立法若干重大問題的國際比較[J];政法論壇;2004年05期
6 張玲;;跨境破產(chǎn)法統(tǒng)一化方式的多元化[J];政法論壇;2007年04期
7 王芳;;香港與內(nèi)地跨境破產(chǎn)的法律框架研究[J];政法論壇;2009年05期
8 余勁松;石靜遐;;涉外破產(chǎn)的若干法律問題[J];中國社會科學;1996年04期
，本文編號：2398983
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2398983.html
