本文選題：效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定 + 多層次效力體系��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：國(guó)家強(qiáng)制和私法自治似民法中的陰陽(yáng)兩極，此消彼漲卻又共生共滅，無(wú)時(shí)不在調(diào)和之中，無(wú)時(shí)不在尋求一條和諧相處之道。 合同無(wú)效和合同有效好似國(guó)家強(qiáng)制和私法自治在合同法中的縮影：此消彼長(zhǎng)，共生共滅，每一次立法和司法解釋都能看見它們劍拔弩張、張弛有道。 從三大經(jīng)濟(jì)合同法到《民法通則》，，從《民法通則》到《合同法》，從《合同法》到《合同法解釋（一）》和《合同法解釋（二）》，合同違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的的效力判定也經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)從違反法律規(guī)定即無(wú)效到違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定無(wú)效，又到違反效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定才無(wú)效的判斷過(guò)程，合同有效的范圍在不斷擴(kuò)大，合同無(wú)效的范圍在不斷縮小，這無(wú)疑是我國(guó)私法的進(jìn)步。但合同無(wú)效的背后是國(guó)家強(qiáng)制，是國(guó)家對(duì)社會(huì)公共利益和公共秩序的維護(hù)，如何調(diào)節(jié)私法自治和國(guó)家強(qiáng)制，如何在最大限度的維護(hù)公民的私法自由的同時(shí)又不失社會(huì)公共利益和公共秩序的維護(hù)，如何在合同違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定時(shí)合理的界定有效無(wú)效界限，其最終落腳點(diǎn)落實(shí)在了對(duì)效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的判斷解釋上。 本文共分為五個(gè)部分： 引言部分，主要講述我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段對(duì)效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定認(rèn)定上存在的困境，主要包括效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定存在的法域和位階不明，效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定和管理性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定界限不明，違反效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同效力判定單一化以及法官自由裁量權(quán)的缺失。正是這些因素的存在，導(dǎo)致效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定判定不明，從而影響到合同的效力狀態(tài)，使用不當(dāng)更可能導(dǎo)致合同無(wú)效范圍的擴(kuò)大。 第一章就如何判定效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定進(jìn)行邏輯分析，該部分主要分為兩個(gè)層次：其一，明晰強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定存在的范圍，即進(jìn)行位階限制，將強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定限制于法律和行政法規(guī)，將地方性法規(guī)和規(guī)章排除在外；其二，效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，將強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定和非強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定相區(qū)別，將效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定和管理性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定相區(qū)別。 第二章是合同違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定時(shí)的效力判斷，即建立一個(gè)多層次的效力判定體系，違反效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定并不一定就是無(wú)效，應(yīng)根據(jù)效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的類別分別賦予無(wú)效、可變更可撤銷、有效的效力判定。 第三章是法官自由裁量權(quán)，即個(gè)案正義的矯正，通過(guò)比例原則的適用，一方面使法官可以進(jìn)行自由裁量，一方面使其自由裁量受到一定限制，不至于造成自由裁量權(quán)的濫用，以維護(hù)法律的穩(wěn)定性。 第四章提出立法建議，應(yīng)在《合同法》第52條第5項(xiàng)后面增加但書規(guī)定“但法律另有規(guī)定的除外”，其目的有二：其一，建立多層次的效力評(píng)價(jià)體系；其二，賦予法官自由裁量權(quán)。這不僅符合我國(guó)的立法模式，更符合我國(guó)的立法語(yǔ)言特點(diǎn)。 本文重點(diǎn)在于對(duì)《合同法解釋（二）》第14條中的效力性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定如何進(jìn)行判斷提出一套完整的邏輯體系，使其判定清晰明了且具有司法實(shí)用性，在法律穩(wěn)定性的基礎(chǔ)上不失法官自由裁量權(quán)對(duì)個(gè)案的靈活處理，以維護(hù)個(gè)案正義。
[Abstract]:The state compulsory and private law autonomy resembles the Yin and Yang in the civil law, but this rises and rises in the same period.
The invalidity of the contract and the validity of the contract are like the epitome of the state compulsory and private law autonomy in the contract law.
From the three major economic contract laws to the general rules of the civil law, from the general rules of the civil law to the contract law, from the contract law to the contract law interpretation (one) and the contract law (two), the determination of the validity of the contract violates the mandatory provisions, and has also experienced a violation of the mandatory provisions from the violation of the law to the mandatory provisions, and the violation of the mandatory mandatory provisions. In the process of ineffective judgment, the scope of the validity of the contract is expanding constantly, the scope of the contract is narrowing, which is undoubtedly the progress of the private law of our country. But behind the null and void of the contract is the state coercion, the maintenance of the state's public interests and public order, how to regulate the private law autonomy and the state coercion, and how to maximize the maintenance. At the same time, the freedom of private law of the citizen does not lose the public interests and the maintenance of public order, how to define the effective null and void limit reasonably when the contract violates the mandatory provisions, and its final foothold is implemented in the interpretation of the judgment of the mandatory mandatory provisions.
This article is divided into five parts:
In the introduction part, it is mainly about the existing difficulties in the cognizance of the compulsory compulsory provisions in China at the present stage, mainly including the unidentified legal domain and rank of the mandatory mandatory provisions, the unidentified limits of the effective mandatory provisions and the administrative mandatory provisions, the simplification of the judgment of the validity of the contract and the judge's self. The absence of the right of discretion is the existence of these factors, which leads to the unidentified determination of the mandatory mandatory provisions and the effect of the validity of the contract, and the improper use of the contract may lead to the expansion of the scope of the contract invalid.
The first chapter is the logical analysis of how to determine the mandatory mandatory provisions, which is divided into two levels: first, to clarify the scope of the mandatory provisions, that is, to limit the position, to restrict the mandatory provisions to the laws and administrative regulations, to exclude the local regulations and regulations; secondly, to determine the validity of the mandatory provisions. To break the standard, distinguish between mandatory and non mandatory provisions, and distinguish between mandatory mandatory provisions and mandatory administrative regulations.
The second chapter is the validity judgment when the contract violates the mandatory provisions, that is to establish a multi-level evaluation system of effectiveness. The violation of the mandatory mandatory provisions is not necessarily invalid. It should be ineffective according to the categories of the mandatory mandatory provisions, and can be changed to revocable and effective determination of effectiveness.
The third chapter is the judge's discretion, that is, the correction of the case justice, the application of the principle of proportionality, on the one hand, the judge can make the discretion. On the one hand, the discretion is restricted to a certain extent, and it does not cause the abuse of the discretion, in order to maintain the stability of the law.
The fourth chapter puts forward legislative proposals, which should be added to the provisions of the "contract law" and the fifty-second fifth items "except for the other provisions of the law", the purpose of which is two: first, to establish a multi-level evaluation system of effectiveness; secondly, to grant the judge's discretion. This is not only in accordance with China's legislative model, but also in accordance with the characteristics of the legislative language of our country.
The focus of this article is to put forward a complete set of logical system on how to judge the effective mandatory provisions in the interpretation of the contract law (two) and fourteenth, to make it clear and with judicial practicality. On the basis of the stability of the law, it does not lose the discretion of the judge to handle the case, so as to maintain the case justice.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李永軍;契約效力的根源及其正當(dāng)化說(shuō)明理論[J];比較法研究;1998年03期

2 胡智勇;私法自治與國(guó)家強(qiáng)制——法律強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范與無(wú)效民事法律行為關(guān)系之分析與構(gòu)建[J];重慶工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

3 應(yīng)秀良;違反行政法強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同效力探討以《房地產(chǎn)管理法》為研究對(duì)象[J];法律適用;2004年03期

4 賀少鋒;;違反公司法強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范行為的效力[J];法律適用;2009年06期

5 孫鵬;;論違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定行為之效力——兼析《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第52條第5項(xiàng)的理解與適用[J];法商研究;2006年05期

6 許中緣;;禁止性規(guī)范對(duì)民事法律行為效力的影響[J];法學(xué);2010年05期

7 孫良國(guó);;公務(wù)員訂立營(yíng)利性投資經(jīng)營(yíng)協(xié)議的效力及其法律后果——從張繼峰入股煤礦案談起[J];法學(xué);2010年10期

8 蘇艷;;論合同違法性對(duì)無(wú)效性認(rèn)定的制度變遷[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年05期

9 楊代雄;;民法學(xué)體系化思維模式的譜系[J];江海學(xué)刊;2010年01期

10 王軼;;強(qiáng)行性規(guī)范及其法律適用[J];南都學(xué)壇;2010年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 薛文成（清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院博士研究生）;[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 許翠霞;違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同效力研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

本文編號(hào)：1823621