【摘要】：在期貨交易中,強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)是控制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的重要措施之一,也是期貨交易有序進(jìn)行的重要保障。但在期貨交易的實(shí)踐活動(dòng)中,強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)可能不僅沒(méi)有起到控制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、減少持倉(cāng)者損失的作用,而且會(huì)成為引起糾紛、侵犯持倉(cāng)者權(quán)利的罪魁禍?zhǔn)�。所以�?yīng)該制定詳細(xì)、明確的規(guī)定來(lái)做為期貨交易所或期貨公司執(zhí)行強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的向?qū)?將期貨交易所和期貨公司的強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)行為約束在合法、公正的范圍內(nèi)。當(dāng)前,我國(guó)正是缺少一部專(zhuān)門(mén)的法律來(lái)對(duì)期貨交易中的相關(guān)事項(xiàng)作出統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,而其它的法律、法規(guī)之間對(duì)許多問(wèn)題的規(guī)定或者是不詳細(xì)的,或者是互相矛盾的,不能作為執(zhí)行強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的可靠依據(jù),所以在執(zhí)行強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)時(shí)就容易引起爭(zhēng)議。強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的法律性質(zhì)問(wèn)題對(duì)強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的執(zhí)行程序、責(zé)任分配等方面具有重要影響,但現(xiàn)有的各項(xiàng)法律文件中并沒(méi)有對(duì)強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的法律性質(zhì)做出明確、統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,而學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)此也有權(quán)利說(shuō)、義務(wù)說(shuō)、權(quán)利義務(wù)說(shuō)和權(quán)利轉(zhuǎn)義務(wù)說(shuō)四種主要觀點(diǎn),這就導(dǎo)致強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的實(shí)施者與被強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的持倉(cāng)者可能會(huì)因分別持不同的觀點(diǎn)而產(chǎn)生糾紛,而各個(gè)法院也可能基于不同的觀點(diǎn)做出截然不同的判決,這就導(dǎo)致強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)制度作為控制風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的重要措施,卻反而誘發(fā)了更多的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。本文首先根據(jù)現(xiàn)有的規(guī)定和學(xué)說(shuō)對(duì)強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)的性質(zhì)進(jìn)行分析,再根據(jù)具體的案例對(duì)實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)爭(zhēng)議較多的事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)要分析,最終尋求出解決糾紛的最佳方案。
[Abstract]:In futures trading, forced liquidation is one of the important measures to control risks, and it is also an important guarantee for the orderly conduct of futures trading. However, in the practice of futures trading, the forced closing of positions may not only not play a role in controlling risks and reducing the losses of holders, but also will become the chief culprit of disputes and infringements on the rights of holders. Therefore, detailed and clear regulations should be made to guide futures exchanges or futures companies to enforce forced closure of positions, and to restrict the forced liquidation of futures exchanges and futures companies within the scope of legality and justice. At present, China lacks a special law to make uniform provisions on the related matters in futures trading, while other laws and regulations on many issues are either not detailed or contradictory. Cannot be used as a reliable basis for the enforcement of forced closure, so the execution of forced closure is prone to controversy. The legal nature of forced closure has an important impact on the implementation procedure and distribution of responsibility, but there are no clear and unified provisions on the legal nature of forced closing in the existing legal documents. The academic community also has the right to say, obligation theory, right and obligation theory and right to duty theory four main views, which leads to forced closure of the position of the implementer and the forced position holders may have different views and produce disputes. Different courts may make different judgments on the basis of different viewpoints, which leads to the forced closure of positions as an important measure to control risks, but it leads to more risks. This paper firstly analyzes the nature of forced closure according to the existing regulations and doctrines, and then briefly analyzes the controversial issues in practice according to specific cases, and finally finds out the best solution to the dispute.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.28

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 劉敏;期貨透支交易及其法律責(zé)任的認(rèn)定[J];法律適用;2003年10期

2 譚婧華;;個(gè)股期權(quán)強(qiáng)行平倉(cāng)實(shí)施方式及其法律后果探討[J];證券法苑;2013年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：2403256