本文選題：領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán) + 司法特權(quán)��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)，這個(gè)對(duì)于當(dāng)今社會(huì)的年輕人來說似乎有些陌生的詞匯，在新中國建立前，特別是在19世紀(jì)中葉到20世紀(jì)二三十年代，因它在中國的確立和擴(kuò)大而帶給中國的災(zāi)難，使我們至今不愿提起這段歷史。但是，回避不等于忘卻，我們只有正視這段屈辱史，才能讓我國的法制變得更加完善和成熟。 本文堅(jiān)持唯物主義史學(xué)觀點(diǎn)，運(yùn)用歷史分析法，從以下幾個(gè)部分審視在華領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度：第一部分考察了領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的確立、擴(kuò)大的過程及成因。筆者認(rèn)為，首先，鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)前，中西方之間司法管轄糾紛最初并非是國家之間的對(duì)立，而是西方商人或歐洲貿(mào)易公司對(duì)抗晚清政府的個(gè)人行為。但是，隨著中西方貿(mào)易沖突的加劇，西方列強(qiáng)，尤其是英國，開始以武力的方式直接干涉其中。中西方司法管轄權(quán)之爭(zhēng)也上升到國家之間的沖突，并最終導(dǎo)致了一場(chǎng)對(duì)中國產(chǎn)生深遠(yuǎn)影響的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。其次，在論述英國發(fā)動(dòng)鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)、謀求領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的動(dòng)機(jī)時(shí)，，筆者認(rèn)為，雖有英國為了維護(hù)鴉片貿(mào)易的商業(yè)利益因素，但是，中西方法律文化的差異，也是另外一個(gè)重要的因素。英國要求特權(quán)也有出于保護(hù)在華僑民的人身與財(cái)產(chǎn)安全的目的。最后，筆者按取得領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的時(shí)間先后順序，以表格的形式向讀者介紹了在華取得領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的國家。同時(shí)指出，領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)擴(kuò)大的成因是西方列強(qiáng)利益均沾和晚清政府腐敗無能共同作用的結(jié)果。 本文第二部分考察了領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度的具體內(nèi)容。首先，筆者分類論述了各國領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的行使機(jī)構(gòu)。有的國家，同時(shí)設(shè)立領(lǐng)事法庭和領(lǐng)事法院，以英美為代表。多數(shù)國家僅設(shè)立領(lǐng)事法庭。民事訴訟，訴訟金額不大的可以進(jìn)行審理；刑事訴訟，輕微罪行的可以進(jìn)行裁決。如果是命案等重罪，則只能預(yù)審，最終審判將由上訴法院執(zhí)行。其次，筆者根據(jù)涉案當(dāng)事人的國籍不同，將領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的司法管轄案件分為兩類。第一類是外國人之間的案件，通常是由涉案當(dāng)事人所屬國領(lǐng)事，根據(jù)雙方所簽訂的條約、規(guī)定協(xié)商解決，中國官員不得干涉。第二類是中外混合案件，刑事案件，外國被告人交由其所屬國領(lǐng)事審理；民事案件，通常是先行勸息，如若不成，在會(huì)同審理。最后，筆者討論了兩種特殊的領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度，即官審制度和會(huì)審公廨，其特殊之處在于，僅在中國的某些區(qū)域?qū)χ袊藢?shí)行法律管轄。 本文第三部分考察了領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度的危害。筆者認(rèn)為，列強(qiáng)在華的這種司法特權(quán)被任意普及到了外國企業(yè)和為外國商人服務(wù)的買辦身上。在中外貿(mào)易糾紛中，通過不公正的審判損害中國民族工商業(yè)利益。在商業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中，通過扶持和庇護(hù)買辦來達(dá)到打壓、擠垮中國民族產(chǎn)業(yè)的險(xiǎn)惡目的。 本文第四部分考察了領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度的客觀意義。筆者認(rèn)為，任何事物都具有兩面性，即使是領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)這種非法特權(quán)也不例外。但是我們也應(yīng)該清醒的認(rèn)識(shí)到，這種意義是被迫的，是晚清政府在面對(duì)統(tǒng)治危機(jī)時(shí)的一種自救行為。筆者認(rèn)為，在建設(shè)社會(huì)主義現(xiàn)代法治的今天，我們不僅要注重提升自身的經(jīng)濟(jì)、軍事實(shí)力，更要加強(qiáng)法律文化、法律制度的建設(shè)。只有這樣，我們才能真正建設(shè)成為一個(gè)真正的社會(huì)主義法治國家。
[Abstract]:Consular jurisdiction, which seems to be a strange word for young people in today's society, before the establishment of new China, especially in the middle of the nineteenth Century to 20s and 30s twentieth Century, has brought disaster to China because of its establishment and expansion in China, so far we are reluctant to lift this history. However, avoidance is not equal to forget, we only Faced with this humiliating history, we can make our legal system more perfect and mature.
This article adheres to the viewpoint of historical materialism and uses historical analysis to examine the system of consular jurisdiction in China from the following parts: the first part examines the establishment of consular jurisdiction, the process and causes of expansion. The author holds that, first, before the Opium War, the dispute between the jurisdiction of the Chinese and the West was not the first of the States. Western businessmen or European trade companies fought against the individual behavior of the late Qing government. However, with the intensification of the conflict between China and the west, the Western powers, especially the UK, began to intervene directly in the way of force. The dispute between Chinese and Western jurisdictions also rose to the conflict between countries, and eventually led to a far-reaching impact on China. Second, when discussing the motivation of the Opium War and the seeking of consular jurisdiction in Britain, the author believes that, although there is a British commercial interest in the opium trade, the difference between the Chinese and the western laws and culture is another important factor. Finally, the author introduced consular jurisdiction in China in the form of a form in the form of the time sequence of obtaining consular jurisdiction. At the same time, it was pointed out that the cause of the enlargement of the consular jurisdiction was the result of the mutual benefit of the Western powers' interests and the inability of the late Qing government to corrupt.
The second part of this article examines the specific content of the consular jurisdiction system. First, the author classifications and discuss the exercise institutions of consular jurisdiction in various countries. Some countries, at the same time, establish consular and consular courts, on behalf of the United States and Britain. Most countries only set up consular courts. Civil litigation, the small amount of litigation can be tried; criminal prosecution. A minor crime may be adjudicated. If it is a serious crime such as a case, the final trial will be prejudged and the final trial will be carried out by the court of appeal. Secondly, the author divides the jurisdiction cases of consular jurisdiction into two categories according to the nationality of the parties involved. According to the treaty signed by both sides, the Chinese officials shall not interfere with the settlement of the negotiation. The second category is a mixed case in China and foreign countries, a criminal case, and a foreign accused person to the consulate of his own country; the civil case is usually a pretrial, if not, in the same trial. Finally, the author discusses the two special consular jurisdiction system, that is, the official trial. The particularity of the system and joint hearing is that it only exercises jurisdiction over Chinese in certain areas of China.
The third part of this article examines the harm of the consular jurisdiction system. The author believes that the judicial privileges of the powers in China are arbitrarily popularized to foreign and foreign merchants. In the Sino foreign trade disputes, the unfair trial damages the interests of the Chinese national industry and commerce through unfair trials. In the commercial competition, it is supported and sheltered by support and shelter. The comprador office is a dangerous target to crush and crush China's national industry.
The fourth part of this article examines the objective significance of the consular jurisdiction system. I think that everything has two sides, even the illegal privilege of the consular jurisdiction is no exception. But we should also be aware that this meaning is forced and is a self rescue act in the face of the ruling crisis in the late Qing Dynasty. In order to build a socialist modern rule of law, we should not only pay attention to improving our own economy and military strength, but also strengthen the legal culture and the construction of the legal system. Only in this way can we truly build a socialist country under the rule of law.
【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)】：D929

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陶廣峰;關(guān)于列強(qiáng)在華領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的幾個(gè)問題[J];比較法研究;1988年03期

2 李啟成;領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度與晚清司法改革之肇端[J];比較法研究;2003年04期

3 劉寶東;;民族主義勃興與司法主權(quán)重構(gòu)——民國北京政府廢除領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的外交努力[J];北京聯(lián)合大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年04期

4 李薈芹;;清末總理衙門的外交決策地位探析[J];昌吉學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

5 潘家德;近代外國在華法庭述論[J];四川師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年02期

6 郭衛(wèi)東;近代中國利權(quán)喪失的另一種因由——領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)在華確立過程研究[J];近代史研究;1997年02期

7 吳義雄;;鴉片戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)前英國在華治外法權(quán)之醞釀與嘗試[J];歷史研究;2006年04期

8 華友根;帝國主義在華領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的形成、廢除及其斗爭(zhēng)[J];史林;1991年02期

9 李放;;試析近代取得在華領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)國家數(shù)目[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2008年05期

10 馬方方;關(guān)于清末列強(qiáng)在華領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的再思考[J];吉林師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年02期

本文編號(hào)：1995270