本文關(guān)鍵詞：美國聯(lián)邦應(yīng)對“挑選法院”規(guī)則的嬗變與啟示　出處：《華東政法大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 法院選擇 挑選法院 新聯(lián)邦主義 無偏向的駁回 空難

【摘要】：去年七月，韓亞航空的一架波音777客機在即將降落舊金山機場時突生事故，偏離航道，起火燃燒，造成3名中國學生死亡，引發(fā)國人的廣泛關(guān)注。今年三月的“馬航事件”，馬來西亞航空一架同型號客機突然失聯(lián)，并在數(shù)十天的緊張搜索后被確認失事，機上包括154名中國乘客在內(nèi)的227名乘客和12名機組人員無一生還，更是使國人陷入巨大的哀痛。悲痛之余，受害者家屬們事后對于索賠訴訟的管轄地選擇也引起了新聞界的廣泛關(guān)注，即使并非專注于法律報道的媒體也開始討論這一選擇背后的原因和可操作性，因為雖然過程和性質(zhì)都明顯不同，但兩起事件的遇難乘客家屬都不約而同地以航空公司和飛機制造商為被告，選擇在美國起訴。 當事人對于訴訟管轄地的選擇除因為事故本身存在美國因素外，也是因為美國在賠償和訴訟制度上的巨大優(yōu)勢。動輒百萬千萬美元的的賠償數(shù)額、高昂的訴訟代理費和方便熟悉的庭審程序?qū)τ诋斒氯撕吐蓭煻加泻艽蟮奈ΑＨ欢�，美國法官如何確認對案件的管轄權(quán)，而不是以認定當事人存在不正當?shù)摹疤暨x法院”行為而駁回訴訟，作為一個擺在當事人和律師面前的前提問題，卻缺乏深入全面的闡釋。 本文的第一章，即以“挑選法院”概念的性質(zhì)本身為關(guān)注對象，，償試厘清美國法律尤其是判例法中對于“挑選法院”行為的定性及其與相似概念間的關(guān)系，一方面得出關(guān)于“挑選法院”、“法院選擇”、“不方便法院”和“不適當審判管轄地”等反映案件管轄權(quán)瑕疵相似概念間差異的初步結(jié)論，從而得出“挑選法院”的認定只是以“不方便法院”原則駁回訴訟的前提；另一方面也探尋法官針對上述不同概念分別可能會作出的大致處理方式。第二章則著重介紹美國聯(lián)邦法院法官在個案中對“挑選法院”問題加以定性和處理時所形成的思路與判例規(guī)則，并突出地向大家展示處理思路因“挑選法院”問題存在于聯(lián)邦法院之間、聯(lián)邦與州法院之間以及聯(lián)邦與國外法院之間而體現(xiàn)出的差異，并找出差異背后的一條明晰規(guī)律。第三章則力求對這一問題的認識能向更深層次推進，展現(xiàn)出規(guī)則及規(guī)律背后的動因——這些動因是具有價值沖突性質(zhì)的，并根植于深厚的經(jīng)濟、政治與法律的歷史背景之下。本文第四章則將焦點轉(zhuǎn)向中國，探尋研究對象——美國聯(lián)邦法院對“挑選法院”的應(yīng)對，可為我國提供借鑒與啟發(fā)之處。在討論這一問題時，筆者分國家和公民個人兩個層面加以論述。對于國家的啟示和借鑒，自然不可回避本國同樣是多法域國家這一事實，針對本國區(qū)際和涉外管轄權(quán)沖突問題的應(yīng)對分別作了闡述；對于公民個人的啟示和借鑒，則以如何在赴美訴訟中取得法院的審理為論點加以論述。理解美國的管轄權(quán)沖突處理經(jīng)驗，對本國司法和公民個人利益的維護都不無幫助。結(jié)語部分，筆者重申了“挑選法院”現(xiàn)象利弊并存的觀點，它可能導致的管轄權(quán)競爭對國家法制公正與穩(wěn)定造成的威脅，及其背后所隱藏的正義相對性理念和自由主義精神都值得我們關(guān)注。無論如何，若想根本解決其中的弊端，都須以實體法的統(tǒng)一為終極目標，并且行且思，順勢而為。
[Abstract]:Last July, Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft landed at SanFrancico Airport in the sudden accident, off course, fire, killing 3 students China death, caused widespread concern in China. In March this year, Malaysia Airlines incident, Malaysia Airlines aircraft of the same type aircraft suddenly lost contact has been confirmed crash in tense search several days after the machine includes 154 China passengers, 227 passengers and 12 crew aboard, is to make people fall into the huge grief. Grief, the families of the victims to claim the jurisdiction after the selection has aroused wide attention from the press. If not focus on Legal media have begun to discuss the reasons behind this choice and operability, because although the process and properties are obviously different, but the passengers killed two incidents of family members are invariably to hang Air companies and aircraft manufacturers are chosen to be prosecuted in the United States.
The parties to litigation jurisdiction choice in itself because of the accident factors exist in the United States, because the United States is a huge advantage in compensation and lawsuit system. The amount of compensation for the hundreds of million million dollars, high litigation fees and convenient with the trial procedure have a great attraction for the parties and lawyers. However, the U.S. how to confirm the jurisdiction of judge, rather than to the determination of the existence of unfair "forumshopping" behavior and dismissed the lawsuit as a lawyer in front of the parties and the premise of the problem, but the lack of in-depth and comprehensive interpretation.
The first chapter of this article, namely "forumshopping" concept of the nature of itself as the research object, try to clarify the law of the United States especially the case law qualitative for "forumshopping" behavior and similar relations between concepts, on the one hand drawn about "forumshopping", "court", "inconvenient court" and "no proper jurisdiction" reflects the jurisdiction and preliminary conclusions similar concept differences between defects, so that the "identified forumshopping" is "without conveniencee dismiss the lawsuit; on the other hand also explore the way the judge handled roughly according to the different concept may be given by the second chapter. Introduces the ideas and rules formed by the federal court of justice to the determination and management of" forumshopping "problem in the case when, and mainly to show treatment Ideas for "forumshopping" problems in the federal court, the difference between the federal and state courts and federal courts between with foreign and reflect, and to find out the differences behind a clear law. The third chapter to the understanding of this issue can promote to a deeper level, showing the rules and laws behind motivation -- the motivation is of value conflict in nature, and is deeply rooted in the profound economic, political and legal under the historical background. The fourth chapter will focus on China, explore the research object of the United States federal court selected court "to" pick the response, can provide reference and inspiration for our country. In the discussion of this problem the author, from two aspects of state and individual citizens of countries for inspiration and reference, can not avoid their nature is also the fact that the country's multiple jurisdictions, for their regions and Foreign jurisdiction conflict coping were elaborated for individual citizens; enlightenment and reference, in the United States on how to obtain a court trial proceedings for argument are discussed. Understanding the jurisdiction conflict treatment experience of the United States, to maintain their justice and interests of individual citizens are not without help. In the conclusion part, the author reiterates the "forumshopping" phenomenon of advantages and disadvantages coexist, it may lead to the jurisdiction of the competition to the national legal justice and stability threat, hidden behind the concept of justice and its relative and liberal spirit are worth our attention. In any case, in order to solve the problems, have to be unified substantive law for the ultimate goal, and the line and thinking, with them.

【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D971.2;D925.1

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊長海;吳祥佑;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟中挑選法院問題及對策研究[J];科技與法律;2008年04期

2 趙相林,邢鋼;論國際民事訴訟中的挑選法院[J];比較法研究;2002年02期

3 李剛;統(tǒng)一法的競爭管轄條款助長“挑選法院”[J];行政與法(吉林省行政學院學報);2004年05期

4 任昱,郇恒娟;美國民事訴訟中的挑選法院之原因研究[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學院學報;2003年S1期

5 喬雄兵;;美國民事訴訟中的挑選法院問題研究[J];比較法研究;2007年02期

6 張榆青;;國際統(tǒng)一合同法與挑選法院[J];石河子大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2009年02期

7 鄒國勇;淺析國際民事訴訟中的“挑選法院”[J];甘肅政法成人教育學院學報;2001年03期

8 李剛;;論國際統(tǒng)一私法公約中的挑選法院問題——以《國際貨物銷售合同公約》為視角[J];人文雜志;2009年04期

9 何其生;中國的非方便法院原則[J];武漢大學學報(人文社會科學版);2000年05期

10 何其生;;非方便法院原則問題研究[J];訴訟法論叢;2002年00期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前4條

1 牟笛;挑選法院問題研究[D];武漢大學;2005年

2 王超;美國聯(lián)邦應(yīng)對“挑選法院”規(guī)則的嬗變與啟示[D];華東政法大學;2014年

3 李剛;國際統(tǒng)一合同法公約中的“挑選法院”問題研究[D];湖南師范大學;2004年

4 杜義;國際平行訴訟之解決[D];蘇州大學;2008年

本文編號：1440870