【摘要】： 關(guān)于領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的研究,尤其是對(duì)中國(guó)領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)歷史的研究,無(wú)論史學(xué)界還是法學(xué)界都已有不少成果。從已有的研究成果中我們可以得出,清末是領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度在中國(guó)初步確立的時(shí)期,民國(guó)初年北京政府時(shí)期是中國(guó)政府力圖撤廢領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的過(guò)渡與蘊(yùn)釀期,而直到南京國(guó)民政府時(shí)期,領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的撤廢才逐漸取得成績(jī),并使領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度最終得以徹底廢除。以往關(guān)于領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的研究,大多痛斥領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)給中國(guó)國(guó)家和人民造成的巨大災(zāi)難,大多抨擊和批判北洋政府的懦弱無(wú)能,而對(duì)其在國(guó)弱民窮的基礎(chǔ)上為收回領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)所做的努力關(guān)注不夠,[2]因而,在以往人們的認(rèn)識(shí)當(dāng)中,民國(guó)北京政府時(shí)期是近代中國(guó)歷史上軍閥混戰(zhàn)、國(guó)局最混亂的時(shí)期,國(guó)家最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)階層頻繁更迭,國(guó)家政權(quán)南北分立,這一時(shí)期政府對(duì)領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的撤廢幾乎無(wú)所作為,甚至袁世凱統(tǒng)治時(shí)期,法制改革一度出現(xiàn)倒退,更是給領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)的撤廢憑添了許多困難。 本文在一定程度上同意學(xué)界已有研究成果,但本文主要以《華洋訴訟判決錄》中輯錄的裁判文書所涉案例為事實(shí)上的依據(jù),并以這些案例輯入的年份跨度(1914——1919)為時(shí)間界限,研究民初北京政府統(tǒng)治前期,新式法院建立的地方華洋訴訟的另一個(gè)側(cè)面,并通過(guò)這個(gè)側(cè)面進(jìn)一步探究當(dāng)時(shí)北京政府及其相關(guān)司法、外交部門等關(guān)于華洋訴訟所發(fā)布的一些法令,使人們對(duì)民初領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度下的華洋訴訟及對(duì)民國(guó)北京政府統(tǒng)治前期為撤廢領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)所作的過(guò)渡性質(zhì)的準(zhǔn)備工作與努力有一個(gè)相對(duì)完整的認(rèn)識(shí)和客觀的理解。
[Abstract]:There have been many achievements in the study of consular jurisdiction, especially in the history of Chinese consular jurisdiction. From the existing research results, we can draw a conclusion that the late Qing Dynasty was the period when the system of consular jurisdiction was initially established in China, and the period of Beijing government in the early Republic of China was the transitional and brewing period during which the Chinese government tried to abolish the consular adjudication power. Until the Nanjing National Government, the abolition of consular jurisdiction gradually achieved results, and finally completely abolished the system of consular jurisdiction. Previous studies on consular adjudication power have mostly denounced consular jurisdiction as a great disaster to the Chinese nation and people, and mostly criticized the cowardice and incompetence of the Beiyang government. However, not enough attention has been paid to its efforts to recover consular jurisdiction on the basis of the weak and the poor. [2] thus, in the past people's understanding, the period of the Republic of China's Beijing government was the period of warlordism in modern Chinese history and the most chaotic period in the state administration. The state's highest leadership changed frequently, and the state power was divided between the north and the south. During this period, the government almost did nothing to abolish consular jurisdiction. Even during the period of Yuan Shikai rule, the reform of the legal system was once retrogressive. Even more, the abolition of consular jurisdiction added a lot of difficulties. To some extent, this paper agrees with the academic research results, but this paper mainly based on the case of judgment documents compiled in Hua Yang Litigation judgment, and takes the time limit of the years of these cases (1914-1919) as the time limit. To study another aspect of the local Chinese litigation set up by the new style courts in the early days of the early Republic of China, and to further explore the Beijing government and its related judicature through this aspect. A number of decrees issued by the Foreign Affairs Department concerning the overseas litigation, It makes people have a relatively complete understanding and objective understanding of the Chinese foreign litigation under the system of consular jurisdiction in the early Republic of China and the preparatory work and efforts made by the Beijing government of the Republic of China to abolish the transitional nature of the consular jurisdiction in the early period of the Republic of China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D929

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 李育民;近代中國(guó)的領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)制度[J];湖南師范大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1995年04期

2 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

3 趙曉耕;試析治外法權(quán)與領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)[J];鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：2167957