本文選題：美國駐華法院 + 領(lǐng)事法庭��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：法律實(shí)證主義與歐洲殖民擴(kuò)張理念建構(gòu)了19世紀(jì)西方國家主權(quán)觀念的基本框架,基于“主權(quán)觀念”與“文明國家”而締造的近代國際法自然不無例外地將歐洲法乃至西方基督教文明視若應(yīng)有之意。在此語境下的東方國家,顯然是作為被教化者的角色存在的。與傳統(tǒng)形式上堅(jiān)船利炮、昭然若揭的殖民侵略相比,借用“文化帝國主義”甚至“法律帝國主義”對(duì)東方國家進(jìn)行指摘顯然更合乎時(shí)宜,在此種意義上,近代西方國家對(duì)治外法權(quán)的申張由此藉發(fā)。同時(shí),觀念的轉(zhuǎn)變終將體現(xiàn)為制度的變遷。最初以領(lǐng)事法庭為基本樣式意圖尋求簡(jiǎn)單意義上國家對(duì)僑民的司法保護(hù)的慣常之舉,雖便捷、直接但絕非良策。脫胎于中世紀(jì)的舊習(xí)本就悖于時(shí)代,遑論法律知識(shí)匱乏的領(lǐng)事亦無法勝任良端。英、美兩國深諳此道并有所覺察,而改以職業(yè)司法機(jī)構(gòu)或取而代之,或厲行監(jiān)管要?jiǎng)?wù),成效初顯。本文即由此闡發(fā),以“美國駐華法院”(1906-1943)為例,試圖通過考察這一職業(yè)司法機(jī)構(gòu)的設(shè)置背景、運(yùn)作規(guī)程、審判實(shí)踐以及社會(huì)效果,對(duì)其背后所蘊(yùn)含西方國家推行“法律帝國主義”的深層次理念作以全方位解讀。同時(shí),客觀反思美國在華法律人士藉此治外法權(quán)實(shí)踐形式見證并參與中國法制近代化的歷史進(jìn)程,以及近代語境下的國人憑借涉身西方職業(yè)司法機(jī)構(gòu)審判進(jìn)而更為直觀體味西方司法模式所帶來的沖擊,感受西方法治觀念洗禮的這一系列過程。除導(dǎo)論、結(jié)語外,全文分為四章。導(dǎo)論部分先以備受關(guān)注的“會(huì)審”、“觀審”能否全面表征中國法制近代化中的西方因素這一詰問引出本文的關(guān)涉主題——考察西方在華司法機(jī)構(gòu)；通過學(xué)術(shù)史的梳理指明作為美國在華治外法權(quán)特殊形式乃至創(chuàng)舉的“美國駐華法院”卻鮮為學(xué)界所知；諸多法案、案例資料的獲取為深度考察透視該法院的司法運(yùn)作乃至社會(huì)效果提供了可能空間。文章開篇即著眼于本文關(guān)鍵詞語——“治外法權(quán)”的厘定�？疾煸撛~的英文原意乃是“治域外法權(quán)”,而國人慣常以“治理外國人的法權(quán)”的理解顯然與之大相徑庭。進(jìn)一步考察,發(fā)現(xiàn)該詞經(jīng)由日文向漢語語境的流變中,國人基于特定語境與背景對(duì)此產(chǎn)生誤讀,并進(jìn)而借題誤用,從而將之與“領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)”判若分明。實(shí)際上,治外法權(quán)顯然更能全面表達(dá)外人在華司法特權(quán)的行使,因?yàn)楹?jiǎn)單意義上的領(lǐng)事裁判權(quán)畢竟無法將美國駐華法院這一職業(yè)司法機(jī)構(gòu)囊括其中。在厘清兩詞意涵后,文章具體描述了美國對(duì)在華治外法權(quán)申張的進(jìn)程,指出在以雙邊條約形式確定攫取治外法權(quán)后,美國起初仍是仿效西方諸國以設(shè)置領(lǐng)事法庭的形式踐行其司法權(quán)。不過,60年的司法實(shí)踐使得脫胎于中世紀(jì)領(lǐng)事制的領(lǐng)事法庭在司法實(shí)踐中基于財(cái)政預(yù)算不足、監(jiān)獄機(jī)構(gòu)缺失、領(lǐng)事法律知識(shí)匱乏及貪腐問題嚴(yán)重等諸多問題,在實(shí)際上阻滯了美國在華治外法權(quán)的進(jìn)程。于是,為擺脫前述困境而采“英皇在華高等法院”藍(lán)本最終創(chuàng)建美國駐華法院以更好地踐行美國在華治外法權(quán)的司法實(shí)踐。第二章通過對(duì)美國駐華法院的制度規(guī)定作以解讀,引出法律帝國主義的論斷。文章先是界明法律帝國主義的理論與隱含,通過領(lǐng)事法庭所審理的3起較為典型案件探明領(lǐng)事在促成法律帝國主義申張方面的捉襟見肘。其中,“威廉姆斯案”與“懷特案”揭露了美國在華領(lǐng)事法庭體系的制度缺陷；“巴克利案”則動(dòng)搖了領(lǐng)事法庭體系設(shè)置的憲法性基礎(chǔ)。有鑒于此,作為改良機(jī)制存在的美國駐華法院應(yīng)運(yùn)而生。創(chuàng)設(shè)美國駐華法院的法案對(duì)法院管轄權(quán)范圍作以明確界定,使之具備監(jiān)管中國域內(nèi)所有民、刑事案件的絕對(duì)管轄權(quán),亦授權(quán)其受理領(lǐng)事法庭的上訴案件；在為其法律適用尋求“美國法”、“普通法”等寬泛外延的基礎(chǔ)上,賦予其法院規(guī)程制定權(quán),為踐行司法權(quán)提供便利。其后,在法官選任方面的嚴(yán)格把關(guān),使得美國駐華法院5任法官對(duì)于法學(xué)理論與法律實(shí)踐皆熟諳把握,更有助于美國法治觀念的傳播,促成法律帝國主義理念的達(dá)成。當(dāng)然,在與領(lǐng)事法庭、在華美國律師的互動(dòng)方面,不論法官抑或駐華法院都經(jīng)歷著競(jìng)爭(zhēng)與融合交織的獨(dú)特場(chǎng)面。前述諸端,可以確定,如果說領(lǐng)事法庭所解決的僅在于保護(hù)美國海外人士的切實(shí)利益,或僅僅是美國政府無暇顧及的權(quán)宜之計(jì),那么駐華法院的設(shè)置無疑具有針對(duì)性和目的性,側(cè)重于深層次以西方司法模式重塑域外司法場(chǎng)域。第三章意圖深入考察美國駐華法院的案件審判基本狀況。從數(shù)據(jù)分析與實(shí)證分析兩條路徑出發(fā),以羅炳吉所編撰《治外法權(quán)案例集》為依托,檢視駐華法院的受案對(duì)象及案件類型�？梢园l(fā)現(xiàn),法院除對(duì)律師、娼妓與賭徒、無業(yè)游民等目標(biāo)人群作以規(guī)范外,還將管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)張至美國屬民、美籍華人甚至原告為美國人的案件中；所審判的案件類型則以刑事案件、合同案件以及遺囑或遺產(chǎn)案件為主,其中有為數(shù)不少的中國人作為原告的訴訟案件。通過對(duì)案件進(jìn)行宏觀把握,總結(jié)美國駐華法院所適用的基本法律準(zhǔn)則,包括對(duì)于美國基本聯(lián)邦法典的適用,對(duì)于普通法原則的適用與偏離,對(duì)于國會(huì)所頒行的特別法案(尤其是阿拉斯加地區(qū)及哥倫比亞特區(qū)法案)的遵從,對(duì)于《治外法權(quán)救濟(jì)準(zhǔn)則》、法學(xué)家著述觀點(diǎn)以及公共租界市政條例及中國法的征引等。最后,擇選3起較為典型個(gè)案,從其審判意見中找尋駐華法院在案件審判中對(duì)于法律適用的堅(jiān)持與恪守,發(fā)現(xiàn)案件審判中確立的某些原則、觀念偶有創(chuàng)新甚至頗具影響。第四章側(cè)重于審視美國駐華法院的社會(huì)效果。先以《申報(bào)》作為考察樣本,選擇法官更迭、巡回審判及典型案件的追蹤兩條線索,以“局外人”的視角考察國人視野下的美國駐華法院是何般樣態(tài)。再結(jié)合東吳大學(xué)法學(xué)院《法學(xué)季刊》對(duì)美國駐華法院案例判決的摘錄,可以發(fā)現(xiàn),通過報(bào)刊、輿論的推介,原本對(duì)于美國式西方司法模式及程序一無所知的國人開始逐漸了解,甚至自覺委身于此種司法模式之下,適用西方權(quán)利保護(hù)模式維護(hù)切身利益；同時(shí),通過對(duì)以羅炳吉為首的美國法律職業(yè)群體對(duì)東吳法學(xué)院的幫持、對(duì)英美法學(xué)教育的推廣等方面進(jìn)行考察,進(jìn)而指明,前述活動(dòng)雖立足于實(shí)現(xiàn)美國法治觀念的推廣以及美國法律帝國主義的宏大愿景,但畢竟在客觀上推進(jìn)了中國近代法學(xué)教育的發(fā)展,見證并在一定程度上參與了中國近代法制化的歷程。結(jié)語部分,在回溯全文基礎(chǔ)上闡明美國駐華法院的創(chuàng)設(shè)表達(dá)了法律帝國主義觀念在中國演進(jìn)進(jìn)程；其次,對(duì)以美國駐華法院為代表的西方國家在華治外法權(quán)重新審視,指出近代意義上的國際法實(shí)際上為治外法權(quán)提供了理論依托。
[Abstract]:The concept of legal positivism and European colonial expansion constructed the basic framework of the sovereignty concept of western countries in the nineteenth Century. The modern international law created by "the concept of sovereignty" and "civilized state" naturally regarded European law and the Western Christian civilization as it deserved. Compared with the traditional form of the cannon and the colonialist invasion, it is more appropriate to borrow the "cultural imperialism" and even the "legal imperialism" to the eastern countries. In this sense, the modern western countries' extension of the extraterritorial power of the western countries. In the end, change will be reflected in the change of the system. Initially taking the consular tribunal as the basic style to seek the common practice of the state's judicial protection of the nationals in a simple sense, it is convenient, direct but not a good strategy. The old habit of being born in the Middle Ages is contrary to the times, and the consul lack of legal knowledge is not competent. This article is an example of "American Chinese court in China" (1906-1943), trying to investigate the setting background, operation rules, trial practice and social effects of this professional judicial institution, and the western countries behind it. The deep level of the concept of "legal imperialism" is carried out in a full range of interpretation. At the same time, it is an objective reflection on the historical process of witnessing and participating in the modernized Chinese legal system in the form of extraterritorial jurisdictions in the United States in China, as well as in the modern context with the western professional judiciary, which is more intuitive and more intuitive to the West. In addition to the introduction and the conclusion, the full text is divided into four chapters. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the full text is divided into four chapters. The introduction part first focuses on the "meeting trial", and the "view trial" can fully characterize the western factors in the modernization of Chinese legal system. The Chinese judicial institution, through a combing of academic history, indicates that the United States' special form of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the United States and even the creation of the "American court of China" is rarely known by the academic community; the acquisition of a number of bills and case data provides a possible space for the in-depth examination of the judicial operation and social effects of the court. The original meaning of "extraterritorial legal right" is the original meaning of the word "governing extraterritorial jurisdiction", and the understanding of "governing the legal rights of foreigners" is obviously different from that of the Chinese. Further investigation has been made to find that the word is produced in the context and background of the Chinese language in the context of the Chinese language. In fact, the extraterritorial jurisdiction is obviously more able to fully express the exercise of the judicial privileges of the foreign people in China, because in the simple sense, the consular jurisdiction in the simple sense can not include the United States Court in China as a professional law institution. After clarifying the meaning of the two words, the article has been clarified. The process of the extraterritorial legal rights of the United States in China was described in detail, and it was pointed out that after the determination of extraterritorial power in the form of bilateral treaties, the United States was at first imitating the western countries to practice its judicial power in the form of a consular court. However, 60 years of judicial practice made the consular tribunal of the consular system in the Middle Ages in the judicial practice. The lack of the financial budget, the lack of prison institutions, the lack of consular legal knowledge and the serious corruption problems have actually blocked the process of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States in China. So, to get rid of the predicament, the blue book of "the emperor in China High Court" was created to better practice the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States in China. The second chapter, through the interpretation of the institutional provisions of the American court in China, leads to the conclusion of the legal imperialism. The article first defines the theory and implication of the legal imperialism, and through the 3 more typical cases heard by the consular court, it is clear that the consul has made a wide gap in the promotion of the legal imperialism. " The Williams case and the White case reveal the institutional defects of the American consular court system in the United States; the "Barkley case" has shaken the constitutional basis for the establishment of the consular court system. In order to clearly define the absolute jurisdiction of all people in the Chinese domain and the absolute jurisdiction of the criminal cases, it also authorizes the appeals case to be accepted by the consular court; on the basis of the application of the "United States law" and "common law" to its legal application, the jurisdiction of the court is granted and the judicial power is facilitated. After that, the judge is in the judge. The strict check on the election has made the 5 judges of the American court in China familiar with the theory of law and the practice of law. It is more conducive to the spread of the concept of the rule of law in the United States and the achievement of the idea of the legal imperialism. Of course, in the interaction with the consular court and the American lawyers in China, the judges or the courts in China have experienced competition. It is certain that if the consular tribunal resolved only to protect the practical interests of the American overseas people, or only the expedient measures that the American government had no time to consider, the establishment of the court in China was undoubtedly pertinent and objective, focusing on the remolding of the western judicial model. The third chapter is intended to examine the basic situation of the case trial of the American court in China. Based on the two paths of data analysis and empirical analysis, based on Luo Bingji's compilation of the case set of extraterritorial jurisdictions, it examines the subject and type of cases of the court in China. It can be found that the court has no business except for lawyers, prostitutes and gamblers. The target group, such as the visitors, also expands the jurisdiction to the American people, the American Chinese and even the plaintiff in the case of the American; the types of the cases are mainly criminal cases, contract cases and will or legacy cases, among which many Chinese are the plaintiffs' litigation cases. To sum up, summarize the basic legal norms applicable to the American court of China, including the application of the Basic Federal Code of the United States, the application and deviation of the common law principles, the compliance of the special bills issued by the Congress (especially the Alaska region and the Columbia Special Administrative Region act), the law of extraterritorial legal rights relief, the jurists In the end, 3 typical cases were selected and selected from the trial opinions to find out the adherence and abiding by the court in the trial of China in the trial of the case, and find some principles established in the trial of the case, and the concept even has the innovation or even the influence. The fourth chapter focuses on the examination. The social effect of the American court in China first takes "Declaration >" as an inspection sample, and chooses two clues as judge change, circuit trial and typical case tracking. It can be found that, through the press and the introduction of public opinion, people who had no knowledge of the American western judicial model and procedure began to understand gradually, and even consciously committed themselves to the protection of Western rights under this kind of judicial mode. At the same time, the American legal profession, headed by Luo Bingji, was adopted. On the basis of the promotion of the concept of the rule of law in the United States and the grand vision of American legal imperialism, the preceding activities, after all, have promoted the development of the modern Chinese law education, and have witnessed and participated in a certain extent. In the concluding part, on the basis of the full text, the author clarifies the creation and expression of the concept of legal imperialism in China's evolution in China. Secondly, it reexamines the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the western countries represented by the American courts in China, and points out that the international law in the modern sense is actually the extraterritorial power. It provides a theoretical basis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D929
，

本文編號(hào)：2015504