本文關(guān)鍵詞：選擇法院協(xié)議的排他性問題研究　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 選擇法院協(xié)議 排他性 協(xié)議管轄 《選擇法院協(xié)議公約》

【摘要】：選擇法院協(xié)議的排他性問題在理論界受到重視的被研究地位也愈來愈高,窮根究底源于當(dāng)事人合意選擇法院是解決管轄權(quán)沖突的重要手段。從目前各國法律、理論和實(shí)踐來看,普遍允許當(dāng)事人選擇法院已經(jīng)成為屢見不鮮的事實(shí),但是在選擇法院的排他性問題上有些國家就顯現(xiàn)出大相徑庭的一面。2005年海牙《選擇法院協(xié)議公約》是歷久彌堅(jiān)而形成的,在協(xié)議管轄領(lǐng)域中國際上聲望不遜于且有希望與《紐約公約》比肩的專門性國際公約,它系統(tǒng)全面的協(xié)議管轄規(guī)則是一大亮點(diǎn),該公約所蘊(yùn)含的有關(guān)協(xié)議管轄的立法精神和成果是值得各個(gè)國家加以學(xué)習(xí)和借鑒的,它在2015年10月開始生效,為國際民商事管轄權(quán)的統(tǒng)一進(jìn)程添磚加瓦。而我國目前立法對(duì)法院選擇協(xié)議的排他性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)未作規(guī)定,在司法實(shí)踐中有些法院的解釋也層次不齊,完善我國在這方面單薄的立法規(guī)定必然在實(shí)踐中添加助益。本文通過對(duì)判斷選擇法院協(xié)議的排他性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、限制選擇法院協(xié)議排他性的因素進(jìn)行研究,層層深入分析從而評(píng)估我國加入海牙《選擇法院協(xié)議公約》的可行性,希望為我國在選擇法院協(xié)議排他性的立法方面的完善略施助益。文章主體分為四部分:第一部分概述選擇法院協(xié)議的相關(guān)內(nèi)容。一方面從選擇法院協(xié)議的概念與發(fā)展歷程進(jìn)行闡述,引出選擇法院協(xié)議的排他性內(nèi)容。第二個(gè)方面詳述選擇法院協(xié)議排他性的效力問題,最后,講述2005年海牙《選擇法院協(xié)議》關(guān)于選擇法院協(xié)議的排他性規(guī)則。第二部分論述判斷法院選擇協(xié)議的排他性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。首先是選擇法院協(xié)議的準(zhǔn)據(jù)法問題,闡述了目前國際上有關(guān)選擇法院協(xié)議法律適用的幾種主要理論觀點(diǎn),并提出了自己的見解。其次是美國的許可性-排他性標(biāo)準(zhǔn),用案例進(jìn)行剖析。再次是我國在司法實(shí)踐中是如何對(duì)選擇法院協(xié)議是否排他進(jìn)行判斷的,用案例進(jìn)行分析,并提出了筆者的觀點(diǎn)。第三部分是對(duì)限制選擇法院協(xié)議排他性的因素作了闡述。這些限制性因素包括公共秩序保留原則、專屬管轄權(quán)、不方便法院原則以及實(shí)際聯(lián)系原則。第四部分分析我國在選擇法院協(xié)議的排他性問題上的立法及前景,首先從我國協(xié)議管轄制度和選擇法院協(xié)議排他性問題的立法現(xiàn)狀的闡述出發(fā),包括我國2012年修訂的《民事訴訟法》中關(guān)于選擇法院協(xié)議的相關(guān)規(guī)則,及與海牙《選擇法院協(xié)議公約》相關(guān)規(guī)則的比較,其次是闡述我國批準(zhǔn)海牙公約是否可行,有哪些障礙,以及對(duì)策和建議。
[Abstract]:The problem of exclusive choice of court agreements valued by more and more research status in the theoretical circle, get to the bottom of the source in the choice of court agreement of the parties is an important means to solve the conflict of jurisdiction. From the current law, theory and practice, the court generally allowed to choose has become the fact but in the exclusive It is often seen.. The problem on the choice of court in some countries appear to be quite different side of.2005 in Hague "Convention on choice of court agreements > is enduring formed, under the jurisdiction of the agreement in the field of international prestige as well as on and hope and" New York convention > par special international convention, it is systematic and comprehensive agreement jurisdiction rules is one of the highlights and the spirit of legislation and achievements about the agreement contained in the Convention under the jurisdiction of various countries is worthy of study and reference, which took effect in October 2015, as The unified process of international civil jurisdiction blocks. But China's current legislation on the exclusive choice of court agreement standard is not specified in the judicial practice, some courts also explain uneven levels, improve China's weak legislation in this regard must be added in practice. Based on the judgment of the choice of court agreement exclusive criteria, factors of the exclusive choice of court agreement, layers of in-depth analysis to assess the feasibility of "Hague Convention on choice of court agreements on China's accession to the hope for our country in the legislative choice of court agreement exclusive of a perfect benefit. This article is divided into four parts: the first part is an overview about the relevant content of choice court agreement. On the one hand from the concept and development of choice of court agreement on lead content exclusive choice of court agreement. The following second aspects: The effectiveness of choice of court agreement exclusive, finally, about 2005 Hague's choice of court agreement > about exclusive choice of court agreement. The second part discusses the rules of judgment standard of exclusive choice of court agreement. The first is the applicable law of choice of court agreement, expounded on the choice of court agreement law applicable to several major theoretical perspectives on the current international, and put forward their own opinions. Second is the United States exclusive licensing standards, use case analysis. Once again, in the judicial practice of our country is how to choice of court agreement whether the exclusive judgment, analyzed by case, and put forward the author's point of view. The third part is the factors to limit the choice of court the exclusive agreement is introduced. These restrictive factors include the principle of reservation of public order, exclusive jurisdiction, inconvenient court principle and the actual contact with the original Then the fourth part analysis of legislation and the prospect of China in the exclusive choice of court agreement on the issue, first of all from the legislation jurisdiction and exclusive choice of court agreement our protocol based on relevant rules, including the choice of court agreement of the civil procedural law of China revised in 2012 < >, the comparison and selection of the court the relevant rules and the Hague agreement > <, second is expounded China's approval of the Hague convention is feasible, what are the obstacles and countermeasures and suggestions.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D997

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王倩;選擇法院協(xié)議的排他性問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1432366