發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-22 22:12

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免 國(guó)有企業(yè) 主體 責(zé)任關(guān)系 改革　出處：《華東師范大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：國(guó)有企業(yè)作為國(guó)家管轄豁免中的特殊問題,一直以來都受到世界各國(guó)學(xué)者的廣泛探討。首先因?yàn)檫@是一個(gè)理論難題,國(guó)家豁免作為一個(gè)公法權(quán)利,只能由公權(quán)力的主體才能享有,比如國(guó)家,而國(guó)有企業(yè),一方面具有公法主體的性質(zhì),因?yàn)樗蓢?guó)家注資,由國(guó)家掌握股權(quán),并且與本國(guó)政府有著密切的聯(lián)系,是國(guó)家的企業(yè)；而另一方面,在現(xiàn)代公司理論中,公司又應(yīng)當(dāng)是一個(gè)獨(dú)立的私法主體。那么這樣一個(gè)兼具公法和私法雙重性質(zhì)的主體,能否享有公法上的國(guó)家豁免權(quán)?它與國(guó)家豁免權(quán)的相互關(guān)系如何?這是一個(gè)值得探討的問題。其次,一國(guó)政府對(duì)于國(guó)有企業(yè)能否享有國(guó)家豁免權(quán)的態(tài)度,關(guān)系到跨國(guó)貿(mào)易的開展,并會(huì)影響到本國(guó)的國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)地位。因此,從立法司法實(shí)踐角度來探詢各國(guó)對(duì)于“國(guó)有企業(yè)與國(guó)家豁免主體之間的相互關(guān)系”問題的做法,有重大的國(guó)際意義。與此同時(shí),我國(guó)是一個(gè)國(guó)有經(jīng)濟(jì)占較大比重的發(fā)展中國(guó)家,長(zhǎng)期以來因?yàn)閲?guó)有企業(yè)的“政企不分、產(chǎn)權(quán)不明”而在國(guó)際貿(mào)易中廣受詬病,甚至致使我國(guó)政府被外國(guó)主體濫訴,造成了很負(fù)面的國(guó)際影響。2004年《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄管轄公約》出臺(tái),為解決國(guó)家豁免問題提供了重要藍(lán)本的同時(shí),也對(duì)我國(guó)提出了重要的挑戰(zhàn),作為公約的簽署國(guó),我國(guó)有必要盡快對(duì)此問題的世界通行做法進(jìn)行研究,對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)法進(jìn)行修正,以與國(guó)際接軌。 在以上兩個(gè)大背景之下,本文從國(guó)家豁免問題中的國(guó)有企業(yè)為切入點(diǎn),嘗試對(duì)國(guó)有企業(yè)與國(guó)家豁免主體的相互關(guān)系進(jìn)行深入分析。本文分別從兩個(gè)方面入手：國(guó)有企業(yè)能否成為國(guó)家豁免的主體；國(guó)有企業(yè)與國(guó)家豁免主體之間的相互責(zé)任關(guān)系,仔細(xì)研究了世界主要國(guó)家的立法和司法實(shí)踐,并結(jié)合國(guó)際公約和學(xué)理研究,在此基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)出了對(duì)此問題的國(guó)際主流觀點(diǎn),并將此觀點(diǎn)用于對(duì)我國(guó)“國(guó)企改制”以及立法提出改進(jìn)意見。本文認(rèn)為,基于獨(dú)立主體的身份,國(guó)有企業(yè)不能成為國(guó)家豁免的主體,不能享有國(guó)家豁免權(quán),除非是在代表國(guó)家行使公共職能；另外,對(duì)于國(guó)有企業(yè)與國(guó)家之間的相互責(zé)任關(guān)系,對(duì)于國(guó)家行為所引起的后果,在國(guó)家因?yàn)榛砻鈾?quán)而無(wú)需承擔(dān)責(zé)任的時(shí)候,不應(yīng)當(dāng)由國(guó)有企業(yè)來為國(guó)家行為買單,這也是源于國(guó)有企業(yè)的獨(dú)立主體地位,除非,這種做法將有違于公平原則,例如國(guó)有企業(yè)實(shí)質(zhì)上是被國(guó)家的控制,這種情況下,可以通過“揭開公司面紗”的途徑,來要求國(guó)有企業(yè)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)責(zé)任；對(duì)于國(guó)有企業(yè)行為所引起的后果,國(guó)家的豁免權(quán)不會(huì)受到影響,無(wú)需為國(guó)有企業(yè)負(fù)責(zé),除非有違公平原則。與此同時(shí),我國(guó)作為國(guó)有經(jīng)濟(jì)占較大比例的貿(mào)易大國(guó),應(yīng)當(dāng)以國(guó)際主流的“獨(dú)立主體”觀點(diǎn)為指導(dǎo),進(jìn)一步深化國(guó)有企業(yè)的體制改革,以實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)有企業(yè)與政府的真正分離,這不僅有利于保護(hù)我國(guó)國(guó)有企業(yè)的合法權(quán)益,也有利于樹立良好的國(guó)際形象。
[Abstract]:As a special problem in the immunity of state jurisdiction, state-owned enterprises have been extensively discussed by scholars all over the world. First of all, because this is a theoretical problem, state immunity is a public law right. It can only be enjoyed by the subject of public power, for example, the state, and the state-owned enterprise, on the one hand, has the nature of the subject of public law, because it is often funded by the state, is controlled by the state, and has close ties with its own government. On the other hand, in modern corporate theory, the company should be an independent subject of private law. How does it relate to State immunity? This is a question worth exploring. Secondly, the attitude of a government to the enjoyment of state immunity by state-owned enterprises is related to the development of transnational trade and will affect its international economic status. From the angle of legislative and judicial practice, it is of great international significance to probe into the practice of various countries on the issue of "the relationship between state-owned enterprises and the subject of state immunity". At the same time, China is a developing country with a large proportion of state-owned economy. For a long time, the state-owned enterprises have been widely criticized in international trade because of their "indistinction between government and enterprises, and their property rights are not clear." this has even caused our government to be oversued by foreign parties. The introduction of the United Nations Convention on jurisdiction of States and their property in 2004, which provides an important blueprint for the resolution of the question of State immunity, also poses an important challenge to our country as a signatory to the Convention, It is necessary for our country to study the world practice of this problem as soon as possible and amend the domestic law in order to meet the international standards. Under the above two big background, this article regards the state-owned enterprises in the question of state immunity as the starting point, This paper tries to analyze the relationship between the state-owned enterprises and the subject of state immunity. This paper starts with two aspects: whether the state-owned enterprises can become the subject of the state immunity, the relationship of mutual responsibility between the state-owned enterprises and the subject of the state immunity, and the relationship between the state-owned enterprises and the subject of state immunity. Having carefully studied the legislative and judicial practices of the major countries of the world, and combining the study of international conventions and theories, we have summed up the mainstream international views on this issue, This point of view is used to improve the reform of state-owned enterprises and the legislation of our country. This paper holds that, based on the status of independent subject, state-owned enterprises can not become the subject of state immunity, and can not enjoy state immunity. Except in the exercise of public functions on behalf of the State; moreover, in the case of mutual responsibility between State-owned enterprises and the consequences of acts of the State, when the State is not liable by reason of immunity, State enterprises should not pay for state behavior, which is also due to the independent subjective status of state-owned enterprises, unless this practice would be contrary to the principle of fairness, such as the fact that state-owned enterprises are essentially controlled by the state, in which case, Through the way of "lifting the veil of the company," the state-owned enterprises can be held responsible accordingly. The immunity of the state will not be affected as a result of the actions of the state-owned enterprises, and there is no need to be held accountable for the state-owned enterprises. Unless there is a violation of the principle of fairness, at the same time, as a large trading country with a large proportion of the state-owned economy, China should be guided by the international mainstream view of "independent subject" to further deepen the institutional reform of state-owned enterprises. In order to realize the real separation of the state-owned enterprises from the government, this is not only conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the state-owned enterprises in China, but also conducive to the establishment of a good international image.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D99

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 董倩;;論國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)豁免權(quán)[J];企業(yè)研究;2011年11期

2 秦前紅;黃明濤;;對(duì)香港終審法院就“剛果金案”提請(qǐng)人大釋法的看法[J];法學(xué);2011年08期

3 ;[J];;年期

4 ;[J];;年期

5 ;[J];;年期

6 ;[J];;年期

7 ;[J];;年期

8 ;[J];;年期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 張薇;;《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免公約》最新進(jìn)展與爭(zhēng)議[A];2008全國(guó)博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（國(guó)際法）論文集——國(guó)際公法、國(guó)際私法分冊(cè)[C];2008年

2 李慶明;;美國(guó)對(duì)人管轄權(quán)的行使與限制的實(shí)證分析[A];2006年中國(guó)青年國(guó)際法學(xué)者暨博士生論壇論文集（國(guó)際私法卷）[C];2006年

3 龔柏華;劉秀姣;;國(guó)際投融資糾紛仲裁裁決海外執(zhí)行中的主權(quán)豁免問題——兼評(píng)香港上訴法院涉及中國(guó)國(guó)有企業(yè)仲裁裁決執(zhí)行案[A];中國(guó)仲裁與司法論壇暨2010年年會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 趙千喜;《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免公約》述評(píng)[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

2 全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)法制工作委員會(huì)副主任 李飛;關(guān)于《全國(guó)人民代表大會(huì)常務(wù)委員會(huì)關(guān)于〈中華人民共和國(guó)香港特別行政區(qū)基本法〉第十三條第一款和第十九條的解釋(草案)》的說明[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

3 王可菊;一個(gè)事關(guān)國(guó)家利益的重要公約[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

4 ;全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)關(guān)于《中華人民共和國(guó)香港特別行政區(qū)基本法》第十三條第一款和第十九條的解釋[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

5 俞飛;在美國(guó)打官司 卡恩勝算幾何?[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

6 周榮祥;國(guó)家豁免東北老工業(yè)基地歷史欠稅[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2007年

7 彭麗;國(guó)家豁免東三省企業(yè)歷史欠稅[N];中國(guó)化工報(bào);2007年

8 何鵬;國(guó)家豁免東三省歷史欠稅或超100億[N];上海證券報(bào);2007年

9 傅鑄;香港特區(qū)終審法院提請(qǐng)釋法意義重大[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

10 北京萬(wàn)國(guó)學(xué)校;司法考試“三國(guó)法”重點(diǎn)預(yù)測(cè)[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 宋云霞;國(guó)家海上管轄權(quán)研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

2 胡瑩;聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際法委員會(huì)的工作機(jī)制與成效問題研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 趙麗雯;世界范圍內(nèi)國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免中的國(guó)有企業(yè)問題[D];華東師范大學(xué);2011年

2 黃燕芳;國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)豁免權(quán)的理論與實(shí)踐研究[D];上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué);2010年

3 楊th;由“剛果（金）案”看國(guó)家豁免的相關(guān)問題[D];外交學(xué)院;2012年

4 田苗;試述國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免例外[D];西北大學(xué);2012年

5 李潔;主權(quán)財(cái)富基金的國(guó)家豁免問題研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

6 宋慶棟;從絕對(duì)豁免到限制豁免[D];華中科技大學(xué);2010年

7 劉思;剛果案中限制豁免原則及中國(guó)國(guó)家豁免理論問題研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2011年

8 高越;國(guó)際商事仲裁中的國(guó)家豁免問題[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

9 李惠;國(guó)家豁免理論的新發(fā)展[D];中央民族大學(xué);2011年

10 歐偉一;論《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免公約》[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1525437