發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-12 22:25

  本文選題：國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任　切入點(diǎn)：法律適用原則　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著國(guó)際經(jīng)貿(mào)一體化的逐步發(fā)展及各國(guó)對(duì)外交往的日益頻繁，因國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任而產(chǎn)生的訴訟也逐年增加。而國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者主要致力于國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用的理論研究，很少對(duì)一個(gè)案例進(jìn)行完整深入的分析。本文選取了一個(gè)較為典型的國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任案件，運(yùn)用實(shí)證分析、比較分析及歷史分析的方法，對(duì)其法律適用進(jìn)行解析，并對(duì)新頒布實(shí)施的《中華人民共和國(guó)涉外民事關(guān)系法律適用法》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱《法律適用法》）中有關(guān)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用的條款進(jìn)行剖析，以期法官在今后的判案中能在遵循國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任有關(guān)法律的同時(shí)靈活運(yùn)用其法律適用原則。 除去引言，文章由三個(gè)部分組成。 第一部分是案情簡(jiǎn)介。這一部分從“橫濱輪胎案”的起因談起，提及了案件的雙方當(dāng)事人，總結(jié)了原被告雙方各自的主張及其為支持各自主張向法庭提供的主要證據(jù)，歸納了案件的五個(gè)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)，分析了法官選擇準(zhǔn)據(jù)法的依據(jù)，闡明了法官對(duì)第一個(gè)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)的審理過程及案件的判決結(jié)果。 第二部分是對(duì)“橫濱輪胎案”的評(píng)析。這一部分又由六個(gè)方面組成。首先，從宏觀上肯定了法官敢于靈活選擇外國(guó)法做為準(zhǔn)據(jù)法的做法。其次，在對(duì)有利于受害人原則進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)要分析的基礎(chǔ)上，通過對(duì)《中華人民共和國(guó)產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量法》及日本的《制造物責(zé)任法》有關(guān)條款的比較分析后，釋明了法官選擇日本的《制造物責(zé)任法》作為準(zhǔn)據(jù)法的原因。再次，通過分析最密切聯(lián)系原則實(shí)質(zhì)，反駁了某些學(xué)者提出的該案適用了此原則的看法。然后，通過與“美國(guó)心臟起搏器侵權(quán)案”中法官適用法律的比較，揭示在現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)定下，中國(guó)法官在遇有國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任案件時(shí)的法律適用傾向及出現(xiàn)這一傾向的原因。之后，指出判決的不足之處。最后，對(duì)最新實(shí)施的《法律適用法》中與產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用有關(guān)的條款進(jìn)行解析，并將這一法律適用到本案中。 第三部分是對(duì)國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用原則及我國(guó)相關(guān)規(guī)定的闡述。這一部分又由三個(gè)方面的內(nèi)容組成。一是對(duì)國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的法律適用原則進(jìn)行梳理，，并對(duì)其在適用中表現(xiàn)出的優(yōu)點(diǎn)及不足逐一進(jìn)行評(píng)析。二是對(duì)《中華人民共和國(guó)民法通則》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱《民法通則》）中有關(guān)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用的條款進(jìn)行梳理，并著重分析其缺點(diǎn)所在。三是對(duì)《法律適用法》中與產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用有關(guān)的條款進(jìn)行解析，并對(duì)其優(yōu)點(diǎn)進(jìn)行剖析。
[Abstract]:With the gradual integration of the development of international trade and foreign exchanges have become more frequent, due to international product liability litigation has increased year by year. The theoretical research of scholars at home and abroad mainly focuses on the law of international product liability, rarely analysis deeply on a case study. This paper selected a typical international product liability cases, using empirical analysis, comparative analysis and historical analysis, the applicable law is analyzed, and the new foreign civil relations law < People's Republic of China > implementation (hereinafter referred to as "the law applicable law >) analyzes the application of the product liability provisions, in order to judge the flexibility use the rules of application of law in international product liability and follow the relevant laws in future cases.
Apart from the introduction, the article is composed of three parts.
The first part is the introduction. This part starts from the origin of "Yokohama tire case", referred to in the case of both parties, summarizes the positions of each party and to support the main evidence for their claim to the court, summed up the five controversial focus of the case, analyzes the choice of applicable law basis. The process of trial and judge for the first issue of the verdict.
The second part is the analysis of "Yokohama tire case". This part consists of six aspects. First, from the macro affirmed judge dare to flexibly choose foreign law as the law applicable in practice. Secondly, on the basis of a brief analysis of the principles for the victims, according to the "product quality law of People's Republic of China > and < the Japanese Product Liability Law > the relevant provisions of the comparative analysis, the judges choose Japan" product liability law > as applicable law. Thirdly, through the analysis of the most closely linked to the principle of essence, dismissed the case some scholars proposed the application of the principle of view. Then, through comparative law and "the United States pacemaker infringement case" the judge applies, reveal under the existing legal provisions, the judge in the case of China reason Law Tendency of international product liability cases and the emergence of this tendency After that, the shortcomings of the judgement are pointed out. Finally, the articles related to the application of product liability law, which are newly implemented in the law applicable law, are analyzed and applied to this case.
The third part is about the rules of law application to international products liability and related regulations in China in this paper. This part consists of three aspects. One is the legal principle of international product liability to sort out, and the show in the application of the advantages and disadvantages of one by one. The two is to "People's Republic of China the general principles of the civil law" (hereinafter referred to as the "general principles of civil law >) in the application of product liability law in terms of carding, and analyzes its shortcomings. Where three is to analyze the relevant legal provisions and product liability law" law ", and its advantages are analyzed.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王俊波;論我國(guó)涉外產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律制度的完善[J];安徽師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年01期

2 陳力;產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律比較及法律適用[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1999年05期

3 鄭自文;最密切聯(lián)系原則的哲學(xué)思考[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1994年06期

4 曹建明,林燕平;對(duì)完善中國(guó)涉外產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律的思考與建議[J];法學(xué);1999年07期

5 劉小牛;;探析涉外產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律制度之完善[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年10期

6 田蕾;劉鵬;;透視涉外產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法的法律適用[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年20期

7 田靜;;我國(guó)涉外產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用制度的不足和完善[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年20期

8 尹力;論涉外侵權(quán)行為的法律適用原則——兼評(píng)我國(guó)民法通則及國(guó)際私法示范法的有關(guān)規(guī)定[J];貴州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2000年01期

9 魏雅華;“日本橫濱輪胎”案引發(fā)爭(zhēng)議[J];法律與生活;2003年16期

10 李艷巖;中日產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律制度若干問題比較[J];哈爾濱商業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張漢國(guó);產(chǎn)品責(zé)任國(guó)際私法問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2002年

2 羅嘉賓;國(guó)際私法中產(chǎn)品責(zé)任問題法律適用原則之比較[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2002年

3 羅英;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任之賠償問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2004年

4 郭宏;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則與法律適用研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

5 吳素俞;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用比較研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

6 吳曉明;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2003年

7 劉雁冰;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用問題研究與我國(guó)立法之完善[D];西北大學(xué);2005年

8 王連云;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

9 楊晶絲;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任損害賠償研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

10 馮顥;國(guó)際產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律沖突及解決[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：1603550