本文選題：民間索賠 + 國(guó)家豁免�。� 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：自1995年以來(lái),中國(guó)對(duì)日民間索賠訴訟的判決結(jié)果幾乎無(wú)一例使人滿意,日本法院以各種理由駁回中國(guó)民間受害者的訴訟請(qǐng)求,使民間受害者的合法權(quán)益得不到有效救濟(jì)。面對(duì)中國(guó)在日本法院民間索賠的現(xiàn)狀及法律障礙,筆者就中國(guó)民間受害者轉(zhuǎn)向本國(guó)法院提起對(duì)日索賠訴訟中的主要法律困境即國(guó)家豁免問(wèn)題進(jìn)行詳細(xì)闡述,從而為中國(guó)對(duì)日民間索賠適用國(guó)家豁免的例外提供更有力的法理依據(jù)。本文通過(guò)中日兩國(guó)的立法、立場(chǎng)來(lái)分析中日兩國(guó)的國(guó)家豁免態(tài)度。從中國(guó)對(duì)《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)豁免公約》的簽署以及有關(guān)國(guó)家豁免的司法實(shí)踐,可以看出中國(guó)堅(jiān)持絕對(duì)豁免是原則,限制豁免是例外。從日本的《日本主權(quán)豁免法》以及近年來(lái)有關(guān)國(guó)家豁免的司法實(shí)踐,可以看出日本傾向于限制豁免主義。而中國(guó)對(duì)日民間索賠在中國(guó)法院的受理,存在著國(guó)家豁免是一項(xiàng)古老的習(xí)慣法原則的困難,尤其是2012年的德國(guó)訴意大利案中,國(guó)際法院堅(jiān)持德國(guó)享有國(guó)家豁免權(quán)以來(lái),對(duì)日民間索賠要想在中國(guó)法院獲得成功,必須突破國(guó)家豁免這一古老原則的限制。近年來(lái),盡管國(guó)際社會(huì)上大多數(shù)國(guó)家的絕對(duì)豁免主義立場(chǎng)開始動(dòng)搖,先后向限制豁免主義轉(zhuǎn)變,但是各國(guó)關(guān)于限制豁免的范圍沒(méi)有明確統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定,國(guó)家豁免規(guī)則仍處于一個(gè)新舊接替的過(guò)渡期。同時(shí),由于《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)豁免公約》尚未生效,故在國(guó)家豁免規(guī)則上仍是由習(xí)慣法主導(dǎo),即國(guó)家豁免是原則,不豁免是例外。但是,國(guó)際社會(huì)中民間索賠案不適用國(guó)家豁免、支持民間受害者的索賠權(quán)也是有司法判例的,如意大利的Ferrini案,希臘的薇奧迪亞縣訴德意志聯(lián)邦共和國(guó)案。并且包括日本在內(nèi)的國(guó)際社會(huì)在立法上都將領(lǐng)土上的侵權(quán)行為、嚴(yán)重侵犯人權(quán)的國(guó)際罪行、商業(yè)行為列入了限制豁免的范圍。二戰(zhàn)期間,日本在中國(guó)實(shí)施的慰安婦制度、細(xì)菌戰(zhàn)、南京大屠殺、強(qiáng)制勞工等屬于在中國(guó)領(lǐng)土上的侵權(quán)行為,是對(duì)人權(quán)嚴(yán)重侵犯的國(guó)際罪行。其中,慰安婦制度、強(qiáng)制勞工在某種程度上還屬于可歸因于日本的商業(yè)行為。因此,中國(guó)對(duì)日民間索賠訴訟具有適用國(guó)家豁免例外的可能性。
[Abstract]:Since 1995, there has been almost no satisfactory result in the judgment of Chinese folk claim litigation against Japan. The Japanese court rejected the lawsuit request of Chinese folk victim for various reasons, so that the legal rights and interests of the folk victim could not be effectively remedied.In the face of the current situation and legal obstacles of China's civil claims in Japanese courts, the author expounds in detail the main legal dilemma in China's civilian victims' turning to their own courts to file claims against Japan, that is, the issue of state immunity.Therefore, it provides a more powerful legal basis for China to apply the exception of state immunity to Japanese folk claims.This paper analyzes the state immunity attitude of China and Japan through the legislation of China and Japan.From China's signing of the United Nations Convention on immunity of States and their property and judicial practice on state immunity, we can see that China adheres to the principle of absolute immunity, while the restriction of immunity is the exception.From Japan's "Japan's sovereign immunity law" and the judicial practice of state immunity in recent years, it can be seen that Japan tends to restrict immunity doctrine.However, in the case of Germany v. Italy in the 2012 case of Germany v. Italy, the International Court of Justice has insisted that Germany enjoys state immunity, and that there are difficulties in the handling of Chinese civilian claims against Japan in Chinese courts, because state immunity is an ancient principle of customary law, especially since the International Court of Justice insisted that Germany enjoy state immunity.In order to succeed in Chinese courts, civil claims against Japan must break through the old principle of state immunity.In recent years, although the position of absolute immunity of the majority of countries in the international community has begun to waver and gradually shifted to the doctrine of limiting immunity, there is no clear and uniform provision on the scope of the restriction of immunity.The rules on State immunity are still in a transitional period for new and old replacements.At the same time, since the United Nations Convention on the Immunities of States and their property has not yet entered into force, the rules of State immunity are still governed by customary law, that is, State immunity is the principle and non-immunity is the exception.However, civil claims in the international community do not apply to state immunity, and there are judicial precedents to support civil victims' claims, such as the case of Ferrini in Italy, the case of Vidia County in Greece v. the Federal Republic of Germany.And the international community, including Japan, legislates to include territorial violations, international crimes of gross human rights violations, and commercial acts within the scope of restricted immunity.During World War II, Japan's comfort women system, germ warfare, Nanjing Massacre, forced labor and other violations in Chinese territory were serious international crimes against human rights.Among them, the comfort women system, forced labor, to some extent, can also be attributed to Japan's business practices.Therefore, China's civil claims against Japan have the possibility of applying exceptions to state immunity.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D99

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 管建強(qiáng);;民間戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)受害者權(quán)益救濟(jì)的權(quán)利與義務(wù)主體研究——以韓國(guó)啟動(dòng)國(guó)內(nèi)救濟(jì)手段為視角[J];東方法學(xué);2013年06期

2 李慶明;;國(guó)家豁免與訴諸法院之權(quán)利——以歐洲人權(quán)法院的實(shí)踐為中心[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2012年06期

3 郭玉軍;劉元元;;國(guó)際強(qiáng)行法與國(guó)家豁免權(quán)的沖突及其解決——以德國(guó)訴意大利案為視角[J];河北法學(xué);2013年01期

4 杜輝;;淺析意大利賠償問(wèn)題與日本、德國(guó)賠償問(wèn)題[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 史書丞;論國(guó)家豁免與違反國(guó)際強(qiáng)行法關(guān)系問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

2 Baeg Lyla（白立拉）;關(guān)于國(guó)家豁免例外適用的研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

3 任增花;國(guó)際法院德國(guó)訴意大利案中的國(guó)家豁免權(quán)問(wèn)題評(píng)析[D];鄭州大學(xué);2016年

4 王一飛;德國(guó)與日本對(duì)二戰(zhàn)史認(rèn)識(shí)的比較研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2014年

5 戚景;中國(guó)對(duì)日戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)索賠問(wèn)題研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2014年

6 管仕超;淺談對(duì)日索賠中的國(guó)家管轄豁免問(wèn)題[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

7 譚暢;武裝沖突中針對(duì)婦女的性暴力犯罪研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

8 趙麗紅;國(guó)家豁免的國(guó)際強(qiáng)行法例外研究[D];浙江大學(xué);2013年

9 蔡悅;武裝沖突中婦女權(quán)利的國(guó)際法保護(hù)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

10 王瑞玲;從國(guó)際法視角論二戰(zhàn)后中國(guó)民間對(duì)日索賠問(wèn)題[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1738859