本文選題：管轄權(quán) + 放棄管轄權(quán)　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：法院管轄權(quán)是法院對案件行使審判權(quán)的基礎(chǔ),也是各國在解決國際民商事糾紛中首要確定的問題。隨著國際經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展和國際民商事往來的日趨頻繁,民商事矛盾沖突也越來越多。為了更好的保護(hù)本國和國民的利益,各國基于本國主權(quán),盡可能地?cái)U(kuò)大本國法院對國際民商事爭議的管轄權(quán),爭奪案件管轄權(quán)的局面由此產(chǎn)生。爭奪管轄權(quán)不僅不能使糾紛得到合理的解決,反而會形成各國法院獨(dú)自受理審理案件的局面,導(dǎo)致平行訴訟的發(fā)生。平行訴訟又會使同一案件形成了多份判決且得不到合理的執(zhí)行,使許多案件的審理歸于無意義,對當(dāng)事人和法院也造成了巨大的負(fù)擔(dān)。為了緩解這種局面,各國都在積極尋求解決國際民商事管轄權(quán)沖突的方法。由于管轄權(quán)問題的復(fù)雜性且涉及到各國的司法主權(quán),目前距離各國達(dá)成統(tǒng)一的國際管轄權(quán)規(guī)則還不具可能性。各國只能通過國內(nèi)立法、簽訂條約、對等互惠等方式減少國際管轄權(quán)沖突。在這種情況下,各國法院在處理國際民商事案件時(shí)放棄部分案件管轄權(quán)的做法對緩解國際民商事管轄權(quán)沖突就顯得尤為重要。這種做法也為以后的國際和國內(nèi)管轄權(quán)規(guī)則提供新的可行性方法和思路。因此,對法院放棄管轄權(quán)問題的研究也具有重要的理論和實(shí)際意義。 文章共分為五個(gè)部分: 第一部分主要對放棄管轄權(quán)這一基本概念進(jìn)行解釋和界定。本部分從國際民事訴訟管轄權(quán)的分析出發(fā),通過對管轄權(quán)的分析來說明放棄管轄權(quán)的范圍和內(nèi)涵,并對放棄管轄權(quán)的依據(jù)和類型做出說明。 第二部分主要通過比較的方法對不方便法院原則進(jìn)行分析和闡述。本部分采用比較法的分析方法分析普通法系國家的一些做法,理清不方便法院原則的體系并對各國的不方便法院原則進(jìn)行比較。此后分析大陸法系為什么不采用不方便法院原則,以及遇到類似情形時(shí)替代不方便法院原則的做法。 第三部分主要論及平行訴訟問題中的放棄管轄權(quán)規(guī)則。本部分從普通法系的不方便法院原則、禁訴令、歐盟公約中的受理在先的原則以及大陸法系國家的判決承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行規(guī)則來分析與解決平行訴訟中的一些問題。 第四部分主要闡述當(dāng)事人意思自治對法院放棄管轄權(quán)的影響。本部分主要通過協(xié)議管轄和仲裁兩種制度分析該制度在法院放棄管轄權(quán)方面的效力,并對各國在協(xié)議管轄和仲裁的一些共同性規(guī)則進(jìn)行相關(guān)的分析與論述。 第五部分主要闡述上文中所論述的放棄管轄權(quán)的規(guī)則對我國的影響。本部分從不方便法院原則、平行訴訟、協(xié)議管轄和仲裁的角度分析我國國際管轄權(quán)制度存在的問題,并對完善我國在國際民商事案件中法院放棄管轄權(quán)制度提出一些建議。
[Abstract]:The jurisdiction of the court is the basis for the court to exercise its jurisdiction over a case, and it is also the most important issue to be determined in the settlement of international civil and commercial disputes. With the development of international economy and the increasing frequency of international civil and commercial exchanges, conflicts between civil and commercial conflicts are becoming more and more. In order to better protect the interests of their own countries and nationals, based on their own sovereignty, countries expand the jurisdiction of their courts over international civil and commercial disputes as far as possible, thus creating the situation of competing for jurisdiction in cases. Scrambling for jurisdiction not only can not make the dispute be solved reasonably, but will form the situation that the court of each country alone accepts the case, which leads to the parallel litigation. Parallel litigation will make the same case form a number of judgments and can not be reasonably executed, so that many cases of trial is meaningless, and the parties and the court has also caused a huge burden. In order to alleviate this situation, all countries are actively seeking to resolve the conflict of international civil and commercial jurisdiction. Due to the complexity of jurisdiction and the judicial sovereignty of each country, it is not possible to reach a unified international jurisdiction rule. Countries can only reduce conflicts of international jurisdiction through domestic legislation, signing treaties, reciprocity and so on. In this case, it is particularly important for the courts of various countries to give up part of their jurisdiction in dealing with international civil and commercial cases in order to alleviate the conflicts of international civil and commercial jurisdiction. This practice also provides new feasible methods and ideas for future international and domestic jurisdiction rules. Therefore, the research on the issue of the court waiving jurisdiction also has important theoretical and practical significance. The article is divided into five parts: The first part mainly explains and defines the basic concept of waiver of jurisdiction. Starting from the analysis of jurisdiction in international civil action, this part explains the scope and connotation of waiver of jurisdiction through the analysis of jurisdiction, and explains the basis and type of waiver of jurisdiction. The second part mainly analyzes and expounds the principle of inconvenient court by means of comparison. This part uses the comparative method to analyze some practices of common law countries, clarifies the system of inconvenient court principle and compares the inconvenient court principle of various countries. Then it analyzes why the inconvenient court principle is not adopted in the civil law system and the practice of replacing the inconvenient court principle in the event of a similar situation. The third part mainly deals with the rule of waiver of jurisdiction in parallel litigation. This part analyzes and resolves some problems in parallel litigation from the principles of inconvenient courts in common law system, injunctive orders, the principle of admissibility first in EU conventions and the rules of judgment recognition and enforcement in civil law countries. The fourth part mainly expounds the influence of party autonomy on the court's abdication of jurisdiction. This part mainly analyzes the effectiveness of this system in the court waiving jurisdiction through the two systems of agreement jurisdiction and arbitration, and analyzes and discusses some common rules of agreement jurisdiction and arbitration. The fifth part mainly expounds the influence of the rule of waiver of jurisdiction discussed above on our country. This part analyzes the problems existing in China's international jurisdiction system from the point of view of inconvenient court principle, parallel litigation, agreed jurisdiction and arbitration, and puts forward some suggestions for perfecting the system of court relinquishing jurisdiction in international civil and commercial cases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D997

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 韓丹;國際民商事訴訟競合問題研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2013年

，

本文編號：1862476