本文選題：跨國(guó)破產(chǎn) + 管轄權(quán)沖突�。� 參考：《蘇州大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)的確定是解決跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)問(wèn)題的前提和基礎(chǔ),它影響到實(shí)體法的選擇和判決的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行,直接關(guān)系到當(dāng)事人的切身利益。跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)案件的復(fù)雜性、各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)立法的差異、司法主權(quán)的爭(zhēng)奪、平行管轄權(quán)的采用以及利益沖突是產(chǎn)生管轄權(quán)沖突的原因。 跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)的一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)分為以屬地管轄為基礎(chǔ)的管轄權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、以屬人管轄為基礎(chǔ)的管轄權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和以協(xié)議管轄為基礎(chǔ)的管轄權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)�！跋仁芾碓瓌t”和“不方便法院原則”作為傳統(tǒng)的解決國(guó)際民商事管轄權(quán)沖突的原則,可以用來(lái)解決跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突。國(guó)際合作對(duì)于管轄權(quán)沖突的解決也十分重要,國(guó)家間的相互妥協(xié)和高效合作可以減少和避免管轄權(quán)沖突。 國(guó)際上主要有三種跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突的解決模式:《美國(guó)統(tǒng)一聯(lián)邦破產(chǎn)法》中的管轄權(quán)沖突解決模式、《歐盟破產(chǎn)程序規(guī)則》中的管轄權(quán)沖突解決模式和聯(lián)合國(guó)《跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)示范法》中的管轄權(quán)沖突解決模式。國(guó)內(nèi)立法對(duì)跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)進(jìn)行自我限制、制定全球性的跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)統(tǒng)一法、簽訂國(guó)家間的雙邊或多邊條約以及個(gè)案直接協(xié)商是解決管轄權(quán)沖突的具體途徑。分析我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)案例,發(fā)現(xiàn)我國(guó)有關(guān)跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)的立法依舊空白,相關(guān)法律的缺失給司法實(shí)踐帶來(lái)了困擾。為解決該難題,文章提出在立法上對(duì)跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)進(jìn)行集中管轄、借鑒主次破產(chǎn)程序中管轄權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的建議。
[Abstract]:The determination of transnational bankruptcy jurisdiction is the premise and foundation of solving the transnational bankruptcy problem. It affects the choice of substantive law and the recognition and enforcement of judgment, and directly relates to the vital interests of the parties concerned. The complexity of transnational bankruptcy cases, the differences of domestic legislation, the contention of judicial sovereignty, the adoption of parallel jurisdiction and the conflict of interests are the causes of jurisdiction conflicts. The general criterion of transnational bankruptcy jurisdiction is divided into jurisdiction standard based on territorial jurisdiction, jurisdiction standard based on personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction standard based on agreement jurisdiction. As the traditional principle of resolving conflicts of jurisdiction in international civil and commercial affairs, the principle of first admissibility and the principle of inconvenient courts can be used to solve the conflicts of jurisdiction in transnational bankruptcy. International cooperation is also very important for the resolution of jurisdiction conflicts. Mutual compromise and efficient cooperation among countries can reduce and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction. There are mainly three kinds of conflict resolution models of transnational bankruptcy jurisdiction in the world: the conflict of jurisdiction model in the United federal bankruptcy law of the United states of America, the conflict of jurisdiction model in the rules of bankruptcy procedure of the European union and the United nations The Model Law on Transnational Insolvency (MLCBI): a Model for resolving conflicts of jurisdiction. Domestic legislation limits transnational bankruptcy jurisdiction, formulates global uniform law of transnational bankruptcy, signs bilateral or multilateral treaties between countries and direct negotiation of individual cases is the concrete way to resolve jurisdiction conflicts. By analyzing the cases of transnational bankruptcy in the judicial practice of our country, it is found that the legislation on transnational bankruptcy jurisdiction is still blank, and the lack of relevant laws has troubled the judicial practice. In order to solve this problem, this paper puts forward the suggestion of centralized jurisdiction over transnational bankruptcy in legislation and drawing lessons from the jurisdiction standard in primary and secondary bankruptcy proceedings.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D996

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王晗;跨境破產(chǎn)的沖突法問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2025725