本文選題：國家豁免權(quán) + 絕對(duì)豁免　； 參考：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：國家豁免權(quán)從產(chǎn)生到如今具有很長(zhǎng)的歷史了,儼然成為一條國際法的原則。在這漫長(zhǎng)的歷史歲月中,國家豁免權(quán)從概念的產(chǎn)生,范圍的調(diào)整以及判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)都在不斷變化。本論文的著重點(diǎn)在于對(duì)國際民商事仲裁中國家豁免權(quán)問題的分析。 中國的經(jīng)濟(jì)不斷發(fā)展,國家與外國的法人以及自然人之間的各種法律糾紛時(shí)有產(chǎn)生,而我國目前并沒有在國家豁免問題上立法,僅有一些相關(guān)規(guī)定散見于《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》、《中華人民共和國民法通則》、《中華人民共和國外交特權(quán)與豁免條例》等法規(guī)中。這樣所造成的結(jié)果就是當(dāng)爭(zhēng)議發(fā)生時(shí),不能通過法律途徑來加以解決,而大多依靠外交途徑。在爭(zhēng)議數(shù)量不多的情況下,外交途徑在一定程度上可以解決相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議,然而在經(jīng)濟(jì)高速發(fā)展的今天,這種方式就顯得力不從心了,而且外交途徑缺乏統(tǒng)一性和預(yù)見性,這樣就會(huì)對(duì)投資產(chǎn)生不利影響。 依據(jù)以往的案例中方關(guān)于國家主權(quán)豁免的態(tài)度是堅(jiān)持絕對(duì)豁免為原則,以放棄豁免為例外,而這種態(tài)度與現(xiàn)在大多數(shù)西方國家都通過立法和判例的形式確立了相對(duì)豁免原則的國際大環(huán)境不符。中國之所以堅(jiān)持這樣的原則,筆者考慮最為主要的原因是中國的經(jīng)濟(jì)形式是以公有制為主體的,在中國存在大量的國有以及公有制企業(yè),為了防止國有資產(chǎn)的流失,國家主張絕對(duì)豁免的原則。然而隨著中國經(jīng)濟(jì)的高速發(fā)展,我國的企業(yè)開始走出國門,到國外建廠或者投資,因此發(fā)生經(jīng)濟(jì)糾紛時(shí)由于兩個(gè)國家的法律規(guī)定的不同就會(huì)產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議。此時(shí)如果外國法院依據(jù)其國內(nèi)法對(duì)爭(zhēng)議做出了裁決,并執(zhí)行了中國企業(yè)在該國的財(cái)產(chǎn),這時(shí)我國的境地就會(huì)相當(dāng)尷尬,難道要通過報(bào)復(fù)的方式加以解決嗎?顯然這是不明智的,由于我國己加入WTO,為了更好地吸引投資和保護(hù)本國的企業(yè),增強(qiáng)其競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力,勢(shì)必需要我們轉(zhuǎn)變態(tài)度,從絕對(duì)豁免主義向相對(duì)豁免主義過渡。如果依然在法律實(shí)踐中堅(jiān)持絕對(duì)豁免主義,很可能就會(huì)剝奪與政府進(jìn)行貿(mào)易的私人的司法救濟(jì)權(quán)利,國家從而贏得與私人交易不恰當(dāng)?shù)母?jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)。因此在當(dāng)前市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)體制下,在國家與個(gè)人主體進(jìn)行商業(yè)交易時(shí),如受到損害要怎樣獲得救濟(jì)成為一個(gè)迫切需要解決的問題。因此必須明確國家享有豁免權(quán)的范圍,以及國家的何種行為可以主張豁免權(quán),這樣對(duì)于國家以及其他主體都是極其重要的。 由此可見我國急需出臺(tái)一部關(guān)于國家豁免方面的法律,目前國外較為典型的有1976年美國《外國主權(quán)豁免法》、1978年英國《國家豁免法》、1979年新加坡《國家豁免法》、1982年加拿大《國家豁免法》、1985年澳大利亞《外國國家豁免法》,然而中國出臺(tái)相關(guān)法律并非一朝一夕能完成的事,我們必須承認(rèn)中國的法制還有待健全。筆者也希冀法律的盡快出臺(tái)。然而貿(mào)易的爭(zhēng)端依然要解決,怎樣的一種方式可以在中國法律缺失的情況下有效地解決這些爭(zhēng)議? 答案是利用國際民商事仲裁這樣方式,仲裁對(duì)于法律的選擇,時(shí)間,地點(diǎn)以及豁免權(quán)的問題上都具有很大自由度。接下來全文就將對(duì)國家豁免權(quán)進(jìn)行分析,進(jìn)而在法律實(shí)踐中,尤其是國際民商事仲裁中國家豁免權(quán)應(yīng)如何處理。
[Abstract]:The national immunity has a long history from its emergence to the present, and it has become a principle of international law. In this long history, the national immunity has changed from the concept, the adjustment of the scope and the standard of judgment. The emphasis of this paper is on the analysis of the immunity of the Chinese family in the international civil and commercial arbitration.
China's economy continues to develop, and there are various legal disputes between the state and foreign legal persons and natural persons, and our country is currently not legislates on the issue of state immunity. Only some of the relevant provisions are scattered in the People's Republic of China civil procedure law, the general principles of the civil law of People's Republic of China, < People's Republic of China diplomacy. In the rules of privilege and exemption regulations, the result is that when the dispute occurs, it can not be solved by legal way, and most of it depends on diplomatic channels. In the case of low number of disputes, diplomatic channels can solve relevant disputes to some extent. However, in the rapid economic development today, this way appears. Lack of strength and lack of unity and foresight in diplomatic channels will have an adverse impact on investment.
According to the previous cases, China's attitude to state sovereignty immunity is the principle of insisting on absolute immunity and giving up exemption as an exception, and this attitude is not consistent with the international environment that has established the principle of relative immunity in the form of legislation and precedents in most western countries. The main reason is that China's economic form is subject to public ownership. There are a large number of state-owned and public owned enterprises in China. In order to prevent the loss of state-owned assets, the State advocates the principle of absolute immunity. However, with the rapid development of China's economy, Chinese enterprises begin to go out of the country and build factories or investment abroad. In the case of an economic dispute, there will be a dispute due to the different legal provisions of the two countries. At this time, if the foreign court made a decision on the dispute according to its domestic law and carried out the property of the Chinese enterprise in the country, the situation in our country would be quite embarrassing. Is it to be solved in the way of retaliation? Obviously it is unwise. Because our country has joined the WTO, in order to attract investment and protect the domestic enterprises and enhance its competitiveness, we must change our attitude, transition from absolute immunity to relative immunity. If we persist in absolute exemption in legal practice, it will be able to deprive the private judicial rescue of trade with the government. In the current market economic system, it is an urgent problem to be solved, such as how to get relief, in the current market economic system, if it is damaged. Therefore, it is necessary to make clear the scope of the immunity of the state and what the state is. Behavior can claim immunity, which is extremely important for the country and other subjects.
This shows that China is in urgent need of a law on state immunity. At present, there are more typical foreign countries in 1976, such as the United States, the foreign sovereign immunity law, the national immunity law of the United Kingdom in 1978, the state immunity law of Singapore in 1979, the state immunity law of Canada in 1982, and the immunity law of Australia in 1985, but China has promulgated the law in 1985. The law is not completed overnight. We must admit that China's legal system remains to be improved. The author also hopes that the law will be promulgated as soon as possible. However, the dispute of trade remains to be solved. What kind of way can we solve these disputes effectively in the absence of Chinese law?
The answer is to make use of international civil and commercial arbitration in such a way that arbitration has great freedom for the choice of law, time, place and immunity. Then the full text will analyze the immunity of the state, and then how to deal with the immunity of the Chinese family in the legal practice, especially in the international civil and commercial arbitration.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D997.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 金曉晨;限制豁免論中判斷國家商業(yè)行為的障礙及解決[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年12期

2 黃亞英;;論《紐約公約》與仲裁協(xié)議的法律適用——兼評(píng)中國加入《紐約公約》二十年的實(shí)踐[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年02期

3 王立君;;國家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免規(guī)則的新發(fā)展——兼論我國的立法與實(shí)踐[J];法商研究;2007年03期

4 邵沙平;;《聯(lián)合國國家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免公約》對(duì)國際法治和中國法治的影響[J];法學(xué)家;2005年06期

5 黃進(jìn);李慶明;;2007年莫里斯訴中華人民共和國案述評(píng)[J];法學(xué);2007年09期

6 趙冰瑩;;對(duì)國有企業(yè)在國際法中豁免權(quán)問題的探討[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2010年06期

7 劉毅;;國家主權(quán)豁免的相對(duì)和絕對(duì)原則及合理性分析[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2008年11期

8 肖愛華;;國家豁免主體的特殊問題研究——解讀2004年《聯(lián)合國國家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免公約》中國有企業(yè)法律地位問題[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年16期

9 唐衛(wèi)華;;國際商事仲裁管轄權(quán)與國際民事訴訟管轄權(quán)之比較[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年32期

10 王帥;;試析《聯(lián)合國國家及其財(cái)產(chǎn)管轄豁免公約》對(duì)國家財(cái)產(chǎn)的執(zhí)行豁免規(guī)定[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年25期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 劉群;論國家主權(quán)的有限豁免[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2005年

2 葉綠美;仲裁條款獨(dú)立性及其相關(guān)法律問題探析[D];四川大學(xué);2005年

3 王莉;論支持國際商事仲裁的政策[D];武漢大學(xué);2005年

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

5 黃琳;國家豁免立法的新發(fā)展[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

6 鄧金;司法與仲裁關(guān)系之探索[D];上海交通大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2117832