論禁訴令制度在英美國家的運用及對我國的啟示
發(fā)布時間：2019-01-07 21:34
【摘要】：禁訴令制度是英美法系國家解決國際民商事管轄權(quán)沖突的有效途徑之一，其在應(yīng)對國際平行訴訟和挑選法院現(xiàn)象、防御其他國家過度管轄權(quán)、保護本國的司法主權(quán)以及保護本國公民的利益方面都對英美國家發(fā)揮了重要作用，但我國對禁訴令制度的研究尚不深入。本文力圖通過對英國和美國禁訴令制度的介紹來考察將禁訴令制度引入我國的必要性和可能性，并嘗試對我國的禁訴令制度進行相應(yīng)的構(gòu)建，以期對我國禁訴令制度的研究貢獻自己的微薄之力。 本文寫作將采用實證分析方法和比較分析方法。首先通過案例對英國和美國禁訴令的運用現(xiàn)狀進行實證分析；然后在實證分析的基礎(chǔ)上，對兩個國家禁訴令的相關(guān)問題進行比較，以期對我國禁訴令制度的構(gòu)建提供一些思路。 本文分為五部分。 第一部分介紹了兩個有關(guān)我國當事人遭受外國禁訴令的案例，這些案例引出了一些需要我們思考的問題。 第二部分是禁訴令制度的概述。這部分是關(guān)于禁訴令的基礎(chǔ)知識，對禁訴令的起源與發(fā)展、禁訴令的性質(zhì)以及禁訴令的功能與缺陷進行了詳細的分析，為論文后面部分打下基礎(chǔ)。 第三部分是英國禁訴令制度的介紹。由于布魯塞爾公約體系對英國禁訴令的沖擊，所以在歐盟管轄權(quán)體系之內(nèi)和歐盟管轄權(quán)體系之外，英國禁訴令所發(fā)揮的作用是不一樣的。因此，對英國禁訴令的介紹分為三個小部分：第一小部分介紹英國禁訴令在歐盟管轄權(quán)體系之內(nèi)的運用；第二小部分介紹英國禁訴令在歐盟管轄權(quán)體系之外的運用；最后一部分對英國禁訴令的運用進行簡要評析。 第四部分是美國禁訴令制度的介紹。這部分分為四個小部分：第一小部分介紹美國通常簽發(fā)禁訴令的情形；第二小部分介紹美國簽發(fā)禁訴令的兩種傳統(tǒng)方法及其新發(fā)展；第三小部分介紹美國法院簽發(fā)禁訴令的“類型”訴訟；最后一部分對美國禁訴令與英國禁訴令的運用進行比較評析。 第五部分是考察禁訴令與中國的問題。這部分分為四個小部分：第一小部分對中國目前存在的“形式最接近禁訴令的規(guī)則”進行考察，，主要指海事強制令、訴前禁令與行為保全制度；第二小部分探討了中國應(yīng)對外國禁訴令的方法；第三小部分對中國引入禁訴令的可行性進行探討；最后一部分是對我國禁訴令制度的相應(yīng)構(gòu)建。
[Abstract]:The injunction system is one of the effective ways to solve the conflicts of international civil and commercial jurisdiction in Anglo-American legal system countries, and it defends the excessive jurisdiction of other countries by dealing with the phenomenon of international parallel litigation and selecting courts. The protection of judicial sovereignty and the protection of the interests of its citizens have played an important role in British and American countries, but our research on the injunction system is not deep. This paper attempts to investigate the necessity and possibility of introducing the injunction system into our country through the introduction of the injunction system in the United Kingdom and the United States, and tries to construct the injunction system of our country accordingly. In order to make a contribution to the research of the injunction system in our country. This paper will use empirical analysis method and comparative analysis method. Firstly, this paper makes an empirical analysis of the current situation of the application of injunction in the United Kingdom and the United States; then, on the basis of the empirical analysis, compares the relevant issues of the injunction in the two countries in order to provide some ideas for the construction of the injunction system in our country. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part introduces two cases about the Chinese litigants suffering from foreign injunction, which leads to some problems that need our consideration. The second part is the summary of injunction system. This part is about the basic knowledge of the injunction, the origin and development of the injunction, the nature of the injunction, the function and defects of the injunction, which lays the foundation for the later part of the thesis. The third part is the introduction of the injunction system in Britain. Because of the impact of the Brussels Convention system on the British injunction, the British injunction plays a different role within the EU jurisdiction system and outside the EU jurisdiction system. Therefore, the introduction of the injunction is divided into three parts: the first part introduces the application of the injunction in the jurisdiction system of the EU, the second part introduces the application of the injunction outside the jurisdiction system of the EU. The last part makes a brief comment on the application of the injunction in Britain. The fourth part is the introduction of American injunction system. This part is divided into four parts: the first part introduces the situation that the United States usually issues injunctive orders, the second part introduces the two traditional methods of issuing injunctive orders in the United States and their new development. The third part introduces the "types" of injunctions issued by American courts, and the last part compares the use of American injunctions with British injunctions. The fifth part is to investigate the injunction and China's problems. This part is divided into four small parts: the first small part of China's current "form closest to the prohibition of action order rules", mainly refers to maritime injunctions, pre-litigation injunctions and acts of preservation system; The second part discusses how China should deal with the foreign injunction; the third part discusses the feasibility of introducing the injunction; the last part is the corresponding construction of China's injunction system.
【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】：2014
【分類號】：D997.4
本文編號：2404195
[Abstract]:The injunction system is one of the effective ways to solve the conflicts of international civil and commercial jurisdiction in Anglo-American legal system countries, and it defends the excessive jurisdiction of other countries by dealing with the phenomenon of international parallel litigation and selecting courts. The protection of judicial sovereignty and the protection of the interests of its citizens have played an important role in British and American countries, but our research on the injunction system is not deep. This paper attempts to investigate the necessity and possibility of introducing the injunction system into our country through the introduction of the injunction system in the United Kingdom and the United States, and tries to construct the injunction system of our country accordingly. In order to make a contribution to the research of the injunction system in our country. This paper will use empirical analysis method and comparative analysis method. Firstly, this paper makes an empirical analysis of the current situation of the application of injunction in the United Kingdom and the United States; then, on the basis of the empirical analysis, compares the relevant issues of the injunction in the two countries in order to provide some ideas for the construction of the injunction system in our country. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part introduces two cases about the Chinese litigants suffering from foreign injunction, which leads to some problems that need our consideration. The second part is the summary of injunction system. This part is about the basic knowledge of the injunction, the origin and development of the injunction, the nature of the injunction, the function and defects of the injunction, which lays the foundation for the later part of the thesis. The third part is the introduction of the injunction system in Britain. Because of the impact of the Brussels Convention system on the British injunction, the British injunction plays a different role within the EU jurisdiction system and outside the EU jurisdiction system. Therefore, the introduction of the injunction is divided into three parts: the first part introduces the application of the injunction in the jurisdiction system of the EU, the second part introduces the application of the injunction outside the jurisdiction system of the EU. The last part makes a brief comment on the application of the injunction in Britain. The fourth part is the introduction of American injunction system. This part is divided into four parts: the first part introduces the situation that the United States usually issues injunctive orders, the second part introduces the two traditional methods of issuing injunctive orders in the United States and their new development. The third part introduces the "types" of injunctions issued by American courts, and the last part compares the use of American injunctions with British injunctions. The fifth part is to investigate the injunction and China's problems. This part is divided into four small parts: the first small part of China's current "form closest to the prohibition of action order rules", mainly refers to maritime injunctions, pre-litigation injunctions and acts of preservation system; The second part discusses how China should deal with the foreign injunction; the third part discusses the feasibility of introducing the injunction; the last part is the corresponding construction of China's injunction system.
【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】：2014
【分類號】：D997.4
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 范躍如;;試論我國行為保全制度及其構(gòu)建與完善[J];法學(xué)家;2004年05期
2 王娟;;關(guān)于我國引入禁訴令制度的思考[J];法學(xué)評論;2009年06期
3 張利民;;國際民訴中禁訴令的運用及我國禁訴令制度的構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué);2007年03期
4 胡充寒;;我國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴前禁令制度的現(xiàn)實考察及正當性構(gòu)建[J];法學(xué);2011年10期
5 徐偉功;;美國國際民事管轄權(quán)中的兩大閥門——不方便法院原則與禁訴命令[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年02期
6 徐偉功,黃鵬;簡析美國國際平行訴訟中的禁訴命令[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年05期
7 徐偉功;WTO與我國國際私法自由裁量權(quán)條款的設(shè)計[J];湖南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年04期
8 歐福永;;論禁訴令在解決中國內(nèi)地與香港民商事管轄權(quán)積極沖突中的運用[J];時代法學(xué);2009年04期
9 張麗英;尚迪;;從“尼亞加拉海運公司訴天津鋼鐵集團”案析英國禁訴令[J];世界海運;2012年03期
10 姚建軍;;英美法系國家(地區(qū))的禁訴令制度及對我國的借鑒[J];人民司法;2011年01期
本文編號：2404195
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2404195.html
