發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-19 17:19

  本文選題：強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定 + 合同效力�。� 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：隨著市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的不斷發(fā)展,我國(guó)在當(dāng)前又要迎接全球化的挑戰(zhàn)。然而,我國(guó)的一些法律制度并未完全因應(yīng)這樣的時(shí)代發(fā)展方向。特別是在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)中可發(fā)揮重大作用的《合同法》上的一些制度。比如說,《合同法》上明確規(guī)定,違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同無效。無論是在理論上還是在司法實(shí)踐上,我們都能發(fā)現(xiàn),此規(guī)定并沒有如立法者立法時(shí)所考慮的那樣,讓它指導(dǎo)人們?nèi)プ非笳?dāng)利益,而是限制和減少了理性自由人通過自我意志去追求自身利益的自由,甚至演化成了理性人追求正當(dāng)利益過程中的最大障礙,而在司法實(shí)踐中起到與立法意旨大相徑庭的效果。導(dǎo)致這種狀況的原因是多方面的,它不僅僅是制度上的問題,法律制定上的缺陷也是主要因素之一。究其具體原因,其中最主要的就是我國(guó)缺乏意思自治或合同自由的傳統(tǒng),而且現(xiàn)代的私法精神還沒有在社會(huì)運(yùn)行和法律制定中得以充分確立。本文就是在這種現(xiàn)實(shí)狀況的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同的效力在我國(guó)立法和實(shí)踐中的變化進(jìn)行梳理并予以研究。 在第一章,我們深入研究了違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力的一般理論及其理論根源,指出究竟如何界定強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定,須從法的一般原理、強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的本質(zhì)特征、立法技術(shù)及我國(guó)法律、行政法規(guī)的現(xiàn)狀諸因素的綜合分析中尋找答案。具體說來分別指出,強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定如果系禁止人們從事某項(xiàng)行為,設(shè)定該項(xiàng)行為義務(wù)的合同則應(yīng)認(rèn)定無效；法律、法規(guī)中的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定如果純系為交易行為設(shè)定一定的管理程序而設(shè),則違反此類強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同原則上應(yīng)該認(rèn)定為有效,但不排除行政機(jī)關(guān)可依法對(duì)違反規(guī)定的當(dāng)事人進(jìn)行行政處罰的可能；法律、法規(guī)行政中的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的目的如果是為了保護(hù)社會(huì)公眾的利益,則違反此類強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同應(yīng)該無效。我們?cè)诶脧?qiáng)制性規(guī)定判定合同效力時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)明確該規(guī)定的規(guī)范意旨和立法目的,結(jié)合公序良俗來判斷違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同的效力,將公序良俗內(nèi)化于強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的規(guī)范意旨和立法目的之中,具體判斷合同的效力。 在第二章,通過對(duì)法國(guó)、德國(guó)、日本等大陸法系國(guó)家違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力相關(guān)制度的比較研究,指出在大陸法系傳統(tǒng)下的各國(guó)民法理論和學(xué)說中,全都沒有“違反法律強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同無效”的規(guī)定或說法,而是分別將強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定按其針對(duì)的法律行為的性質(zhì)之不同進(jìn)行區(qū)分,并對(duì)違反行為的效力分別加以規(guī)定。盡管各國(guó)民法在立法技術(shù)上存有差異,但都以違反法律規(guī)定和公序良俗作為確定合同無效的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。具體表現(xiàn)在立法例上就是：要么規(guī)定了違反法律規(guī)定“和”公序良俗的合同無效；要么規(guī)定了違反法律規(guī)定“或”公序良俗的合同無效。當(dāng)然不能忽視,不論是違反法律規(guī)定還是違背公序良俗,各國(guó)各地區(qū)的法院在操作司法行為時(shí),其行為旨趣都會(huì)隨著時(shí)代的變化而變化,并且呈現(xiàn)出了各自的特色。但它們有一項(xiàng)基本的共同點(diǎn),那就是,至少就實(shí)踐而言,各國(guó)各地區(qū)都基本上認(rèn)為,法官認(rèn)定合同之效力,應(yīng)當(dāng)視法律的立法目的而定,并非一律因違反法律而無效。由此為我國(guó)違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力法律的完善提供借鑒。 在第三章,我們考察了我國(guó)民法從《民法通則》到《合同法》的立法嬗變過程,透視出違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力制度自《民法通則》至《合同法》的變革,指出與《民法通則》相比,《合同法》在違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力問題的規(guī)定上,雖已賦予民事主體更為充分的自由度,但也必須承認(rèn),諸多依意思自治而締結(jié)的合同仍會(huì)因違反國(guó)家的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定而在實(shí)踐中被直接認(rèn)定無效。繼而在實(shí)務(wù)中對(duì)違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力立法疏漏的認(rèn)識(shí),以及典型判決對(duì)違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力的認(rèn)定上,都體現(xiàn)著簡(jiǎn)單粗暴的制裁,經(jīng)常令民事主體的自由意志遭到行政權(quán)力的損害。由此針對(duì)違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力的司法解釋見解的演變,我們提出導(dǎo)致我國(guó)長(zhǎng)期將違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同一律認(rèn)定為無效的原因具體可歸納為三方面：較為缺乏現(xiàn)代私法精神與私法傳統(tǒng)：否認(rèn)個(gè)人在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)中的利益和作用；法律條文的文字表意不明。在此基礎(chǔ)上,我們主張,在我國(guó)法制現(xiàn)代化的發(fā)展進(jìn)程中,公法與私法的相對(duì)分離,是當(dāng)前市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)條件下判斷合同效力的理論基礎(chǔ),以國(guó)家權(quán)力至上、國(guó)家意志決定一切等為標(biāo)志的國(guó)家權(quán)力本位觀念應(yīng)退出歷史舞臺(tái),取而代之的應(yīng)是社會(huì)本位觀念,確立以意思自治與合同自由作為現(xiàn)代私法體系的核心理念,以社會(huì)群體的利益為現(xiàn)代私法發(fā)展的源動(dòng)力和終極目標(biāo)。在合同效力理論上,應(yīng)當(dāng)信奉這樣的觀念：并非任何違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定均當(dāng)然無效,我們應(yīng)當(dāng)采納現(xiàn)代市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的復(fù)雜化思維方式而有條件地承認(rèn)其有效,其判別的基本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是以合同的履行是否實(shí)質(zhì)違反公序良俗或者社會(huì)公共利益為理論依據(jù)。也就是說,即使合同被認(rèn)定為無效,其主要原因也不在于其違反了法律的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定,而關(guān)鍵是因?yàn)槠湫袨橥瑫r(shí)構(gòu)成對(duì)社會(huì)公共利益或者說是公序良俗的違反。 在第四章,我們討論了合同違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定之效力的判定問題,堅(jiān)持公私二元相對(duì)分離但又相互融合的觀點(diǎn),并指出兩者分離才有強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范與任意性規(guī)范的存在事實(shí),而兩者融合才有私法行為違反強(qiáng)制性條款的可能�！逗贤ㄋ痉ń忉�(二)》14條規(guī)定,合同法52條第5項(xiàng)規(guī)定的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定是指效力性強(qiáng)制規(guī)定；09年最高院關(guān)于《當(dāng)前形勢(shì)下審理民商事合同糾紛案件若干問題的指導(dǎo)意見》15條指出：“……人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)合同法解釋(二)14條之規(guī)定,注意區(qū)分效力性強(qiáng)制規(guī)定與管理性強(qiáng)制規(guī)定。違反效力性強(qiáng)制規(guī)定的,人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定合同無效,違反管理性強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的,人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)具體情形認(rèn)定其效力�！鄙鲜觥吨笇�(dǎo)意見》把強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定分為效力性規(guī)范和管理性規(guī)范,但在司法實(shí)踐中,效力性規(guī)范和管理性規(guī)范的二分并不像法條本身表現(xiàn)出來的那樣精確,關(guān)于合同效力狀態(tài)的司法爭(zhēng)論往往可歸結(jié)于其違反的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定到底是效力性規(guī)范還是管理性規(guī)范。通過公私法的相對(duì)分離和內(nèi)在銜接的處理方法,雖能在一定程度上厘清兩種規(guī)范的區(qū)別,但依靠類型化的列舉方式不可能窮盡所有的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范類型,仍然有一些強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范并不能被囊括到列舉的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范類型中；即使某些強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范已被歸為某一類別的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范,但對(duì)其屬于效力性規(guī)范還是管理性規(guī)范的問題仍有可能產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議。因此,對(duì)于違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同效力予以認(rèn)定,除了規(guī)范分析方法之外,尚且存在復(fù)雜的價(jià)值衡量問題。而在價(jià)值衡量中,作者將探尋立法旨意的目的解釋方法,以均衡性、適合性和必要性為內(nèi)在要求的比例原則,和以效率、效益等價(jià)值為內(nèi)容的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析方法在違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力的判定中予以適用。即便如此,上述三種方法仍未能窮盡違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同效力的判定路徑,由此我們把公序良俗視為兜底標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。所謂兜底標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是指把公序良俗作為判定合同效力的價(jià)值補(bǔ)充,把生活世界中不斷變化的一般秩序、一般利益、基本道德認(rèn)同等內(nèi)容納入其中,由此保持民法的開放性姿態(tài),實(shí)現(xiàn)民法與社會(huì)生活的無縫對(duì)接,同時(shí)也與《民法通則》第七條和《合同法》第七條相呼應(yīng),使得民事行為若違反了公序良俗,并非僅僅只是與公序良俗的具體內(nèi)容相違背,也與民法的基本原則相違背,考量案件就不僅需要借助于民法上的具體規(guī)范,而且需要借助于民法上的基本原則。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of the market economy, China is facing the challenge of globalization at present. However, some of our legal systems are not entirely due to the direction of the times. In particular, some systems in the contract law, which can play an important role in the market economy, are clearly stipulated in the contract law, in violation of the mandatory provisions. The contract is invalid. Whether it is in theory or in judicial practice, we can find that this regulation does not allow it to guide people to pursue legitimate interests, but to restrict and reduce the freedom of the rational and free people to pursue their own interests by self will, even to the rational people. The greatest obstacle in the process of justifiable interests is the most different from the legislative purpose. The cause of this situation is multifaceted. It is not only a problem in the system, but also one of the main factors in the legal formulation. The main reason is the lack of autonomy in our country. Or the tradition of freedom of contract, and the modern spirit of private law has not been fully established in social operation and law making. On the basis of this reality, this article combs and studies the changes in the effect of violating the force of compulsory contract in our country's legislation and practice.
In the first chapter, we deeply study the general theory and its theoretical roots that violate the validity of the compulsory contract, and point out how to define the mandatory provisions in the comprehensive analysis of the general principles of the law, the essential characteristics of the mandatory provisions, the legislative technology and our laws and the current administrative regulations. It is pointed out that, if the mandatory provisions prohibit people to engage in a certain act, the contract for setting the obligation should be deemed invalid, and the mandatory provisions in the law and regulations should be established in principle of a contract that violates such mandatory provisions if it is set for a certain administrative procedure for the conduct of a transaction, but it should not be excluded. It is possible for an administrative organ to impose administrative penalties on a party who violates the prescribed law; if the purpose of a mandatory provision in the law and regulations is to protect the interests of the public, a contract that violates such mandatory provisions should be invalid. We should make clear the provisions of the contract when we use mandatory regulations to determine the validity of the contract. To standardize the purpose and legislative purpose, to judge the validity of the contract in violation of the mandatory provisions in combination with the public order and good custom, and to internalize the public order and good customs in the normative and legislative purposes of the mandatory provisions, and to determine the validity of the contract.
In the second chapter, through comparative study on the system of violation of compulsory contract effectiveness in countries of France, Germany, Japan and other continental law countries, it is pointed out that in the civil law theories and doctrines of the countries of the continental law system, there are no provisions or statements of "breach of law compulsory contract". According to the differences in the nature of the legal acts against which they are directed, and the validity of the violation is stipulated separately. Although there are differences in the legislative technology of civil law in various countries, the standards of breach of law and public order and good customs are used as the criteria for determining the void of the contract. The contract of "and" the public order and good custom is invalid; or the contract that violates the law "or" the public order and good custom is invalid. Of course, it can not be ignored, whether it is in violation of the law or the public order, and the courts of various countries and regions will change their acts with the changes of the times when they operate the judicial act. But they have a basic common point, but they have a basic common point, that is, at least in practice, all countries and regions basically think that the judge's confirmation of the validity of the contract should be determined by the legislative purpose of the law, not all ineffective as a result of the violation of the law. This provides a reference for our country to violate the law on the validity of the compulsory contract.
In the third chapter, we examine the evolution of the legislation of civil law in China from the general principles of the civil law to the law of the contract, and find out the reform of the system of contravention of the force of compulsory contract from the general rules of the civil law to the law of the contract, and points out that, compared with the general rules of the civil law, the contract law has given the civil owner the rule in violation of the validity of the mandatory provisions of the contract. The body is more fully free, but it must be acknowledged that a number of contracts concluded by the autonomy of autonomy will remain ineffective in practice in violation of the mandatory provisions of the state. In practice, the understanding of the legislative omission of the breach of the mandatory provisions of the contract and the recognition of the validity of the compelling contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of the contract. On the one hand, they all embody the simple and rough sanctions, which often make the free will of the civil subject be damaged by the administrative power. Thus, in view of the evolution of judicial interpretations that violates the force of the compulsory contract, we put forward that the reason that the law of the contract which has been violating compulsory regulations for a long time is null and void can be summed up into three parties. Face: the lack of modern private law spirit and private law tradition: denying the interests and functions of individual in the market economy; the literal expression of the legal provisions is unknown. On this basis, we claim that the relative separation of public law from private law is the theory of judging the validity of the contract under the current market economy. The concept of national power standard, which is based on the supremacy of state power and the determination of the state's will, should be withdrawn from the historical stage and should be replaced by the concept of social standard, establishing the core concept of the autonomy of the meaning and the freedom of contract as the modern private law system, and the source and ultimate goal of the development of modern private law with the interests of the social groups. In the theory of the validity of the contract, it should be believed that not any violation of the law, the mandatory provisions of the administrative regulations are of course ineffective. We should adopt the complicated thinking mode of the modern market economy and recognize its validity conditionally. The basic criterion of its discrimination is whether the performance of the contract is in substance violation of public order and good customs or not. The public interest of the society is the theoretical basis. That is to say, even if the contract is deemed to be invalid, the main reason is not that it violates the mandatory provisions of the law, but the key is that its behavior constitutes a violation of public interests or public order and good customs.
In the fourth chapter, we discuss the determination of the effectiveness of the breach of the mandatory provisions of the contract, adhere to the view that the public and private two yuan is relatively separate but merge with each other, and points out that the separation of the two only has the existence of the mandatory norms and the arbitrariness norms, and the combination of the two has the possibility of violating the mandatory provisions of the private law. < the judicial interpretation of the contract law. Interpretation (two) >14 stipulates that the mandatory provisions of the 52 articles and fifth provisions of the contract law refer to the effective compulsory provisions; the guiding opinion of the Supreme Court of the 09 year on the cases of civil and commercial contract disputes under the current situation indicates that, "the people's court should pay attention to the difference of the force of force in accordance with the provisions of the interpretation of the contract law (two) 14." In violation of the force of force, the people's court shall determine that the contract is invalid and that the people's court shall determine its effectiveness according to the specific circumstances. "The guiding opinions above shall be divided into effective norms and regulatory norms, but in judicial practice, the effectiveness of the court shall be effective. The two points of normative and managerial norms are not as accurate as that of the law itself. Judicial arguments about the state of the validity of the contract can be attributed to whether the mandatory provisions of the contract are effective or managerial. The relative separation of public and private law and the treatment of internal cohesion can be to a certain extent. To clarify the differences between the two norms, but the type of enumeration can not exhaustion all the peremptory norm types. There are still some mandatory norms that can not be included in the list of mandatory norm types; even some mandatory norms have been classified as strong norms of a certain category, but they belong to the effective norms. It is still possible to dispute the problem of management norms. Therefore, in addition to the standard analysis method, there is a complicated problem of value measurement in addition to the normative analysis method. In value measurement, the author will explore the method of interpretation of the purpose of legislative purport, which is inherent in balance, suitability and necessity. The requirements of the principle of proportion, and the value of efficiency, efficiency and other value of the content of the economic analysis method in violation of the validity of the mandatory provisions of the contract to be applied. Even so, the above three methods are still unable to exhaustion the determination of the effectiveness of the mandatory provisions of the contract, thus we regard the public order and good customs as the standard of the bottom of the pocket. It is necessary to add the public order and good custom as the value of the validity of the contract, and integrate the changing general order, general interests and basic moral identity in the life world, thus maintaining the open attitude of the civil law and realizing the seamless connection between civil law and social life, and at the same time, the general rules of the civil law, the seventh articles and the contract law seventh. If the civil action violates the public order and good customs, it is not only contrary to the specific content of public order and good customs, but also violates the basic principles of civil law. It is not only necessary to use the specific norms in civil law but also the basic principles of civil law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 董靈;公序良俗原則與法制現(xiàn)代化[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1994年05期

2 徐滌宇;民法典的形式理性和中國(guó)市民法理念的培植——以歷史的描述為線索[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2002年03期

3 易軍;民法上公序良俗條款的政治哲學(xué)思考——以私人自治的維護(hù)為中心[J];法商研究;2005年06期

4 孫鵬;;論違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定行為之效力——兼析《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第52條第5項(xiàng)的理解與適用[J];法商研究;2006年05期

5 馬俊駒，楊琴;論社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)與民法的完善──紀(jì)念《民法通則》頒行十周年[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1996年04期

6 郝鐵川;權(quán)利沖突:一個(gè)不成為問題的問題[J];法學(xué);2004年09期

7 許中緣;;禁止性規(guī)范對(duì)民事法律行為效力的影響[J];法學(xué);2010年05期

8 孫良國(guó);;公務(wù)員訂立營(yíng)利性投資經(jīng)營(yíng)協(xié)議的效力及其法律后果——從張繼峰入股煤礦案談起[J];法學(xué);2010年10期

9 徐滌宇,潘泊;私法自治的變遷與民法中“人”的深化[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

10 徐滌宇;市民社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)法的本質(zhì)──兼論中國(guó)市民社會(huì)的形成和市民法的基礎(chǔ)法地位[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);1997年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 記者 臺(tái)建林;[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 許翠霞;違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的合同效力研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2040668