【摘要】：跨境破產(chǎn)是破產(chǎn)實(shí)務(wù)中的一大難題,也是國(guó)際學(xué)術(shù)界廣為探討的話題。國(guó)際上暫無統(tǒng)一適用的跨境破產(chǎn)法律框架,導(dǎo)致實(shí)踐中操作問題層出不窮,其中管轄權(quán)沖突問題就是跨境破產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的基本問題。我國(guó)跨境破產(chǎn)立法工作起步晚,后期發(fā)展也較為遲緩,其中大部分問題的法律規(guī)定還處于空白階段,而且現(xiàn)有法規(guī)主要集中于跨境破產(chǎn)法律適用及域外效力等方面,理論研究成果也少有針對(duì)管轄權(quán)方面的系統(tǒng)研究。本文擬對(duì)跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突問題進(jìn)行深入研究,通過對(duì)比國(guó)際上的現(xiàn)有立法來探討跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突的協(xié)調(diào)方式,并結(jié)合我國(guó)立法現(xiàn)狀給出建議。本文首先對(duì)跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突的基本問題進(jìn)行概述,通過介紹跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)的定義及特點(diǎn)來說明其在跨境破產(chǎn)中的重要性及特殊性,通過分析跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)的法律淵源及確立標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來說明其復(fù)雜性,同時(shí)引出本文的研究主題——跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突。筆者認(rèn)為,跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突之成因?yàn)楦鲊?guó)家或地區(qū)采取不同的管轄權(quán)確立標(biāo)準(zhǔn),同時(shí)又競(jìng)相爭(zhēng)奪或過分避讓。但不論管轄權(quán)積極沖突或消極沖突現(xiàn)在有多激烈,隨著國(guó)際商貿(mào)的發(fā)展及經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化浪潮的迅速推進(jìn),各國(guó)均在不斷調(diào)整對(duì)于涉外民商事案件的態(tài)度,逐漸從管轄權(quán)擴(kuò)張向管轄權(quán)適當(dāng)自我限制發(fā)展。其次,本文結(jié)合具體案例,重點(diǎn)分析了跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突的解決。筆者認(rèn)為,先受理法院管轄、禁訴令、不方便法院、協(xié)議管轄等沖突解決方式在跨境破產(chǎn)實(shí)務(wù)操作中利弊共存,須視情況以適用。鑒于國(guó)外關(guān)于管轄權(quán)沖突已有成熟且先進(jìn)的解決經(jīng)驗(yàn),筆者著重研究了美國(guó)、歐盟及聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)法會(huì)相關(guān)立法中的管轄權(quán)沖突協(xié)調(diào)模式,以此為后述研究國(guó)內(nèi)立法的完善做鋪墊。再次,本文介紹了我國(guó)在跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突領(lǐng)域幾乎空白的立法現(xiàn)狀,并通過我國(guó)曾參與的破產(chǎn)案例來表明我國(guó)法律上的缺漏及滯后的立法發(fā)展在實(shí)踐中造成的不利影響,最終在前文的鋪墊下,結(jié)合實(shí)踐操作,通過深入分析給出相關(guān)立法的完善建議。筆者認(rèn)為我國(guó)當(dāng)前需要明確跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)的確立標(biāo)準(zhǔn),采取合理的管轄權(quán)協(xié)調(diào)模式,同時(shí)積極參與國(guó)際立法、加強(qiáng)國(guó)家或地區(qū)之間的協(xié)調(diào)溝通,基于當(dāng)前國(guó)情來完善跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)領(lǐng)域的法規(guī),彌補(bǔ)該領(lǐng)域的立法空白。在文章的最后,筆者再次強(qiáng)調(diào)管轄權(quán)問題是跨境破產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域的重點(diǎn),是程序推進(jìn)的基本保障。各國(guó)應(yīng)當(dāng)在完善自身法律規(guī)范的同時(shí)加強(qiáng)協(xié)調(diào)合作,我國(guó)也應(yīng)重視跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突問題,在吸取國(guó)外優(yōu)秀立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)的同時(shí),結(jié)合自身基本國(guó)情以健全當(dāng)前法律制度,以便跟上國(guó)際發(fā)展的潮流,更深度的參與國(guó)際貿(mào)易。
[Abstract]:Cross-border bankruptcy is a difficult problem in bankruptcy practice, and it is also a widely discussed topic in international academic circles. There is no uniform legal framework for cross-border bankruptcy in the world, which leads to the emergence of operational problems in practice, among which the conflict of jurisdiction is the basic problem in the field of cross-border bankruptcy. The legislation on cross-border bankruptcy in our country started late and developed slowly in the later period. Most of the legal provisions are still in the blank stage, and the existing laws and regulations mainly focus on the application of cross-border bankruptcy law and its extraterritorial effect. There are few systematic researches on jurisdiction. In this paper, the conflict of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction is studied in depth, the coordination mode of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction conflict is discussed by comparing the existing international legislation, and some suggestions are given according to the current situation of China's legislation. This paper first summarizes the basic problems of the conflict of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction, and explains the importance and particularity of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction by introducing the definition and characteristics of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction. This paper explains the complexity of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction by analyzing its legal origin and establishing standard. At the same time, it leads to the research topic of this paper, the conflict of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction. The author thinks that the conflict of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction is due to different countries or regions adopting different standards of jurisdiction, at the same time competing for or avoiding too much. However, no matter how fierce the positive or negative conflicts of jurisdiction are now, with the development of international commerce and trade and the rapid development of economic globalization, all countries are constantly adjusting their attitudes towards foreign-related civil and commercial cases. Gradually from the expansion of jurisdiction to appropriate self-limitation of jurisdiction. Secondly, combined with specific cases, this paper focuses on the resolution of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction conflict. The author thinks that the advantages and disadvantages of accepting the court jurisdiction, the injunction, the inconvenient court and the agreement jurisdiction in the cross-border bankruptcy practice must be applied according to the situation. In view of the mature and advanced experience in resolving jurisdiction conflicts abroad, the author focuses on the coordination mode of jurisdiction conflicts in the relevant legislation of the United States, the European Union and the United International Trade Law Association, so as to pave the way for the later research on the perfection of domestic legislation. Thirdly, this paper introduces the current situation of legislation in the field of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction conflict in China, and through the bankruptcy cases we have participated in to show the legal gaps and lagging legislative development in practice caused by the adverse impact. Finally, under the foreshadowing of the previous article, combined with practical operation, through in-depth analysis of the relevant legislative recommendations. The author thinks that our country needs to make clear the establishment standard of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction, adopt reasonable jurisdiction coordination mode, actively participate in international legislation, and strengthen the coordination and communication between countries or regions at the same time. Based on the current situation to improve the field of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction laws and regulations, to fill the legislative gaps in this area. At the end of the paper, the author emphasizes again that jurisdiction is the key point in the field of cross-border bankruptcy and the basic guarantee of proceeding. All countries should strengthen coordination and cooperation while perfecting their own legal norms. China should also attach importance to the conflict of cross-border bankruptcy jurisdiction, while absorbing foreign excellent legislative experience and combining its basic national conditions in order to perfect the current legal system. In order to keep up with the trend of international development, more in-depth participation in international trade.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.92

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張玲;;跨境破產(chǎn)法統(tǒng)一化方式的多元化[J];政法論壇;2007年04期

2 黃少彬;張旭;溫文治;;構(gòu)建內(nèi)地與香港區(qū)際跨境破產(chǎn)協(xié)作機(jī)制的可行性分析[J];喀什師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年01期

3 朱亞;;跨境破產(chǎn)國(guó)際協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)制探析[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2008年11期

4 胡健;;跨境破產(chǎn):內(nèi)地與香港不得不面對(duì)的難題[J];政府法制;2009年34期

5 胡健;;跨境破產(chǎn):內(nèi)地與香港不得不面對(duì)的難題[J];公民導(dǎo)刊;2009年11期

6 張海征;梅岸君;;淺談我國(guó)跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)制度的完善[J];全國(guó)商情(理論研究);2012年04期

7 李濤;;我國(guó)跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突的完善建議[J];河南科技;2013年02期

8 羅嵐;;跨境破產(chǎn)在中國(guó)將有法可依[J];大經(jīng)貿(mào);2007年01期

9 孫輝;;芻議跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)的適用問題[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年12期

10 張玲;;跨境破產(chǎn)國(guó)際合作的模式[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前8條

1 任民;跨境破產(chǎn)在中國(guó)將有法可依[N];中國(guó)企業(yè)報(bào);2006年

2 羅嵐邋楊國(guó)強(qiáng);大量跨國(guó)投資催生新法 跨境破產(chǎn)在中國(guó)將有法可依[N];寧波日?qǐng)?bào);2007年

3 羅嵐 楊國(guó)強(qiáng);跨境破產(chǎn)在中國(guó)將有法可依[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào)海外版;2006年

4 《華東法律評(píng)論》編輯 香港普通法碩士 胡健;跨境破產(chǎn)：不得不面對(duì)的難題[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

5 胡健 全國(guó)人大常委會(huì)法制工作委員會(huì);破解跨境破產(chǎn)難題:以香港為例[N];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)報(bào);2010年

6 本報(bào)記者 梁士斌;內(nèi)地香港跨境破產(chǎn)問題日益凸顯[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

7 本報(bào)記者 李濤;跨境破產(chǎn)立法亟待完善[N];中華工商時(shí)報(bào);2010年

8 商報(bào)記者 李薇;中國(guó)企業(yè)如何擺脫跨境破產(chǎn)牽連[N];北京商報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 王曉瓊;跨境破產(chǎn)中的法律沖突問題研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2006年

2 楊悅;跨境破產(chǎn)部分制度性法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

3 張玲;跨境破產(chǎn)合作中的國(guó)際私法問題研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王寧;跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)問題探究[D];廈門大學(xué);2009年

2 肖煜吉;跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

3 李颯;跨境破產(chǎn)中破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)問題研究[D];中央民族大學(xué);2015年

4 黃婷婷;論跨境破產(chǎn)與海事扣船的沖突及解決[D];大連海事大學(xué);2016年

5 趙茜;跨境海事破產(chǎn)中的程序沖突問題研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2017年

6 洪靖;跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2017年

7 臧艷云;銀行業(yè)金融機(jī)構(gòu)跨境破產(chǎn)的監(jiān)管者角色定位[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

8 朱瑋麗;跨境破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)沖突及其協(xié)調(diào)問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

9 燕彬;論跨境破產(chǎn)判決的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

10 呂瑞;沖突法視野內(nèi)的跨境破產(chǎn)問題[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：2292660