本文選題：強制性規(guī)定 + 合同效力　； 參考：《西南財經(jīng)大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：合同的效力問題,是法律對當(dāng)事人各方合意行為的評價,是國家意志的體現(xiàn)。《合同法》第五十二條對合同無效的情形進行了列舉性說明,《合同法司法解釋(二)》將強制性規(guī)定進一步限定為效力性強制規(guī)定。我國立法和司法解釋對合同無效所依據(jù)法律范圍的不斷縮限,折射出司法實踐和理論學(xué)界對交易安全的日益重視。但對于什么是效力性強制規(guī)定,《合同法》及司法解釋均沒有給出明確界定,導(dǎo)致審判實踐中類似的案件判決結(jié)果大相徑庭,執(zhí)法尺度難以統(tǒng)一,這也給司法實踐帶來了新的問題和困擾。因此,有必要對效力性強制規(guī)定做進一步的法律思考。厘清強制性規(guī)定與合同效力的相關(guān)法律問題,明確效力性強制規(guī)定與管理性強制規(guī)定的區(qū)分路徑,努力尋求公共利益與私人利益之間的平衡點,具有重要的理論和實踐意義。 本文除導(dǎo)論和結(jié)語外,共分為四部分： 第一部分對強制性規(guī)定的內(nèi)涵和外延進行分析,為下文的深入研究奠定了理論根基。筆者從強制的對象、強制的內(nèi)容和違反的后果三方面詳細闡述了強制性規(guī)定的內(nèi)涵,然后從怎么區(qū)分有助于認識強制性規(guī)定對合同效力的影響的視角出發(fā),探討了公法上的強制性規(guī)定與私法上的強制性規(guī)定、效力性強制規(guī)定和管理性強制規(guī)定以及強制性規(guī)定的位階問題。 第二部分在對各國和我國臺灣地區(qū)立法和學(xué)說理論進行比較分析的基礎(chǔ)上,明確了要對違反強制性規(guī)定的合同效力區(qū)分對待的原則和綜合權(quán)衡規(guī)范目的與合同自由最終確定合同效力的原則。 第三部分通過對國內(nèi)主流觀點的闡述與反思,并結(jié)合我國的立法歷程和司法實務(wù)中的具體案例,說明隨著司法實踐和理論學(xué)界對交易安全的日益重視,我國立法指導(dǎo)思想已發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)變,維護合同效力的傾向得以強化,因違法而導(dǎo)致合同無效的范圍逐漸縮小,但合同無效認定的標準因為法律規(guī)定的空白導(dǎo)致司法實踐的混亂。 第四部分結(jié)合多年司法實踐,對效力性強制規(guī)定與管理性強制規(guī)定的區(qū)分引入了比例原則,并通過“兩分三看法”對比例原則加以運用,從而為合同效力的認定確定了便于操作的具體標準。為進一步增進對適用比例原則的直觀認識,最后還結(jié)合具體個案對“兩分三看法”進行了示范分析。
[Abstract]:The validity of the contract is the evaluation of the parties' consensual acts by law, Article 52 of the contract Law enumerates the circumstances of invalidity of the contract, and the judicial interpretation of the contract law (2) > further limits the mandatory provisions to the mandatory provisions. The legislation and judicial interpretation of our country limit the scope of the contract invalidation continuously, which reflects the increasing attention of the judicial practice and the academic circle of theory to the transaction security. However, the contract Law and the judicial interpretation have not clearly defined what is the mandatory provisions of validity, which leads to the different results of similar cases in trial practice and the difficulty to unify the standards of law enforcement. This also brings new problems and puzzles to judicial practice. Therefore, it is necessary to make further legal thinking on the mandatory provisions of validity. It is of great theoretical and practical significance to clarify the legal issues related to the mandatory provisions and the validity of the contract, to clarify the distinguishing path between the mandatory provisions of validity and the mandatory provisions of management, and to strive to find a balance between the public and private interests. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into four parts: The first part analyzes the connotation and extension of mandatory provisions, which lays a theoretical foundation for further research. The author elaborates the connotation of mandatory provisions from three aspects: the object of coercion, the content of compulsion and the consequences of breach, and then sets out from the perspective of how to distinguish the impact of mandatory provisions on the effectiveness of contracts. This paper discusses the compulsory provisions in public law and private law, the compulsory provisions of validity and management, and the rank of mandatory provisions. The second part is based on the comparative analysis of the legislation and theory of various countries and Taiwan. The principle of distinguishing the contract effectiveness against the mandatory provisions and the principle of synthetically weighing the purpose of the norm and the freedom of contract to determine the validity of the contract are made clear. The third part through the domestic mainstream viewpoint elaboration and the reflection, and unifies our country's legislation process and the judicial practice concrete case, explains along with the judicial practice and the theory academic circles to the transaction security day by day the attention. The guiding ideology of legislation in our country has been changed, the tendency to maintain the validity of contract has been strengthened, and the scope of invalidation of contract has been gradually narrowed because of the violation of the law, but the criterion of invalidation of contract is caused by the confusion of judicial practice because of the blank of the law. The fourth part combines the judicial practice for many years, introduces the proportionality principle to the distinction between the effective compulsory stipulation and the management compulsory stipulation, and applies the proportional principle through the "two parts and three views". In order to determine the effectiveness of the contract to determine the specific standards for ease of operation. In order to further enhance the intuitionistic understanding of the principle of application of proportionality, a demonstration analysis of "two points and three views" is carried out in the light of specific cases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 吳發(fā)水;;效力性強制規(guī)定和管理性強制規(guī)定辨析[J];長沙大學(xué)學(xué)報;2009年06期

2 姜昕;;比例原則釋義學(xué)結(jié)構(gòu)構(gòu)建及反思[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2008年05期

3 黃忠;;違法合同的效力判定路徑之辨識[J];法學(xué)家;2010年05期

4 王軼;;強行性規(guī)范及其法律適用[J];南都學(xué)壇;2010年01期

5 錢超;肖東梅;;效力性強制性規(guī)定認定標準探析[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年04期

6 錢鋒;唐明;;房屋未領(lǐng)取產(chǎn)權(quán)證不影響協(xié)議轉(zhuǎn)讓[J];人民司法;2009年08期

7 陳旭;;以強制性規(guī)定類型識別為導(dǎo)向的合同效力認定[J];人民司法;2010年14期

8 趙萬一,吳曉鋒;契約自由與公序良俗[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2003年03期

9 王軼;;合同效力認定的若干問題[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年05期

，

本文編號：1864373