涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-12-11 19:48
【摘要】：隨著網(wǎng)絡技術的發(fā)展和經(jīng)濟全球化的推進,涉外網(wǎng)絡消費日漸流行。根據(jù)參與主體的不同,涉外網(wǎng)絡消費可分為B2C模式和C2C模式兩種,即企業(yè)對個人模式和個人對個人模式。B2C模式的涉外網(wǎng)絡消費是最先發(fā)展起來的涉外電子商務類型,在給人們的生活帶來便利的同時,也不可避免的導致了各種糾紛的產(chǎn)生,合同糾紛便是其中最主要的一類。糾紛發(fā)生之后,若當事人向法院提起訴訟,法院只有確定了管轄權才能保證后續(xù)程序的開展。然而,由于網(wǎng)絡空間與現(xiàn)實空間的差異,現(xiàn)有的管轄權規(guī)范難以直接應用,所以我們有必要對涉外網(wǎng)絡消費糾紛的管轄權進行深入探討。本文立足于涉外B2C合同糾紛,運用案例分析法、比較分析法,全文包含五部分內(nèi)容。第一部分是涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權概述。本部分采用遞進式結構,首先對“B2C合同”和“涉外B2C合同”分別進行了解析,然后介紹涉外B2C合同糾紛的起因及特征,最后引出涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權的內(nèi)涵及意義。第二部分是對涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權歸屬爭議的分析。首先闡述涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權歸屬爭議的表現(xiàn),主要表現(xiàn)為管轄權的積極沖突,也有消極沖突的情形。然后分析了涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權歸屬爭議的直接原因、主要原因以及根本原因。本文第三部分是對涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權相關學說的介紹。首先根據(jù)學說的內(nèi)容將其劃分成三類來闡述,分別是“強調(diào)網(wǎng)絡空間獨立性的理論”、“強調(diào)網(wǎng)絡空間技術性的理論”和“主張沿用傳統(tǒng)管轄依據(jù)的理論”,然后從優(yōu)勢和不足兩方面對各種學說進行了評析。本文第四部分從國家和國際組織兩個層面展開,選取了兩大法系中的典型國家瑞士、美國以及歐盟和海牙國際私法會議兩大國際組織,介紹了它們在立法中規(guī)定的管轄權規(guī)則,包括“消費者原地管轄規(guī)則”、“協(xié)議管轄規(guī)則”以及“最低聯(lián)系標準”。在介紹美國的管轄權規(guī)則時,結合了 “Aero Toy Store,LLC v. Grieve”、“Butler v.Beer Across America” 和 “Christopher Spechat etc. v.Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc ” 三個案例進行論述。接著,本文對這些典型國家和國際組織的管轄權規(guī)則進行了分析,指出了它們在立法思路上的相同點以及它們在價值取向上的不同點。本文第五部分將研究的視角轉(zhuǎn)向我國,首先介紹了我國涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權的立法現(xiàn)狀,然后總結了我國當前立法的不足之處,最后,本文嘗試提出了一些建議,以期對涉外B2C合同糾紛管轄權立法的完善有所裨益。
[Abstract]:With the development of network technology and the advancement of economic globalization, foreign internet consumption is becoming more and more popular. According to the different participants, the foreign network consumption can be divided into two types: B2C mode and C2C mode, that is, the business-to-individual mode and the individual-to-individual mode. The foreign network consumption of the B2C model is the first type of foreign-related electronic commerce developed. While bringing convenience to people's life, it inevitably leads to all kinds of disputes, of which contract disputes are the most important. After the dispute occurs, if the parties bring a lawsuit to the court, the court can guarantee the subsequent procedure only if the jurisdiction is determined. However, due to the difference between cyberspace and real space, the existing jurisdiction norms are difficult to be directly applied, so it is necessary for us to explore the jurisdiction of foreign network consumption disputes. Based on the foreign B 2 C contract dispute, this paper uses case analysis method and comparative analysis method, which contains five parts. The first part is an overview of the jurisdiction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. This part adopts the progressive structure, analyzes "B2C contract" and "Foreign-related B2C contract" respectively, then introduces the causes and characteristics of the foreign B2C contract dispute, finally leads to the connotation and significance of the foreign B2C contract dispute jurisdiction. The second part is the analysis of jurisdiction over foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. Firstly, this paper expounds the behavior of jurisdiction ownership dispute in foreign B2C contract disputes, which mainly shows the positive conflict of jurisdiction and the situation of negative conflict. Then it analyzes the direct reason, main cause and root cause of jurisdiction dispute about foreign B 2 C contract dispute. The third part of this paper is the introduction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes related to jurisdiction theory. Firstly, it is divided into three categories according to the content of the theory, namely "the theory of emphasizing the independence of cyberspace", "the theory of emphasizing the technicality of cyberspace" and "the theory that advocates to follow the traditional jurisdictional basis". Then from the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of theories are evaluated. In the fourth part of this paper, from the two aspects of national and international organizations, the author selects Switzerland, the United States, the European Union and the Hague Conference on Private International Law to introduce the jurisdiction rules stipulated in their legislation, which are the typical countries in the two legal systems, the United States and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. These include the Consumer in place Rule, the Agreement Rule and the minimum contact Standard. In introducing the United States jurisdiction rules, a combination of "Aero Toy Store,LLC v. Grieve", "Butler v.Beer Across America" and "Christopher Spechat etc." V.Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc is discussed in three cases. Then, this paper analyzes the jurisdiction rules of these typical countries and international organizations, and points out their similarities in legislative thinking and their differences in value orientation. In the fifth part of this paper, we turn the research angle to our country. Firstly, we introduce the current legislation of the jurisdiction of foreign B2C contract disputes, then summarize the shortcomings of our current legislation. Finally, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions. With a view to foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes jurisdiction legislation to improve some benefits.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6
[Abstract]:With the development of network technology and the advancement of economic globalization, foreign internet consumption is becoming more and more popular. According to the different participants, the foreign network consumption can be divided into two types: B2C mode and C2C mode, that is, the business-to-individual mode and the individual-to-individual mode. The foreign network consumption of the B2C model is the first type of foreign-related electronic commerce developed. While bringing convenience to people's life, it inevitably leads to all kinds of disputes, of which contract disputes are the most important. After the dispute occurs, if the parties bring a lawsuit to the court, the court can guarantee the subsequent procedure only if the jurisdiction is determined. However, due to the difference between cyberspace and real space, the existing jurisdiction norms are difficult to be directly applied, so it is necessary for us to explore the jurisdiction of foreign network consumption disputes. Based on the foreign B 2 C contract dispute, this paper uses case analysis method and comparative analysis method, which contains five parts. The first part is an overview of the jurisdiction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. This part adopts the progressive structure, analyzes "B2C contract" and "Foreign-related B2C contract" respectively, then introduces the causes and characteristics of the foreign B2C contract dispute, finally leads to the connotation and significance of the foreign B2C contract dispute jurisdiction. The second part is the analysis of jurisdiction over foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. Firstly, this paper expounds the behavior of jurisdiction ownership dispute in foreign B2C contract disputes, which mainly shows the positive conflict of jurisdiction and the situation of negative conflict. Then it analyzes the direct reason, main cause and root cause of jurisdiction dispute about foreign B 2 C contract dispute. The third part of this paper is the introduction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes related to jurisdiction theory. Firstly, it is divided into three categories according to the content of the theory, namely "the theory of emphasizing the independence of cyberspace", "the theory of emphasizing the technicality of cyberspace" and "the theory that advocates to follow the traditional jurisdictional basis". Then from the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of theories are evaluated. In the fourth part of this paper, from the two aspects of national and international organizations, the author selects Switzerland, the United States, the European Union and the Hague Conference on Private International Law to introduce the jurisdiction rules stipulated in their legislation, which are the typical countries in the two legal systems, the United States and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. These include the Consumer in place Rule, the Agreement Rule and the minimum contact Standard. In introducing the United States jurisdiction rules, a combination of "Aero Toy Store,LLC v. Grieve", "Butler v.Beer Across America" and "Christopher Spechat etc." V.Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc is discussed in three cases. Then, this paper analyzes the jurisdiction rules of these typical countries and international organizations, and points out their similarities in legislative thinking and their differences in value orientation. In the fifth part of this paper, we turn the research angle to our country. Firstly, we introduce the current legislation of the jurisdiction of foreign B2C contract disputes, then summarize the shortcomings of our current legislation. Finally, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions. With a view to foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes jurisdiction legislation to improve some benefits.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 劉學在;鄭濤;;網(wǎng)購糾紛訴訟中的消費者住所地管轄規(guī)則[J];理論探索;2015年05期
2 孫尚鴻;;中國涉外網(wǎng)絡侵權管轄權研究[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2015年02期
3 劉益燈;陳璐;;論網(wǎng)絡消費法律問題及其解決對策[J];湖南大學學報(社會科學版);2013年05期
4 張穎;;我國互聯(lián)網(wǎng)案件管轄權規(guī)則的完善[J];長江大學學報(社會科學版);2012年04期
5 劉益燈;;涉外網(wǎng)絡消費中的法律難點問題研究[J];政治與法律;2011年09期
6 石峰;蔡杰;;原告住所地與網(wǎng)絡侵權案件的法院管轄[J];上海大學學報(社會科學版);2011年02期
7 袁海龍;;我國電子商務糾紛管轄權現(xiàn)狀及其完善構想[J];綿陽師范學院學報;2011年01期
8 潘軍;胡成建;;論沖突法視角下互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法律糾紛的管轄權[J];雞西大學學報;2010年03期
9 夏曉紅;;互聯(lián)網(wǎng)環(huán)境下的國際民商事管轄權[J];北方法學;2008年02期
10 黃任眾;;論與網(wǎng)絡相關的爭議之管轄權[J];法學評論;2006年06期
相關會議論文 前1條
1 楊o，
本文編號：2373122
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2373122.html
