【摘要】： 2005年我國(guó)公司法做了較大幅度的修改,其立法目標(biāo)和價(jià)值取向重在鼓勵(lì)投資、繁榮經(jīng)濟(jì)。在具體規(guī)定上,資本制度由嚴(yán)格的法定資本制改為可分期繳納的法定資本制,與三部外商投資企業(yè)法趨于一致;增加了關(guān)于一人有限責(zé)任公司的規(guī)定,改變了長(zhǎng)期存在的國(guó)內(nèi)主體和外國(guó)投資者關(guān)于設(shè)立一人有限責(zé)任公司的主體地位不平等的狀況。國(guó)務(wù)院于2008年1月15日廢除了《外商投資企業(yè)清算辦法》,商務(wù)部在《商務(wù)部辦公廳關(guān)于依法做好外商投資企業(yè)解散和清算工作的指導(dǎo)意見(jiàn)》(商法字[2008]31號(hào))中規(guī)定外商投資企業(yè)的清算辦法除外商投資法律、行政法規(guī)的特別規(guī)定外適用公司法;《關(guān)于外商投資的公司審批登記管理法律適用若干問(wèn)題的執(zhí)行意見(jiàn)》(國(guó)家工商總局工商外企字[2006]第81號(hào))對(duì)外商投資的公司登記、出資期限、出資方式及組織機(jī)構(gòu)做出更加貼近公司法的規(guī)定,進(jìn)一步加強(qiáng)了外商投資企業(yè)法與公司法融合的趨勢(shì)。 然而,公司法與外商投資企業(yè)法是不同時(shí)代的產(chǎn)物。外商投資企業(yè)法作為特別企業(yè)立法,不僅先于民法通則和公司法產(chǎn)生,而且涉及到外資規(guī)范問(wèn)題,必然與公司法有著不同的規(guī)定進(jìn)而產(chǎn)生矛盾與沖突。就外商投資企業(yè)法與公司法的規(guī)范沖突與解決,修訂后的公司法第218條做出了原則性規(guī)定。然而無(wú)論是從法學(xué)理論層面還是從實(shí)踐層而,該原則性規(guī)定沒(méi)有能夠很好的解決公司法與外商投資法的銜接適用問(wèn)題,理論上存在著“新法優(yōu)于舊法適用”,“特別法優(yōu)于一般法適用”的爭(zhēng)論,實(shí)踐中外商投資企業(yè)多依據(jù)部委規(guī)章,地方性法規(guī)及政府規(guī)章進(jìn)行適用。由于外商投資企業(yè)法律體系的龐大,加之各地執(zhí)法過(guò)程中理解上的不同,在一定程度上加劇了法律適用的混亂。 本文擬針對(duì)上述問(wèn)題,從公司法第218條的規(guī)定出發(fā),采用比較的方法與解釋的方法,對(duì)公司法與外商投資企業(yè)法的主要差異點(diǎn)進(jìn)行分類與比較,并結(jié)合實(shí)踐,在現(xiàn)有法律框架內(nèi)與立法層面上對(duì)外商投資企業(yè)法與公司法的主要規(guī)范沖突提出解決方案。
[Abstract]:In 2005, the company law of our country was greatly revised, and its legislative goal and value orientation focused on encouraging investment and prospering the economy. In terms of specific provisions, the capital system has changed from strict legal capital system to payable legal capital system, which tends to be consistent with the three laws of enterprises with foreign investment; the provisions on one-person limited liability companies have been added, and the unequal status of the long-standing domestic subjects and foreign investors on the establishment of one-person limited liability companies has been changed. On January 15, 2008, the State Council abolished the measures for the liquidation of Enterprises with Foreign Investment. In the guiding opinions of the General Office of the Ministry of Commerce on the dissolution and liquidation of Enterprises with Foreign Investment in accordance with the Law (Commercial Law [2008] 31), the Ministry of Commerce stipulated that the liquidation measures for enterprises with foreign investment shall apply to the Company Law except for the special provisions of the laws and administrative regulations on foreign investment; Opinions on the Application of the Law on the examination and approval and Registration of companies with Foreign Investment (State Administration for Industry and Commerce [2006] No. 81) make provisions on the registration, duration, mode and organization of foreign-invested companies closer to the company law, thus further strengthening the trend of the integration of the law of foreign-invested enterprises and the company law. However, company law and foreign-invested enterprise law are the products of different times. As a special enterprise legislation, the law of foreign-funded enterprises not only comes into being before the general principles of civil law and company law, but also involves the norms of foreign capital, which must have different provisions from the company law and then produce contradictions and conflicts. On the conflict and solution between the law of foreign-invested enterprises and the company law, the revised article 218 of the company law makes the principle stipulation. However, whether from the theoretical level of law or from the practical level, the principle provision has not been able to solve the problem of convergence and application between company law and foreign investment law. In theory, there is a debate that "the new law is superior to the old law" and "the special law is superior to the general law". In practice, foreign-invested enterprises are mostly applied according to the rules of ministries and commissions, local laws and government rules. Because of the huge legal system of foreign-invested enterprises and the different understanding in the process of law enforcement, the confusion of law application is aggravated to a certain extent. In view of the above problems, starting from the provisions of Article 218 of the Company Law, this paper classifies and compares the main differences between the Company Law and the Law of Foreign-invested Enterprises by means of comparative method and interpretation, and puts forward some solutions to the conflict between the Law of Enterprises with Foreign Investment and the main norms of the Company Law within the existing legal framework and at the legislative level.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.91

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 鄧志堅(jiān);;論我國(guó)國(guó)際私法新法與舊法的關(guān)系——《涉外民事關(guān)系法律適用法》第51條引發(fā)的思考[J];研究生法學(xué);2012年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王月波;公司法視野下的外商投資企業(yè)法律適用問(wèn)題研究[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2506114