【摘要】：在中國這一“一國四法域”的國家中，祖國大陸地區(qū)和臺灣地區(qū)各自構(gòu)成獨立的法域。由于分屬不同的法域，海峽兩岸有關(guān)民事管轄權(quán)的立法必然存在差異，就同一糾紛事實兩岸法院均享有管轄權(quán)的情況并不鮮見，若此時相同當(dāng)事人就同一糾紛事實分別向兩岸法院起訴，則可能形成兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟。隨著近年來兩岸民眾間的民事糾紛的增多，兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的數(shù)量迅速攀升。然而目前兩岸對待彼此間的平行訴訟的態(tài)度仍然是總體上放任其存在，沒有形成系統(tǒng)的規(guī)制措施，現(xiàn)有的零星的規(guī)制措施難以滿足現(xiàn)實規(guī)制的需要，造成了兩岸司法資源的極大浪費。因此，我們有必要在探討兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的基本理論的基礎(chǔ)上，借鑒國外的經(jīng)驗，考察海峽兩岸的規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀，總結(jié)出一套行之有效的規(guī)制措施，以期能對規(guī)制兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的立法和司法實踐有所助益。 本文共計四萬余字，主體結(jié)構(gòu)分為四個部分，分別就兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的界定，，成因與效應(yīng)，國外對平行訴訟的規(guī)制措施，兩岸規(guī)制彼此間的平行訴訟的現(xiàn)狀與完善建議等問題進行探討。主要內(nèi)容如下： 第一部分：兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的界定。首先，辨析其概念。兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟是指相同當(dāng)事人就同一紛爭事實同時或先后向一個中國內(nèi)的大陸和臺灣地區(qū)法院起訴，并由兩岸法院同時或先后受理的法律現(xiàn)象。其次，分析其特征。當(dāng)事人相同，糾紛事實相同，訴訟進行的平行性以及規(guī)制的艱巨性是兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的四大特征。最后，劃分其類型。以當(dāng)事人的訴訟地位為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，可將其可分為重復(fù)訴訟和對抗訴訟兩種類型；而依據(jù)不同的訴訟階段，又可分為受理前、受理后審結(jié)前以及審結(jié)后的兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟這三大類型。 第二部分：兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的成因及效應(yīng)分析。兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的成因可先分為客觀原因和主觀原因兩個層面。其中，大陸當(dāng)事人赴臺行使訴權(quán)的受限、兩岸民事管轄權(quán)立法的差異以及一事不再理原則在規(guī)制兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟上的缺欠是三大客觀原因，而當(dāng)事人受訴訟利益的驅(qū)動是造成兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的主觀原因。而就兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的效應(yīng)分析而言，雖然其會對當(dāng)事人債權(quán)的全面保護、訴訟時效經(jīng)過的避免等方面產(chǎn)生積極影響，但其會帶來諸如當(dāng)事人的訴累、兩岸司法資源的浪費等諸多弊端。 第三部分：平行訴訟的規(guī)制模式及其評價——比較法上的考察。這部分著重介紹目前國外規(guī)制平行訴訟的三大模式。以美國為代表的英美法系國家采用的是以法官利益衡量為核心的自由裁量模式，由法官對各種利益關(guān)系的比較衡量，分別采取不方便法院原則、未決訴訟、禁訴令和國際禮讓等多種方式對平行訴訟問題加以解決。而以德國、瑞士為代表的大陸法系部分國家采用承認預(yù)期模式，即以預(yù)測在先的外國訴訟日后能作出為本國法院所承認的判決為前提來限制本國的訴訟。最后，既有英美法系國家，又有大陸法系國家加入的歐盟組織采用的是先受訴法院模式，即通過事先規(guī)定由最先受理的法院行使管轄權(quán)來限制平行訴訟。 第四部分：兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀及完善建議。本部分為文章重點。首先考察兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀。先分別從立法層面和司法層面客觀描述兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀，再對規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀進行評價。在分析規(guī)制現(xiàn)狀的基礎(chǔ)上，本文最后提出完善構(gòu)想，即對兩岸區(qū)際民事平行訴訟的規(guī)制必須先形成一個總體思路，在總體思路的指導(dǎo)下再構(gòu)建具體規(guī)制措施。而具體規(guī)制措施有：協(xié)議管轄制度、不方便法院原則以及先受訴法院與未決訴訟相結(jié)合的制度。
[Abstract]:In China, a country with "one country, four jurisdictions", the mainland of China and Taiwan constitute separate jurisdictions. Due to their respective jurisdictions, there are bound to be differences in legislation on civil jurisdiction between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. It is not uncommon for courts on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to enjoy jurisdiction over the same dispute, if the same parties at this time have jurisdiction over the same dispute. With the increase of civil disputes between the people of both sides of the Strait in recent years, the number of parallel civil litigation between the two sides of the Strait has increased rapidly. However, the attitude of the two sides towards parallel civil litigation between each other is still generally laissez-faire, no form. Systematic regulation measures, existing sporadic regulation measures are difficult to meet the needs of practical regulation, resulting in a great waste of judicial resources on both sides of the Strait. Therefore, it is necessary for us to study the basic theory of cross-strait civil parallel litigation, draw lessons from foreign experience, inspect the status of cross-strait regulation, and summarize a set of practices. Effective regulation measures are expected to be helpful to the legislation and judicial practice of regulating cross-strait civil parallel litigation.
This paper is composed of more than 40,000 words. The main structure is divided into four parts. It discusses the definition, causes and effects of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation, foreign regulations on parallel litigation, the status quo of cross-strait parallel litigation and suggestions for improvement.
The first part is the definition of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation. First of all, the concept of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation is analyzed. The four characteristics of the cross-strait civil parallel litigation are the same parties, the same facts of disputes, the parallel nature of litigation and the difficulty of regulation. Before the end of the hearing, the three types of civil parallel litigation across the Taiwan Strait were concluded before and after the conclusion.
The second part is the analysis of the causes and effects of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation.The causes of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation can be divided into objective and subjective reasons. The lack of parallel action is the three objective reasons, and the litigants are driven by the litigation interests, which is the subjective cause of the cross-strait civil parallel action. But it will bring many disadvantages, such as the litigation of the parties, the waste of judicial resources on both sides of the Straits.
The third part: the regulation mode of parallel litigation and its evaluation - Comparative Law investigation. This part focuses on the three major modes of regulating parallel litigation in foreign countries. The principle of inconvenience of court, pending litigation, injunction of prohibition and international comity are adopted to solve the problem of parallel litigation respectively. Finally, both common law countries and continental law countries have joined the European Union to adopt the model of court of first instance, that is, to restrict parallel litigation by prescribing in advance that the court of first instance should exercise jurisdiction.
This part is the focus of the article. Firstly, the paper investigates the current situation of the cross-strait civil parallel litigation. First, it objectively describes the current situation of the cross-strait civil parallel litigation from the legislative level and the judicial level, and then evaluates the current situation of the regulation. On the basis of the present situation of the regulation, this paper finally puts forward the idea of perfecting it, that is, the regulation of the cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation must first form a general idea, and then construct specific regulatory measures under the guidance of the overall idea. The system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 李祥俊;論國際民事訴訟程序中的不方便法院原則[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2001年04期

2 王建源;;海峽兩岸民商事管轄權(quán)沖突及其解決的實證研究[J];福建法學(xué);2009年03期

3 夏先鵬;林欣宇;;論兩岸民商事平行訴訟問題的法律規(guī)制[J];海峽法學(xué);2013年01期

4 宋健;王天紅;;關(guān)于解決涉臺民商事案件管轄權(quán)沖突的幾點思考[J];法律適用;2011年02期

5 張淑鈿;從Gubisch案看歐共體法院對國際訴訟競合的認定[J];河北法學(xué);2004年01期

6 王建源;;關(guān)于兩岸民商事平行訴訟問題及解決對策的調(diào)研報告[J];人民司法;2006年04期

7 王建源;論兩岸民事司法中的平行訴訟問題[J];臺灣研究集刊;2004年01期

8 任秋娟;;借鑒歐盟經(jīng)驗協(xié)調(diào)海峽兩岸民商事管轄權(quán)的沖突[J];學(xué)海;2007年04期

本文編號：2176546