【摘要】：應(yīng)訴管轄規(guī)則屬于國際通行規(guī)則,但我國真正接納它已是2012年的事情,1991年《民事訴訟法》規(guī)定涉外程序的應(yīng)訴管轄其實(shí)是改革開放背景下法律需要與國際接軌的結(jié)果。基于有錯(cuò)必糾的傳統(tǒng)觀念、對(duì)處分原則的過度限制、起訴制度的限制等原因,我們長期未真正接受應(yīng)訴管轄規(guī)則。隨著當(dāng)事人自我負(fù)責(zé)觀念的強(qiáng)化、配合刪除管轄錯(cuò)誤再審事由的需求以及對(duì)有錯(cuò)必糾觀念的重新審視,2012年民事訴訟法修正時(shí),終于接納了應(yīng)訴管轄規(guī)則。應(yīng)訴管轄規(guī)則進(jìn)入民事訴訟法之后,設(shè)定法官告知義務(wù)的問題雖被理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界提出,但由于其并非應(yīng)訴管轄規(guī)則的"標(biāo)配",再加上我國現(xiàn)實(shí)原因,致使未能寫入《民訴法解釋》�！睹裨V法解釋》第35條被視為移送管轄規(guī)則的組成部分,但其實(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)在應(yīng)訴管轄規(guī)則框架下理解,至于司法解釋制定者所追求的規(guī)范目標(biāo)可以考慮通過缺席判決與擬制自認(rèn)的邏輯在應(yīng)訴管轄規(guī)則內(nèi)解決。
[Abstract]:The rules of response jurisdiction belong to the international general rules, but it has been accepted by our country in 2012. In 1991, the Civil procedure Law stipulated that the jurisdiction of responding to foreign proceedings was actually the result of the need for the law to be in line with the international standards under the background of reform and opening up. Based on the traditional concept of correcting mistakes, excessive restrictions on the principle of punishment and the limitation of the prosecution system, we have not really accepted the rules of response jurisdiction for a long time. With the strengthening of the concept of self-responsibility of the parties, the need to remove the reasons for the retrial of jurisdictional errors and the re-examination of the concept of correcting mistakes, the Civil procedure Law of 2012, when amended, finally accepted the jurisdiction rule of responding to suit. After the rules of response jurisdiction have entered the civil procedure law, the problem of setting up the obligation of informing judges has been raised by the theoretical and practical circles, but it is not the "standard allocation" of the rules of response jurisdiction, plus the practical reasons of our country. Article 35 of the Civil procedure Law interpretation is considered to be an integral part of the transfer rule, but should in fact be understood within the framework of the response jurisdiction rule, As for the normative goal pursued by the judicial interpreter, consideration can be given to solving the problem in the rules of response jurisdiction through the logic of default judgment and fictitious admission.
【作者單位】： 吉林大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 ;紀(jì)念《民事訴訟法》頒行十周年學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)在京召開[J];中國律師;2001年05期

2 蔡彥敏;張s，

本文編號(hào)：2212735