本文選題：國(guó)際金融衍生品交易 + ISDA協(xié)議　； 參考：《上海交通大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：金融衍生品交易合同是以特定金融利益交付為標(biāo)的的雙務(wù)、諾成、有償合同。通常，金融衍生品被分為遠(yuǎn)期、期貨、期權(quán)、互換等四種基本類型，在場(chǎng)外交易的品種主要有遠(yuǎn)期、期權(quán)和互換，國(guó)際金融衍生品交易一般是指場(chǎng)外交易。國(guó)際金融衍生品交易不僅存在著市場(chǎng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、流動(dòng)性風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、信用風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，還存在著諸多因素導(dǎo)致的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，其中，一國(guó)沒(méi)有對(duì)金融衍生品交易作特別法律規(guī)定以及各國(guó)法律規(guī)定不一致是法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)產(chǎn)生的主要原因，場(chǎng)外交易比場(chǎng)內(nèi)交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)更大。 金融衍生品交易合同與賭博、保險(xiǎn)合同都具有射幸性，金融衍生品交易中的套期保值交易類似于保險(xiǎn)、而投機(jī)套利類似于賭博，因此金融衍生品交易有被重新定性的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。射幸合同和附期限、附條件合同的區(qū)別是，附期限和附條件的效果要么是使已成立的合同發(fā)生效力，要么是使已經(jīng)成立并生效的合同失去效力，而射幸合同已經(jīng)成立并生效，只是法律效果不確定。 場(chǎng)外交易是高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)交易，一國(guó)通常會(huì)通過(guò)立法對(duì)交易者的資格從主體類別、專業(yè)知識(shí)、市場(chǎng)經(jīng)驗(yàn)、資金實(shí)力等方面給予準(zhǔn)入限制。因此，在國(guó)際場(chǎng)外金融衍生品交易中，存在著交易對(duì)手主體資格瑕疵的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。交易員違反企業(yè)內(nèi)部授權(quán)也可能導(dǎo)致交易主體資格瑕疵。 國(guó)際場(chǎng)外金融衍生交易通常采用ISDA等標(biāo)準(zhǔn)主協(xié)議進(jìn)行，單一協(xié)議、凈額結(jié)算和信用支持被譽(yù)為ISDA協(xié)議的三大支柱。但在交易對(duì)手破產(chǎn)時(shí)，交易可能面臨破產(chǎn)方清算人行使別擇權(quán)而使單一協(xié)議下的同一合同內(nèi)多筆交易分化成多個(gè)合同交易而無(wú)法實(shí)施終止凈額結(jié)算來(lái)減小風(fēng)險(xiǎn)；同樣，在破產(chǎn)制度下，ISDA信用支持可能被認(rèn)定為發(fā)生在“臨界期間”的無(wú)對(duì)價(jià)的“優(yōu)惠處分”而無(wú)效，在重整制度下，法律限制債權(quán)人行使信用支持條款下?lián)Ｎ餀?quán)，非經(jīng)重整執(zhí)行人同意，債權(quán)人不得行使優(yōu)先權(quán)。另外，質(zhì)押式信用支持可能因?yàn)槲餀?quán)法定原則而效力不確定，所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移式信用支持在大陸法系國(guó)家可能會(huì)被視為“流質(zhì)契約”而被禁止。 因此，在場(chǎng)外金融衍生品交易法律制度上，我國(guó)應(yīng)順應(yīng)經(jīng)濟(jì)健康發(fā)展的要求，改革相關(guān)法律制度，避免場(chǎng)外金融衍生品交易被重新定性的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)；要放寬、明確市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入制度，盡最大可能避免交易主體不適格的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)；修改諸如破產(chǎn)法、物權(quán)法等法律制度，避免國(guó)際金融衍生品交易標(biāo)準(zhǔn)協(xié)議中單一協(xié)議、終止凈額結(jié)算和信用支持等條款適用時(shí)的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。在民事法律責(zé)任歸屬上，除了追究致使合同交易無(wú)效和可撤銷一方的法律責(zé)任，對(duì)于交易商可能存在的錯(cuò)誤陳述、欺詐、操縱等侵權(quán)行為，，可以根據(jù)案情實(shí)際，從交易商的信托義務(wù)著手，針對(duì)擁有不同交易知識(shí)、經(jīng)驗(yàn)、經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力的最終用戶，賦予交易商不同程度的包括風(fēng)險(xiǎn)提示和建議義務(wù)在內(nèi)的注意義務(wù)和適合性義務(wù)，追究交易商的法律責(zé)任，慎用情勢(shì)變更原則。因?yàn)椋疚恼J(rèn)為，這些注意義務(wù)、適合性義務(wù)和信義義務(wù)恰好是連接場(chǎng)外金融衍生品交易侵權(quán)行為與受到損害的因果關(guān)系的有力證明。 除引言外，本文共分六章。 第一章，在詳細(xì)研究了每一種金融衍生交易合同的法律關(guān)系的基礎(chǔ)上，抽象出四種基本金融合同的共同的法律性質(zhì)，最后概括地探討了金融衍生品交易的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 第二章是第一章對(duì)金融衍生品交易法律性質(zhì)研究的延續(xù)，論述了金融衍生品交易合同射幸性及其與合同附期限和附條件的區(qū)別以及金融衍生品交易可能被重新定性為賭博合同和保險(xiǎn)合同的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 第三章在介紹了各國(guó)場(chǎng)外金融衍生品交易主體市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入限制規(guī)定的基礎(chǔ)上，重點(diǎn)研究了國(guó)家機(jī)構(gòu)、公司以及個(gè)人在交易主體不適格情況下交易的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及責(zé)任承擔(dān)。 第四章論述了場(chǎng)外金融衍生品交易國(guó)際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)主協(xié)議之單一協(xié)議、凈額結(jié)算和信用支持三大支柱與一些國(guó)家的破產(chǎn)法、合同法等的矛盾和法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，在吸取國(guó)外立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上提出了我國(guó)相關(guān)的立法改進(jìn)建議，以避免交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。 第五章論述了交易商侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件及其理論基礎(chǔ)，即包含注意義務(wù)、適合性義務(wù)、信息披露等在內(nèi)的交易商對(duì)最終用戶應(yīng)負(fù)有的相對(duì)、有限的信托義務(wù)。 第六章主要通過(guò)案例論述了不實(shí)陳述與操縱的法律認(rèn)定及民事責(zé)任承擔(dān)。
[Abstract]:Financial derivatives are divided into four basic types : forward , futures , option and exchange . Generally speaking , financial derivatives are divided into four basic types : forward , futures , option , exchange and so on .

Financial derivatives trading contracts and gambling , insurance contracts are honoured , hedging transactions in financial derivatives transactions are similar to insurance , and speculative arbitrage is similar to gambling , and therefore financial derivatives transactions have a re - defined legal risk . The effect of terms of attachment and conditions of attachment is either to have the effect of a contract established and to effect a contract that has been established and entered into force , except that the legal effect is uncertain .

Off - site transactions are high - risk transactions , and a country usually gives access restrictions on the qualification of traders from the subject category , professional knowledge , market experience , financial strength and so on through legislation . Therefore , in the international OTC financial derivatives trading , there is a legal risk of the defects of the subject qualification of the counterparty . The traders violate the internal authority of the enterprise and may lead to the defects of the subject qualification of the transaction .

The international OTC financial derivatives usually adopt the standard principal agreement such as ISDA , single agreement , net settlement and credit support are regarded as the three main pillars of ISDA agreement . However , when the counterparty is bankrupt , the transaction may be faced by the liquidator of the bankrupt party to exercise the right to make multiple transactions within the same contract under a single agreement into a plurality of contract transactions to reduce the risk ;
Similarly , under the insolvency regime , ISDA credit support may be deemed to have occurred in the absence of a " preferential treatment " of the " critical period " . In the reorganization system , the law restricts the creditor from exercising the security right under the credit support clause , and the creditor may not exercise priority . In addition , the pledge type credit support may be invalid due to the legal principle of the right to property , and the transfer - of - title credit support may be regarded as a " pledge contract " in the countries of the continental law system .

Therefore , in the legal system of OTC derivatives trading , our country should comply with the requirements of economic and health development , reform the relevant legal system and avoid the re - qualification of the OTC derivatives trade ;
To relax , clear the market access system , and make the best possible to avoid the risk of the subject of the transaction ;
This paper discusses the legal risks in the application of such clauses as bankruptcy law , property law and so on , and avoids the legal risk of single agreement , termination of net settlement and credit support in the standard agreement of international financial derivatives trade . In addition to the legal liability of the party , such as false statement , fraud and manipulation , which can be found by the dealer , the liability of the dealer should be investigated .

In addition to the introduction , this article is divided into six chapters .

In the first chapter , on the basis of studying the legal relation of each financial derivative trade contract , the common legal nature of four basic financial contracts is abstracted , and the legal risk of financial derivatives trade is discussed .

The second chapter is the continuation of the study on the legal nature of financial derivatives trading , and discusses the difference between the contract emission of financial derivatives and the term and conditions of the contract , as well as the possibility of the financial derivatives trading as the legal risk of gambling contracts and insurance contracts .

In the third chapter , on the basis of introducing the restrictions on the market access restrictions of OTC derivatives , the paper focuses on the legal risks and responsibilities of the State institutions , companies and individuals in dealing with the subject of the subject .

The fourth chapter discusses the single agreement , net settlement and credit support of the main agreement on the international standard of OTC derivatives trade , and puts forward some relevant legislation improvement suggestions on the basis of drawing up the experience of foreign legislation , so as to avoid the risk of transaction .

The fifth chapter discusses the constitutive requirements and the theoretical basis of the dealer ' s infringement , that is , the relative and limited fiduciary duty of the dealer to the end - user , including the obligation of attention , the suitability obligation , the disclosure of information , etc .

The sixth chapter mainly discusses the legal confirmation and civil liability assumption of untrue statement and manipulation .
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海交通大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D996.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳東;英國(guó)公司法上的董事“受信義務(wù)”——兼與王保樹(shù)、孔祥俊、梅慎實(shí)等諸位先生商榷[J];比較法研究;1998年02期

2 夏能禮;;論期權(quán)交易合約標(biāo)的物的法律性質(zhì)[J];東莞理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年04期

3 劉燕;;存款合同還是金融衍生交易——匯豐銀行“雙利存款”案解析[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年03期

4 樓建波;劉燕;;情勢(shì)變更原則對(duì)金融衍生品交易法律基礎(chǔ)的沖擊——以韓國(guó)法院對(duì)KIKO合約糾紛案的裁決為例[J];法商研究;2009年05期

5 薛智勝;馬淑亞;;我國(guó)金融衍生品發(fā)展的法律困境解析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年04期

6 王e

本文編號(hào)：1900176