导　　师： 丁伟

学科专业： 030109

授予学位： 博士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 华东政法大学

摘　　要： 自香港回归以来,内地和香港民商事交往日益频繁,涉及两地的民商事案件数量也不断上升,内地和香港法律制度的冲突问题越来越受到重视和关注。与此同时,两地法律冲突问题也存在着诸多理论和实践问题需要探索和解决。在这其中,管辖权因其直接关系到法律适用、案件审理结果和判决承认与执行而有着重要的地位。本文以中国内地和香港区际民商事案件管辖权冲突问题研究为选题,借助现有国内外研究资料和已有成果,对两地民商事案件管辖权冲突所涉及的诸问题进行了较为全面、深入和系统的探讨。论文以区际民商事案件管辖权冲突的性质界定为开端,采用比较研究、案例分析和法律解释方法,探究内地和香港民商事案件管辖权冲突的具体体现,并在此基础上试图提出解决两地区际民商事案件管辖权冲突的模式选择和解决机制。希望籍此研究能对我国内地《民事诉讼法》管辖权制度的完善以及两地区际民商事案件管辖权冲突的解决有所裨益。 全文除导言和结语外,共分四篇十一章,计22万字。 第一篇为“中国内地和香港区际民商事案件管辖权冲突问题的提出”。本篇构建全文的理论基础,通过对区际民商事案件管辖权冲突的概念和特征等诸方面的界定,有助于全面了解和把握内地和香港民商事案件管辖权冲突问题的实质。本篇分为两章。 第一章为“区际民商事案件管辖权冲突的性质”。指出区际民商事案件管辖权冲突在性质上体现为区际冲突、民商事案件的管辖权冲突和司法管辖权冲突。因此协调区际民商事案件管辖权冲突时,既要考虑到各法域法律制度的独特性和平等性,也要维护国家主权;既要注意各法域对民商事事项的不同界定,也要灵活采用不同方法寻求民商事事项界定上的共识;既要关注司法管辖权冲突的特殊性,也要推进各法域之间的相互合作和协助。 第二章为“中国内地和香港区际民商事案件管辖权冲突的产生和特征”。指出两地民商事案件管辖权冲突产生的原因是两法域平等共存、民商事交往和管辖权制度差异。在实践中体现出积极冲突和消极冲突、显性冲突和隐形冲突、对抗诉讼和重复诉讼等多种形式,并带来了一系列消极的影响。因此有必要解决两地区际民商事案件管辖权冲突。在解决两地民商事案件管辖权冲突时,要从两地管辖权冲突的具体情况出发,针对其呈现出来的一般特征以及缺乏统一协调机关、多层面冲突和性质复杂的独特特征,在遵循一国两制、法域平等,促进和保障区际民商事交往进行,兼顾法律确定性和法官自由裁量权的原则下,通过两地充分协商循序渐进,寻求适合于两地具体情况的模式和机制。 第二篇为“中国内地和香港民商事案件管辖权的具体冲突”。本篇将全面深入地探讨中国内地和香港民商事案件管辖权可能发生冲突的领域,总结不同类型管辖权冲突的特性,比较两地有关管辖权冲突解决机制。本篇的内容将为构建符合两地实际情况的管辖权冲突解决机制奠定基础。本篇分为两章。 第三章为“中国内地和香港区际民商事案件管辖权制度的冲突”。本章探讨两地地域管辖权、特别管辖权和裁量管辖权、协议管辖权、专属管辖权以及应诉管辖权的具体冲突。指出两地地域管辖权的冲突源于管辖根据的差异;特别管辖权和裁量管辖权冲突主要是由于过度管辖、管辖根据理解不同以及复数管辖根据等原因造成,解决此两类冲突可以充分尊重当事人协商一致选择管辖法院。专属管辖权冲突体现为内地专属管辖权和香港其他管辖权类型的冲突,解决此类冲突两地应尽量在专属管辖权的范围和效力上取得共识。协议管辖权冲突是由于两地对协议管辖权的适用条件、性质、排他性协议管辖权和非排他性协议管辖权的效力认定不同引起,解决此类冲突应争取两地在协议管辖的条件和效力方面取得共识。应诉管辖权冲突主要体现为应诉管辖权的条件不同以及应诉管辖权和其他管辖权类型的冲突,解决此类冲突侧重于确定应诉管辖权和其他管辖权之间的效力次序。本章建议根据两地不同管辖权制度具体冲突的特性寻求针对性解决机制。 第四章为“中国内地和香港区际民商事案件管辖权冲突解决机制的冲突”。本章主要通过总结两地立法和司法实践的做法,探讨两地管辖权冲突解决机制的具体差异。比较和分析了两地法院不方便法院机制的定位、适用条件、考量因素和适用结果方面的差异,提出两地未来利用不方便法院机制解决管辖权冲突时应明确该机制具体运用的条件。此外,本章总结了两地各自特有的解决机制:内地司法实践中运用的先受理法院机制和香港法院运用的禁制令。指出这两项机制是两法域各自特有的方法,未来运用这两项机制解决管辖权冲突时,应充分考虑这些机制为对方法域接受的可能性。 第三篇为“国际社会民商事案件管辖权冲突解决模式的借鉴”。本篇主要探讨国际社会现有的解决国际/(区际/)民商事案件管辖权冲突的各种模式和特点,并探求这些模式用于解决两地民商事管辖权冲突的可行性。本篇分为三章。 第五章为“多法域国家区际民商事案件管辖权冲突解决模式借鉴”。主要分析了美国和英国模式。提出美国模式的特点是将区际冲突基本等同于国际冲突、区分不同类型的管辖权冲突、借助宪法条款、多层面的统一管辖权运动和多形式的管辖权冲突解决机制。英国模式的特点是借助国际条约和国内统一立法分配区际管辖权、在条约和立法之外依赖各法域自己的立法解决管辖权冲突。最后探讨美国模式和英国模式在我国适用的可行性,提出将区际冲突等同于国际冲突处理时应关注两者的区别,不能照搬统一立法模式,而应先确定管辖权冲突解决机制。 第六章为“国际公约解决民商事案件管辖权冲突的模式借鉴”。主要分析欧盟《布鲁塞尔规则》和海牙国际私法会议1999年海牙公约草案。提出《布鲁塞尔规则》的模式特点是:“区际管辖协议”加“区际协调机构”模式、统一管辖权制度和管辖权冲突解决机制并存、判决承认与执行阶段对管辖权冲突解决机制的强化与弱化。海牙公约草案的特点是:缺乏超国家解释机制的全球性混合双重公约模式、统一管辖权制度和管辖权冲突解决机制并存、在混合双重公约模式下,判决承认和执行阶段对管辖权冲突解决机制的强化。最后总结两大公约模式可供我国借鉴的经验:双重公约比单一公约更能全面解决问题、混合性双重公约和严格双重公约各有优缺点、统一管辖权规则和管辖权冲突解决机制双管齐下、合理选择管辖权冲突解决机制。 第七章为“中国内地和香港区际民商事案件管辖权冲突解决模式选择”。探讨了共同加入公约模式、统一立法模式、宪法模式和示范法模式的合法性和可行性,分析这些模式具体运用上存在的困难,指出安排模式是适合我国现状的最佳模式。并提出在安排模式下,两地民商事案件管辖权冲突的解决应循序渐进逐步推进。沿袭现在的安排模式,从单一安排向双重安排逐步推进,首先建构两地共同的管辖权冲突解决机制,在条件许可下,逐步统一两地的管辖权规则。 第四篇为“中国内地和香港区际民商事案件管辖权冲突解决机制构建”。本篇在全文的基础上,构建“尊重专属管辖权优先效力、尊重协议管辖权优先效力、以先受理法院机制为主,不方便法院机制为辅”的管辖权冲突解决机制。其中,尊重专属管辖权优先效力机制主要用于解决专属管辖权和其他类型管辖权之间的冲突,专属管辖权效力优先于协议管辖权、先受理法院机制和不方便法院机制;尊重协议管辖权优先效力机制主要用于解决专属管辖权之外的其他类型管辖权之间的冲突,但其取决于当事人意思一致选择管辖法院,其中排他性协议管辖权优先于先受理法院机制和不方便法院机制;先受理法院机制主要用于解决专属管辖权和专属管辖权之间的冲突以及在没有排他性管辖协议情况下,非专属管辖权之间的冲突。不方便法院机制主要是作为先受理法院机制的例外情况,用于解决专属管辖权和排他性协议管辖权之外的其他管辖权冲突。本篇分为四章。 第八章为“尊重专属管辖权优先效力机制”。探讨了专属管辖权在解决管辖权冲突中的作用,分析国际条约有关专属管辖权的规定,并评析《示范法》和《民诉法修改建议稿》对专属管辖权的修改意见。指出采用尊重专属管辖权优先效力机制解决管辖权冲突的重点在于争取香港法院对于内地专属管辖权案件类型和效力的认可。因此必须对内地专属管辖权的适用范围进行严格限制,并在两地间明确专属管辖权的优先效力。在此基础上,本章设计了尊重专属管辖权优先效力机制的有关制度。 第九章为“尊重协议管辖权优先效力机制”。分析协议管辖权用于解决两地管辖权冲突的可行性,在解读国际条约有关协议管辖权立法和评析我国学界有关立法建议的基础上,指出采用尊重协议管辖权优先效力机制解决两地管辖权冲突的重点在于内地尽量减少对协议管辖权的不必要限制条件,以及两地对于协议管辖权的优先效力取得共识。在此基础上,本章设计了尊重协议管辖权优先效力机制的有关制度。 第十章为“先受理法院机制”。分析先受理法院机制用于解决两地管辖权冲突的可行性,解读了国际条约有关先受理法院机制的立法并评析我国学界的立法建议。指出在香港认可先受理法院机制作为两地管辖权冲突解决机制的条件下,采用先受理法院机制的重点在于确立绝对的先受理法院机制,明确先受理法院机制的效力并同时在判决承认和执行阶段予以强化。在此基础上,本章设计了先受理法院机制的有关制度。 第十一章为“不方便法院机制”。分析不方便法院机制用于解决两地管辖权冲突的必要性和可行性,提出不方便法院机制应定位为先受理法院机制例外情况。解读国际条约有关不方便法院机制的立法并评析我国学者的立法建议,提出采用不方便法院机制的重点在于内地立法确认不方便法院机制的合法性以及在借鉴香港不方便法院机制的基础上明确该机制运用所涉及的相关问题。在此基础上,本章设计了不方便法院机制的有关制度。 结语回顾了全文的内容并对文章所构建的两地区际民商事案件管辖权冲突机制进行内容上的整合。提出在两地没有就管辖权冲突达成共识之前,内地可以借助《民事诉讼法》修改契机先行完善和确立有关的管辖权制度和管辖权冲突解决机制。进一步提出管辖权冲突的顺利解决除了依赖一套系统的解决机制外,还依赖于在判决承认和执行阶段对这些机制效力的确认。 With a rapid and increasing expansion of civil communication and commercial transaction between Mainland and Hongkong after the Return of Hongkong, cases involving Mainland and Hongkong become common. Accordingly, more and more attention is paid into conflict of laws between Mainland and Hongkong. However, a number of theoretical and practical legal problems arising in this field still have to be thoroughly analyzed and subsequently solved. Since it affects application law, result of litigation as well as recognition and enforcement of judgment, jurisdiction plays an important role in civil litigation. The present dissertation focuses on an analysis of conflict of jurisdiction on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong. Relying on prevailing research materials, this study intends to make an in-depth and systematic research of pertinent problems arising from conflict of jurisdiction on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong. The study starts with the nature of internal conflict of jurisdiction on civil and commercial, pays attention to character and remedies for conflict of jurisdiction while comparative analysis, case analysis and law analysis underlies its construction. It is my hope as the author that this study may make a valid contribution to both improvement of jurisdiction in Civil Procedure Law of Mainland and solution of conflict of jurisdiction on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong. The dissertation comprises 4 Parts 11 Chapters, in addition to an Introduction and Conclusion, totaling over 220,000 words. Part I puts forward the issue as the conflict of jurisdiction on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong, laying the foundation for a better understanding of the issues. This part starts with a definition and character of the terms“internal conflict of jurisdiction on civil and commercial matters”in order to fully grasp of essence of this issue. This Part comprises 2 chapters. Chapter 1 divides internal conflict of jurisdiction into internal conflict, civil and commercial matters’jurisdiction and judicial jurisdiction in nature .Therefore, the following factors should be considered when striving to provide thorough remedies: particularity and equality of different legal systems, sovereignty, different meaning of civil and commercial matters, a flexible way to pursue a uniform definition of civil and commercial matters, particularity of conflicts of judicial jurisdiction, cooperation and assistance of different legal systems as well. Chapter 2 introduces emergence and character of conflict of jurisdiction on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongong. This chapter points out the reason of jurisdictional conflicts is equal coexistence of two law districts, internal civil communication and commercial transaction, and different jurisdiction rules, including such forms as positive conflict and negative conflict, dominant conflict and recessive conflict, reactive suits and repetitive suits in practice. Since it results in a series of negative effect, it is necessary to solve the internal jurisdictional conflict. In addition to concrete situation, general and unique character with lacking of common authority, all-round conflict and complex nature, this chapter also pays attention to cooperation and negotiation between two law districts in the context of following principles: one country two systems, equality of two law districts, promotion of internal civil communication and commercial transaction, predictability of Mainland’law and judicial discretion of Hongkong’common law. Part II discusses the special jurisdictional conflicts on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong. This part explores possible fields and concludes character of conflict of jurisdiction with different nature, as well as compares differences of remedies for jurisdictional conflict between Mainland and Hongkong, therewith laying a foundation for approaching to proper remedies for jurisdictional conflict. This part is divided into two chapters. Chapter 3 focuses on possible fields of jurisdictional conflicts including territorial jurisdiction, special jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction, jurisdiction by agreement, exclusive jurisdiction and jurisdiction by submission of defendant. This chapter proposes various remedies for different types of jurisdictional conflicts. A choice of court agreement may apply to any conflicts in connect with territorial jurisdiction as well as conflicts between special jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction. Meanwhile, a uniform scope and priority of exclusion jurisdiction may apply to any conflicts between exclusive jurisdiction of Mainland’court and any other types jurisdiction of Hongkong’court. A uniform condition, nature and effect of non-exclusive and exclusive jurisdiction clause may apply to any conflicts between jurisdiction by agreement. Finally, a consensus on sequence of effect between jurisdiction by submission of defendant and any other types of jurisdiction may apply to any conflict in connection with jurisdiction by submission of defendant. Chapter 4 argues about difference of remedies for jurisdictional conflict on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong in law and court’practice. By reference to possible differences of orientation, conditions, considering factors and result of Forum Non Conveniens, this chapter puts forward a uniform condition is favor for adopting Forum Non Conveniens as a remedy for jurisdictional conflict in future. Furthermore, after examining particular approaches: First-Seised Court in Mainland’court practice and Antisuit Injunction in Hongkong’court practice, this chapter suggests a feasibility analysis may be applied before adopting such particular approaches as remedy for jurisdictional conflict. Part III uses modes of jurisdictional conflict on civil and commercial matters in the world for reference. It mainly focuses on feasibility of current modes used for reference after analyzing the character of different modes of jurisdictional conflict. This part consists of three chapters. Chapter 5 examines modes of jurisdictional conflict in the country with non-unified legal system, mainly focuses on United State and UK. This chapter concludes characters of mode in United State as follows: regarding internal conflict as international conflict, identifying different types of jurisdictional conflicts, various uniform legislation of jurisdiction and remedies for jurisdictional conflict. On the other side, characters of mode in UK is as follows: the allocation of jurisdiction within the United Kingdom according to international convention and internal uniform law; resolving conflict of jurisdiction in non-international cases according to respective law of each law district. Finally, this chapter discusses the feasibility of mode of UK or United State used for reference and suggests differences shall be taken into account when regarding intersectional conflict as international conflict, and it needs to constitute remedies for jurisdictional conflict before making a uniform law. Chapter 6 explores modes of jurisdictional conflict in the international convention, especially in the Brussels Regulation adopted by the Council of the European Union and the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters adopted by the Special Commission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in 1999. This chapter concludes characters of mode of Brussels Regulation as follows: internal regulation on jurisdiction and internal harmonizing institution; uniform jurisdiction rules coexisting with remedies for jurisdictional conflict, strengthening and derogating effect of remedies for jurisdictional conflict on recognition and enforcement of judgment. This chapter also concludes characters of mode of Draft Hague Convention as follows: lacking of super-national interpreting institution in the context of a global mixed and double convention, uniform jurisdiction rules coexisting with remedies for jurisdictional conflict, strengthening effect of remedies for jurisdictional conflict on recognition and enforcement of judgments. Finally, this chapter concludes the experience used for reference as follows: double convention as a better mode in resolving conflict of jurisdiction; advantage and disadvantage of mixed or strict double convention; coexistence of uniform jurisdiction rules and remedies for jurisdictional conflict, proper remedies for jurisdictional conflict. Chapter 7 elaborates mode of jurisdictional conflict on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong. This chapter points out that arrangement mode is the best mode under current circumstance by analyzing the validity, feasibility and difficulties of conventional mode, uniform law mode, constitutional mode and model law mode. This chapter tends to suggest that conflict of jurisdiction shall be resolved step by step under an arrangement mode, pushing from a single arrangement to a double arrangement, setting up uniform remedies first and unifying jurisdiction rules if possible.. Part IV conceives the remedies for jurisdictional conflict on civil and commercial matters between Mainland and Hongkong. Within arrangement mode, up to four remedies for jurisdictional conflict may be available: /(1/)priority of exclusive jurisdiction which may apply to resolve conflicts between exclusive jurisdiction and any other types of jurisdiction;/(2/) priority of jurisdiction by agreement which relies on the parties’consensus may apply to resolve conflicts between non-exclusive jurisdiction; /(3/) First-seised Court which may apply to resolve conflicts between exclusive jurisdiction and between non-exclusive jurisdiction except exclusive agreement on choice of court; /(4/) Forum Non Conveniens as an exception may apply to resolve other types jurisdictional conflicts except exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive agreement on choice of court. This part comprises four chapters. Chapter 8 outlines the priority of exclusive jurisdiction by discussing the role of exclusive jurisdiction as a remedy for conflict of jurisdiction, analyzing related rules in international convention and reviewing national academic suggestions. This chapter emphasizes the key of priority of exclusive jurisdiction applied to resolve conflict of jurisdiction is recognition of its scope and effect by Hongkong’court,. This chapter conceives special rules of priority of exclusive jurisdiction basing on restriction of scope and acknowledge of priority of exclusive jurisdiction. Chapter 9 advances priority of jurisdiction by agreement. Basing on analyzing feasibility of adopting a choice of court agreement as a remedy for conflict of jurisdiction, reviewing related rules in international convention and analyzing national academic suggestions, this chapter considers the key of adopting such remedy is decreasing non-necessary restrictions of a choice of court agreement and a consensus on priority of jurisdiction by agreement between Mainland and Hongkong. This chapter turns to work out special rules of priority of jurisdiction by agreement. Chapter 10 designs First-seised Court. Basing on a feasibility analysis of adopting First-seised Court as a remedy for conflict of jurisdiction, reviewing related rules in international convention and analyzing national lawmaking suggestion, this chapter points out the key of adopting such remedy is to constitute absolute First-seised Court, define its condition and strengthen its effect on recognition and enforcement of judgment if Hongkong’court adoptes such remedy for jurisdictional conflict. Finally, this chapter designs special rules of First-seised Court. Chapter 11 constructs Forum Non Conveniens. Basing on an analysis of necessity and feasibility of adopting Forum Non Conveniens as a remedy for jurisdictional conflict, this chapter suggests that Forum Non Conveniens may be adopted as an exception to First-seised Court. By reviewing the related rules of international convention and analyzing national lawmaking suggestions, this chapter puts forward the key of adopting Forum Non Conveniens as a remedy for jurisdictional conflict is its validity affirmed by Mainland’court and uniform conditions adopted by two law districts. Finally, this chapter designs the special rules of Forum Non Conveniens. By tracing the whole paper and synthesizing contents of four remedies, the conclusion puts forward a transitional method that makes an amendment to Civil Procedure Law of Mainland including improving related jurisdiction rules and constituting remedies for jurisdictional conflict before a consensus is arrived between Mainland and Hongkong. Furthermore, this study points out that resolving conflict of jurisdiction not only relies on a series of remedies, but also relies on confirmation on effect of such remedies during recognition and enforcement judgment.

关 键 词： 国际民事诉讼 国际私法 区际冲突 管辖权冲突 平行诉讼 香港管辖权制度 不方便法院

分 类 号： [D925.1]

领　　域： [政治法律] [政治法律]