法学研究

文章摘要

我国协调国际平行诉讼的立场与方法——民事诉讼法第281条之体系解读

China’s Basic Position on and Method of Coordinating International Parallel Proceedings

DOI：

中文关键词: 先受理法院规则;不方便法院原则;国际平行诉讼;适当法院;管辖权项目

英文关键词: court first seised rule; forum non conveniens; international parallel litigation; appropriate forum; Jurisdiction Program

基金项目:

作者	单位
黄志慧	中南财经政法大学法学院

摘要点击次数: 637

全文下载次数: 25

中文摘要:

先受理法院规则作为协调国际平行诉讼的方法，在两大法系国家的适用模式不同。我国民事诉讼法第281条针对国际平行诉讼确立的先受理法院规则之中国模式，虽展现了我国在民事管辖权跨国分配中适度礼让外国法院的合作立场，但由于忽视其适用场域的转换，导致先受理法院规则理论上蕴含的协调国际平行诉讼之优势难以发挥。为克服法律僵化而对先受理法院规则设置的逃避条款，既忽视了我国涉外民事诉讼规范体系自身蕴含的矫正作用，也模糊了先受理法院规则与不方便法院原则的关系。鉴于国际民事诉讼中“先受案法院”与“适当法院”的关联性，不方便法院原则可以替代先受理法院规则协调国际平行诉讼的功能。国际平行诉讼的规制存在国内法与多边机制之方法差异。多边机制规定的先受理法院规则，可为我国协调国际平行诉讼提供跨国司法合作路径。对于多边机制规制外的国际平行诉讼，我国更宜依据国内法规定的不方便法院原则予以规制。国际平行诉讼的有效规制，最终取决于各国间司法互信的累积和提升。参与相关条约的磋商及善意履行条约义务，并积极适用国内法规定的不方便法院原则确定管辖案件之“适当法院”，应是我国协调国际平行诉讼的基本立场与方法。

英文摘要:

There are two different modes of application of the court first seised rule (CFSR) as a method of coordinating international parallel proceedings (IPP) between common and civil legal systems. While the Chinese mode of CFSR for IPP established by Article 281 of Civil Procedure Law demonstrates China’s co-operative position of expressing moderate comity towards foreign courts in the transnational allocation of civil jurisdiction, the theoretical advantages of coordinating IPP contained in Chinese CFSR are difficult to realize due to the neglect of transformation of the applicable field. The CFSR escape clause aimed at reducing the rigidity of CFSR not only neglects the rectifying function of the Chinese foreign-related civil procedure rule system, but also blurs the relationship between CFSR and the doctrine of forum non conveniences (FNC). In view of the relevance between the “first seised court” and the “appropriate court” in international civil litigation, FNC is eligible to replace the function of CFSR. There are differences between domestic law and international law in the regulation of IPP. CFSR in relevant treaties can provide the path of transnational judicial cooperation for China to coordinate IPP, and IPP not regulated by treaties can be resolved in accordance with FNC in Chinese domestic law. The effective regulation of IPP ultimately depends on the accumulation and promotion of judicial mutual trust among different countries. China’s basic position on and method of coordinating IPP should be participating in the negotiation of relevant treaties, fulfilling treaty obligations in good faith, and actively applying FNC in domestic law in the determination of the “appropriate court” of competence.

查看全文下载PDF阅读器

关闭