查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 國際裁判管轄總論之研究--以財產關係訴訟為中心=International Jurisdiction to Adjudicate in Civil and Commercial Matters: Issues, Comparative Analysis and Modern Approach |
---|---|
作 者 | 蔡華凱; | 書刊名 | 國立中正大學法學集刊 |
卷 期 | 17 2004.10[民93.10] |
頁 次 | 頁1-85 |
分類號 | 579.9 |
關鍵詞 | 國際私法; 國際民事訴訟法; 國際裁判管轄; 國際裁判管轄權; 國際裁判管轄總論; 直接的國際裁判管轄; 間接的國際裁判管轄; 外國判決的承認與執行; 國際訴訟競合; 國際管轄競合; 不便利法庭地原則; Private international law; Conflict of laws; International civil litigation; International jurisdiction; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 涉外民事訴訟之國際裁判管轄問題,影響法庭地國法院之裁判在國際社會上之正當性、當事人程序上防禦權之行使與實體權利之實現甚鉅。與適用於本案之實體法律關係之準據法選擇,乃至於外國裁判之承認與執行制度,在理論體系上有一定程度之不可分性。歐盟就此頓域在上個世紀已經成功地形成獨自的法秩序,而新的全球統一公約亦從九零年代初期開始努力至今,乃近代國際私法學界盛事之一。 本文係針對國際民事訴訟法學中關於國際裁判管轄問題,進行方法論上之基礎研究,以及對於若干理論上及程序上的爭點進行檢討。首先就國際裁判管轄在法律位階上,從國際法上國家之民事裁判權與國內訴訟法制建之間的關係為軸,而為現行體系上之說明,並指出經由國際規範的實踐,被告的普通審判籍(general forum of defendant)所在地法院之一般管轄權( general jurisdiction),與特別審判籍(special fora)所在地法院 之特別管轄權(special jurisdiction )之概念在國際社會上可說已其有相當高之一致性。本文針對1971年的外國判決承認執行公約失敗之原因,藉由海牙國際私法會議自我檢討為問題提起之引言,指出直接的國際管轄與間接的國際管轄(我國民事訴訟法第四百零二條第一項第一款)在體系解釋上之不可分性,長久以來我國學說與裁判實務模糊以對。本文從解釋學的角度與比較法的分析對於兩者之體系開係,提出應採判斷標準同一之主張,並對於其理論基礎進行檢討(壹、貳)。 國際裁判管轄之決定方法,係國際裁判管轄理論之核心。方法論上如何判斷有無國際管轄之法則不立,則法院無行為規範可資自律(直接的國際管轄),亦無評價規範賴以律人(外國裁判之承認執行制度上之間接國際管轄)。大陸法系的方法上,有類推適用說與法理說併 立。本文以日本最高裁判所、德國聯邦最高法院之判例,與我國裁判實務為檢討比較之對象,並提出應採法理說之基礎理論說明。又法院判斷國際裁判管轄之有無,與受訴法院處理國際管轄競合,係完全不同之問題。後者之發生必須以前者之具備為前提條件,本文指出我國裁判實務上對於兩者問題有混淆之傾向,並以大陸法系處理之方法(Lis Pendens )與英美法系處理之方法(forum non conveniens )進行分析比較,並對於國際裁判管轄與我國民訴法第一八二條之二之適用作解釋學上的檢討(參)。 國際裁判管轄本係程序法之範疇,其理論之實踐,倘無檢討程序法上的適用可能性,將重蹈歷史上古典國際私法學被譏為學說法之覆輒。本文對於國際民事訴訟法學上訴訟要件與職權調查事項的解釋、職權探知主義與辯論主義的對立、與管轄原因事實與本案原因事實兢合的意義與課以原告一定程度之舉證責任之必要,從比較法的分析與介紹,批判我國最高法院65年台抗字第162號判例對於涉外訴訟不具妥當性之理由,主張應排 除其先例拘束性。此外,國內若干學說上比照國內民事訴訟法之解釋,主張欠缺國際裁判管轄之法院判決,可經由內國程序之確定而治癒云云,本文從比較法、直接管轄、間接管轄與外國裁判之承認與執行制度上的體系關係為辯證說明,欠缺國際裁判管轄之判決在國際法上為違法之判決,為無效之判決,亦無認為其瑕疵可經由內國程序之確定而治庸之國際公約存在(肆)。我國法院判斷國際裁判管轄之最高指導原則,應依當事人間的公平、裁判的正當與迅速之法理決之,本文總結其理由於最後之結論(伍 |
英文摘要 | The determination as to whether the forum court should assert jurisdiction over an international civil litigation is often decisive to the case. Since there is no system of transfer among nations in global dimension, there is no other way for the forum court but to dismiss a case if jurisdictional ground is nowhere to be found. The jurisdiction of a court to hear a case is a procedural matter and concerns the procedural rights of both parties. That is to say, the opportunity for the plaintiff to access the judicial system and has his claim to be heard is a right guaranteed in constitution law. On the other hand, it is unfair to force a foreign defendant to incur the expense and burden of a trial on the merits in the forum court without first requiring more of the guarantee on his procedural rights. Furthermore, this kind of procedural issue could make plaintiff' c1aimbe barred by legal prescription when the statute of limitations runs out. This is the reason why forum shopping occurred so common in international cases. There are 5 chapters in this artic1e. Chapter One and Two will focus on the concept of judicial jurisdiction in dimensions of international law, private international law and civil procedure law. In Chapter Two, this artic1e argues that the criterion of determining direct jurisdiction and indirect jurisdiction should be identical, which is commonly accepted by Civil Law System, such as Japanese law, German law, and EU Regulation 1 . Chapter Three introduces the judicial decisions made by the Supreme Court of Japan. Especially the theory of "special circumstance" established by the Japanese case law, gives Japanese courts a free hand to reject asserting jurisdiction even jurisdictional grounds found in civil procedural law. This case-law approach leaves Japanese courts discretion as to the determination of international jurisdiction to adjudicate, is also competent to the civil procedure system in Taiwan. Chapter Four will examine the procedural issues over international jurisdiction to adjudicate in Taiwan. This article argues that the judgment rendered by a court which lacks international jurisdiction to adjudicate is void, in terms of the relationship between direct and indirect jurisdiction. The conc1usion will be summarized and proposed in Chapter Five. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。