Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96691


Title: 國際裁判管轄權的決定基準——總論上方法的考察
Other Titles: Approaches to Assert International Jurisdiction to Adjudicate in Civil and Commercial Matters: In the View of General Principle
Authors: 吳光平
Wu, Kuang-Ping
Keywords: 國際裁判管轄權;修正類推適用說;利益衡量說;調合方法;最低度接觸法則;合理公平原則
international jurisdiction to adjudicate;approach of analogy-but-reform;approach of interests-balancing;combined approach;the rule of minimum contacts;the principle of reasonableness and fairness
Date: 2006-12
Issue Date: 2016-05-16 17:12:07 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 涉外私法案件的國際裁判管轄權,由於目前尚無任何國際機關來指定各國對涉外私法案件的國際裁判管轄權,因此,對於涉外私法案件的是否具國際裁判管轄權,必須由涉案各國自己決定。就大陸法系而言,立法例上較少有直接規定國際裁判管轄權者,故德、日等大陸法系國家多依據自己民事訴訟法管轄法則之原理,來作為國際裁判管轄權的決定基準,就此而言,則有逆推知說、類推適用說之求諸內國民事訴訟法規定的形式論,以及利益衡量說、新類型說之不拘泥內國民事訴訟法規定的實質論二種方法的對立。有鑒於大陸法系法官對成文法律條文的依賴,未提供任具體判斷標準的諸實質論,恐有運用上的風險,因此諸形式論方法雖然有失之具體妥當性的缺失,但於現階段而言,仍屬必要,故本文採取以法安定性與具體妥當性兼具的修正類推適用說為基礎,並以利益衡量說加以調合之調合方法,不失為調合法安定性與具體妥當性之適當國際裁判管轄權決定方法。因此,本文主張以法安定性與具體妥當性兼具的修正類推適用說為基礎,並以利益衡量說加以調合之調合方法,蓋此不但可維持法安定性,於類推適用時,由於從相關的管轄原因事實,就利益衡量的觀點,參酌運用美國法上「最低度接觸法則」與「合理公平原則」,以及法院地實踐國際公法上的基本人權價值這一特殊因素,加以綜合判斷後,為類推適用、修正之類推適用或不類推適用,具體妥當性更得以兼顧。我國法院實務對於決定涉外私法案件是否具有國際裁判管轄權,至今尚未形成一致與穩定的決定基準,但近期的幾則地方法院實務,亦採取以修正類推適用說為基礎,但另以兼顧具體妥當性的彈性調整基準輔之調合方法,此與本文之主張,於方法上不謀而合。
Because there is no international organization to determine which state court should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over civil litigations, every court has to determine itself whether it should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil litigation. In continental states, it is hard to identify the statutes that prescribe international adjudicatory jurisdiction directly, and continental states determine whether their court should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil litigation by applying the principles of jurisdictional rules of the internal civil procedure statute. There are two different types of approaches to determine whether a court should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil litigation. One type is formalism, which is of the view of certainty and predictability, and the other type is individualism, which is of the view of individual justice. It is the tradition that judges of continental states rely on statutory rules so that it is dangerous to make a decision by applying the methodology of individualism. For the reason mentioned above, it is better for a court of a continental state to adopt a formalist approach to determine whether it should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil litigation. But it is also important that the determination as to whether a court should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil litigation should accommodate the view of individual justice, and the formalist type should compromise the view of individual justice. It is the suggestion of this article that a court of our state should adopt the formalist type to determine whether it should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil litigation but still consider individual justice. Adopting the formalist type means that a court determines whether it should assert international adjudicatory jurisdiction over a civil litigation by analogizing internal jurisdictional rules. Considering individual justice means that a court should reform when analogizing internal jurisdictional rules by American theories of the rule of minimum contacts and the principle of reasonableness and fairness.
Relation: 法學評論, 94, 267-334
Data Type: article
Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
94(267-334).pdf814KbAdobe PDF6467View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing