美国格式合同中管辖权条款效力评析——以“根本公平规则”为中心

美国联邦法院在审查格式合同管辖权条款效力时,认为该条款要经过“根本公平规则”的司法审查,包括管辖权条款是否可以识别、提供管辖权条款的一方当事人是否给予对方当事人阅读合同的合理机会、是否给予对方当事人“解约退款自由”三项标准;该规则在包括电子商务合同在内的格式合同中得到广泛适用;我国《合同法》上的“合理方式提请注意标准”与美国规则并无实质差异,我国法院可以参考其具体适用标准。     

对国际法院诉讼程序的某些思考——对南联盟诉北约10国等案件的评析

本文结合国际法院的规约和规则,对国际法院中的“南联盟分别诉北约１０ 国”这一最新案例进行评析,以期更深入了解国际法院的诉讼程序。文章具体分析了法院在这１０ 个案件中的法官席组成、法院对案件管辖权的推理包括任择强制管辖权条款以及基于公约的管辖权,此外还分析了法院不予指示临时措施的理由及不足之处,在这种分析的基础上,形成对国际法院发挥更大作用的建议。     

沿海国对外国船舶的民事管辖权问题探析——以《联合国海洋法公约》第28条规定为切入

关于国际海洋法语境下的国家民事管辖权概念,不能简单地以国际私法中的国际民事管辖权概念进行替换,相比之下,前者在内涵上要更加丰富.《联合国海洋法公约》第28条是整部条约中唯一对民事管辖权问题作出明确规定的条款,但其中非常明显的存在关于“逮捕”的出现、禁止性术语的使用以及相关规定的适用序位这三组理论矛盾,破解这些矛盾对研究该项权力具有决定性和基础性的意义.虽然《联合国海洋法公约》仅在领海部分作出了相关规定,但沿海国在内水、毗连区、专属经济区及大陆架海域中也应当对外国船舶具有不同程度的民事管辖权.在综合研究的基础上,建议我国可主要从构建理论体系、促进立法衔接和充分利用协定三个方面从法律上加强我国在海上对外国船舶的民事管辖.     

《蒙特利尔公约》第五管辖权规则论析——以航空旅客运输消费者权益保护为视角

第五管辖权是作为调整国际航空运输某些规则的1999年《蒙特利尔公约》对华沙公约体系进行现代化和一体化过程中的创新因素之一，其功能在于能够更加全面、公平地维护航空旅客运输消费者的合法权益，以体现该公约制定的宗旨和原则。借鉴第五管辖权的创新性规定及对消费者权益保护的特有属性，我国在未来修订《民用航空法》时亦应适时加入相应条款。     

中国对专属经济区船舶污染的司法管辖权

船舶污染的法律管辖会涉及海洋各国的利益,尤其是对专属经济区的司法管辖权。中国对于专属经济区船舶污染的司法管辖权的法律渊源主要是《海洋法公约》和中国有关法律。《海洋法公约》规定了行使司法管辖权的实体上的条件和程序上的要求,中国有权依法行使对在其专属经济区海洋污染的船舶进行民事诉讼的司法管辖权。     

刍议中国对专属经济区船舶污染的司法管辖权

船舶污染的法律管辖会涉及海洋各国的利益,尤其是专属经济区的司法管辖权.中国对于专属经济区船舶污染的司法管辖权的法律渊源主要是<海洋法公约>和中国有关法律.<海洋法公约>规定了行使司法管辖权的实体上的条件和程序上的要求,中国有权依法行使对在其专属经济区海洋污染的船舶进行民事诉讼的司法管辖权.     

美国判例法下管辖权条款的形式有效性

管辖权条款有效性规则是指该条款作为合同规则，是否符合合同法律规则的要求，一般可以将其分为形式有效性规则和实体有效性规则。其中，管辖权条款首先要符合形式有效性的要求，这是认定该条款效力的第一步。管辖权条款的形式有效性是证明当事人订立管辖权条款真实意图的外在证据，其条件通常包括必备要件，表现形式、表现内容以及管辖权条款在证明文件中所处的位置等。形式有效性是探求当事人真实意图的必备条件。各国法律对形式有效性的要求并不一致。本文将探讨美国法院在判例法体系下对管辖权条款形式有效性的把握。     

海牙《选择法院协议公约》之防御性机制研究

作为目标宏大的《民商事管辖权与判决公约》难产的情况下达成的最大共识的产物,《选择法院协议公约》包含了大量的排除公约适用的防御性条款,对此深入研究可以为我国批准和加入公约后更好地解决国际民事诉讼中管辖权的冲突,以及更好的保护我国的司法主权提供理论基础。     

论合同订立过程中的格式之战问题

格式之战是随着格式条款在缔约中的广泛使用而产生的合同法问题。我国《合同法》在混合继受《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》、《国际商事合同通则》关于合同订立的规则时,照搬《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的做法,仅对扩张或改变要约内容的"承诺"作出了一般性规定,未对格式之战问题作出特别规定。如何解决格式之战问题因而引起学界关注。由于格式之战属于由特殊缔约方式产生的特殊法律问题,并且由于"最后一击"规则存在极其明显的弊端,所以应当参考其他国家学者对《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的解释以及像德国这样的国家关于处理格式之战问题的法律变迁,并根据我国《合同法》第3条与第39条分别规定的法律地位平等、实质公平原则,将"击倒"规则确定为解决格式之战问题的基本方法。     

提单管辖权条款效力问题研究

长期以来,提单管辖权条款的效力问题在国内外学界和实务界存在较大的争议。理论上,提单管辖权条款往往是以格式条款而并非当事人之间的协议等理由被认定无效,实践中法院也会因为侵权诉因、与争议无实际联系、不方便法院原则、对等原则和有降低承运人责任之嫌为由限制提单管辖权条款的效力。对待提单管辖权条款的效力,法院并非一概而论,而是有条件的限制。本文在通过对提单管辖权条款性质进行分析的基础上,得出立法和司法承认该条款效力时考量的因素。同时,本文将结合理论依据和实践做法综合分析,旨在探究法院在判断提单管辖权条款效力时,应当如何坚持有"限制"的尊重其效力,以及从确保货方利益的角度出发考虑在某些情况下排除该条款的效力。如此一来,不仅可以很好地尊重当事人意志,同时也有利于我国司法实践中对管辖权制度的整体安排。     

Common Foreign and Security Policy: The Consequences of the Court's Extended Jurisdiction

Despite the explicit exclusion of its jurisdiction, the Court of Justice of the European Union exercises judicial control over Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). This article examines and explains how the Court's extended jurisdiction contributes to the juridification, judicialisation and constitutionalisation of the EU's compound CFSP structures. It first lays the groundwork by explaining the link between constitutionalisation and democratic legitimation and setting out the Court's formal jurisdiction over CFSP under Article 40 Treaty on European Union and Articles 218(11) and 275(2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The centre piece of the article then identifies how the Court's jurisdiction has expanded since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, points at additional ‘substantive’ avenues of judicial review on the basis of access to information and access to justice, and analyses the effects of the Court of Justice of the European Union's extended jurisdiction for CFSP.     

从Gubisch案看欧共体法院对国际诉讼竞合的认定

国际诉讼竞合的认定是解决国际民商事管辖权冲突的先决条件。通过对欧共体法院一则判例的分析,指出,欧共体法院对国际诉讼竞合的认定趋向于持宽松的态度,而且,这种宽松的认定方法已被目前的国际立法和司法判例所吸收和支持。     

Jurisdiction for Consumer Contracts: European Union: Modified Rules of Jurisdiction for Electronic Consumer Contracts

The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the Brussels Convention) is to be replaced in 2002 by a Community Instrument: The Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Regulation).¹ The Regulation is an important measure approved by the European Union to simplify rules of jurisdiction and recognition of judgments for the benefit of the Internal Market. Amongst other matters, the Regulation updates existing jurisdiction rules for a consumer contracts. The rules for consumer contracts apply where a consumer and a business are domiciled in a Member State or the business has a:“branch, agency or other establishment” in a Member State. Importantly, the Regulation clarifies jurisdiction rules for consumer contracts conducted over the World Wide Web (WWW). These rules are to be welcomed, as they provide guidance on what rules of jurisdiction apply to consumer contracts over the Web, albeit that they are limited to where the parties are domiciled in Europe. This article outlines the rules of jurisdiction for consumer contracts provided by the Regulation, and where appropriate, highlights some aspects of the new rules that will possibly require further discussion and clarification by the European Court of Justice once the new rules are in force.     

The General Provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides the Union with a 'more evident' (as the European Council of Cologne asked for) framework of protection of the individuals before the public authorities within the European context, after more than thirty years (since the Stauder Case ) of full confidence in the leading role played by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. This new normative catalogue of fundamental rights (included the so called 'aspirational fundamental rights') implies one more instrument of protection which has to find its own place with regard to the protection afforded by the national Constitutions and the international agreements on human rights, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights, which are already a privileged source of inspiration for Court of Justice of the European Communities. It is the main objective of the General Provisions of the Charter to clarify which is that place and the relationship with those other levels of protection as managed by their supreme interpreters (i.e., the Constitutional—or Supreme—Courts of the Member States of the Union and the European Court of Human Rights).     

The European Court of Justice in Bolagsupplysningen: The Brussels I Recast Regulation's jurisdictional rules for online infringement of personality rights further clarified

In the European Union the Brussels Ibis Regulation governs the jurisdiction of Member State courts in civil and commercial matters. The reference for a preliminary ruling coming from the Estonian Supreme Court in the Bolagsupplysningen case offered the European Court of Justice another opportunity to develop its interpretation of the special ground for non-contractual obligations (article 7.2). The European Court of Justice's Grand Chamber ruled that legal persons, like natural persons, have the option of bringing a claim based on the infringement of personality rights by an online publication before the courts of the Member State where their centre of interests is located. It laid down that the centre of interests of a legal person pursuing an economic activity is determined by reference to the place where the company carries out the main part of its economic activities. The victim of a tortious internet publication can only seek an order for rectification and removal of the incorrect information in the courts that have jurisdiction over the entirety of the harm sustained and not before the courts that only enjoy jurisdiction with regard to the damage suffered in their territory.     

UK court rules government erred in denying housing assistance to woman with HIV

In March 2002, the English High Court of Justice ruled that municipalities have a duty to use their powers to provide assistance where refusal to do so would infringe an applicant's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.     

The rule of law as the lodestar of the European Convention on Human Rights: The Strasbourg Court and the independence of the judiciary

The rule of law is a constitutional principle under the European Convention on Human Rights. Throughout its history, the rule of law has been the lodestar guiding the development of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In recent years, the normative impact of this principle has been increasing in the case-law of the Court, in particular in cases dealing with the independence of the judiciary. The article discusses the conceptual core of the rule of law under the Convention system as a fundamental component of “European public order”. Subsequently, the three-dimensional normative status of the rule of law is explored as well as the Court's statement that the principle is “inherent in all the Articles of the Convention”. On this basis, an in-depth analysis is undertaken of the application in recent Strasbourg case-law of the independence of the judiciary as a fundamental organic component of the rule of law. Finally, the author reflects on the “symbiotic” relationship in the field of judicial independence between the Strasbourg Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union.     

United Kingdom: denying children's milk allowance to HIV-positive mother seeking asylum is discriminatory

In July 2002, the High Court of Justice found that, in denying the milk allowance, the Home Office had failed to realize the real risk that the mother might breastfeed her daughter and that the daughter might be infected with HIV. The Court also ruled that the Home Office's action was discriminatory under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.     

Hard Times for Hard Bans: Fixed‐Term Work and So‐Called Non‐Regression Clauses in the Era of Flexicurity

This paper deals with the issue of non‐regression clauses, which, despite a twenty‐year history, has been addressed by domestic and European case law only recently, and only with regard to the field of flexible employment. This essay argues that the Court of Justice case law on non‐regression clauses (the Mangold and Angelidaki rulings) leads to a weakening of these instruments, rendering them ineffective. This ineffectiveness is due to the controversial idea of Fixed‐Term Work in the era of flexicurity, and to the difficult justiciability of the particular clause in itself, as demonstrated by the most recent Court of Justice's ruling, Sorge. In addition, this essay provides an explanation of the difficult enforcement of non‐regression clauses, in light of the new course of European employment policies.