中国国际私法诉讼竞合探究

诉讼竞合是由于各国对管辖权规定的差异而产生的一种现象。但对诉讼竞合 ,迄今我国既无相应的立法可资因应 ,亦没有形成判例规则。这种状况不仅不利于保护我国当事人的合法权益 ,而且亦使我国法院在面临此类问题时无所依循。因此 ,我国除应积极参与《国际民商事管辖权和判决的承认与执行公约》(即《海牙管辖权公约》)以及相关国际公约的制定之外 ,还需进行相应的补充立法以更好地协调国际私法诉讼竞合之法律冲突 ,促进国际司法协助的顺利进行     

请求权竞合与诉讼标的理论之关系重述

本文主要研究了实体法上的请求权竞合与诉讼标的理论之间的关系,阐述了请求权竞合对诉讼标的理论发展的影响.诉讼标的理论有新、旧之分,其理论功能不完全相同.请求权竞合不仅仅是实体法上的问题,而且直接关系到民事诉讼标的的确定与识别,涉及到诉的合并与变更、重复起诉以及判决及判例客观范围的确定等等.笔者认为,作为诉讼标的,应当是当事人在诉讼中主张的特定利益,请求权仅仅是当事人攻击防御的方法和法院进行裁判的根据.     

解决涉外民商事诉讼竞合的实践与完善——兼析涉外海事诉讼竞合的解决

诉讼竞合又称一事两诉、平行诉讼,是国际民商事诉讼中经常出现的问题,通常指当事人基于相同事实就同一诉讼标的分别同时或先后在两个或两个以上国家的法院进行诉讼的现象。基于各国都设法扩大本国的国际民事诉讼管辖权导致管辖权的积极冲突、国际民事诉讼法现今对国际诉讼竞合并没有明确的法律规则和统一的全球性公约,以及当事人出于自身利益的驱动提起多重诉讼等原因,国际诉讼竞合在现行的法     

试论未决诉讼原则

未决诉讼原则是英美法系国家解决诉讼竞合问题的独特制度,它是一种国家自我抑制司法权的方法,在适用上具有很大的灵活性。本文将从理论和判例两个方面介绍这种制度在英国与美国的运用。     

论国际民商事诉讼竞合的解决方法——兼析我国涉外民商事诉讼相关制度及其完善

一、国际民商诉讼竞合与国际民商事管辖权冲突 国际民商事诉讼竞合是指相同当事人就同一争议基于相同事实以相同目的，同时在两个或两以上国家的法院进行诉讼的现象0。不过，不同当事人提起诉讼的时间可能有所不同，这个概念显得不很恰当。笔者以为，其更恰当的表述应该是：相同当事人就同一争议基于相同事实以相同目的，同时或先后在两个或两以上国家的法院进行诉讼的现象。     

国际民事诉讼中的诉讼竞合问题探讨

国际民事诉讼中的诉讼竞合问题探讨张茂在国际民事诉讼活动中，常常会出现这样的情况，即相同当事人就他们之间的相同争议分别在两个国家的法院提起诉讼，而且两个国家的法院都有适当管辖权并据此受理案件，这就构成了国际民事诉讼中的诉讼竞合。由于诉讼竞合问题既涉及...     

集团是怎样形成的——基于普通法集团诉讼的程序分析

在普通法国家集团诉讼制度中,正确适时地认定集团是启动和推进集团诉讼的前提。程序上,先是要认定集团是否存在,法院根据原告代表的申请尽快做出是接纳集团诉讼的命令;而后则要确认集团成员资格、框定集团范围,以便最终为集团诉讼判决划定效力范围。可以说,集团诉讼展开的过程,同时也是集团范围和规模不断得以塑造和明确化的过程,甚至在判决阶段法院仍要对集团及     

既判力与请求权竞合

既判力观念渊源于罗马法,德国、日本、法国等国的民事诉讼法都采用了这一概念,在大陆法系中,既判力又称实质上的确定力,是指确定的终局判决所裁判的诉讼标的对当事人和法院的强制性通用力。据此,当事人和法院不得就已经裁判的诉讼标的为不同的主张和判断。请求权竞合在民法学界历来都是争议的热点,请求权竞合之诉的当事人能否就两个请求权均提起诉讼要求公权予以保护自然也是民法学者们试图解释和解决的焦点问题。(一)请求权竞合学说的争议所谓请求权竞合,指依同一之法律事实,于同一当事人之间具备两个以上之法律要件,成立有同一目的之二个…     

21世纪欧盟法院体系的新发展 欧盟公务员法庭评析

欧盟法院体系包括欧共体法院、欧共体初审法院和包括欧盟公务员法庭在内的欧盟专门法庭。欧共体法院通过其判例所建立的一系列重要的法律原则,在促进欧洲一体化进程,推动欧共体法律体系的发展和宪法化等方面发挥了中心的或至关重要的作用。然而,随着欧洲一体化进程的发展,欧共体法院的受案数量急速增     

国际诉讼竞合之法律规制模式:效益分析与选择

国际诉讼竞合会产生诸多的消极后果:当事人沉重的经济负担、司法资源的浪费和矛盾的判决.然而,在某些情形下,当事人提起国际平行诉讼的行为也具有合法的动机.因此,对于国际诉讼竞合的法律规制应当以效益为价值取向,对国际诉讼竞合的消极后果和当事人的合法动机进行衡量,既要体现经济效率也要保护当事人的合法利益.目前世界上主要存在着四种不同的模式:放任平行诉讼模式、英美法系的自由裁量模式、大陆法系的承认预期模式和欧盟的先受理模式.中国应当以承认预期模式作为原则,以自由裁量模式作为例外.唯有此,才能实现最佳的效益目标.     

国际平行诉讼的成因与对策分析

分析了国际平行诉讼产生的原因 ,阐述并分析了各国国内及相关国际条约对国际平行诉讼采用的不同对策 ,就当前我国立法和司法现状指出了存在的问题并提出了建议。     

International Recognition of Victims' Rights

Since its inception, the United Nations has adopted two GeneralAssembly resolutions dealing with the rights of victims: the1985 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victimsof Crime and Abuse of Power and the 2006 Basic Principles andGuidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victimsof Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian Law. The focus of theformer was on victims of domestic crimes, while that of thelatter is on victims of international crimes; more particularly,gross violations of international human rights law and seriousviolations of international humanitarian law. The 2006 Principlesare, for all practical purposes, an international bill of rightsof victims. Their adoption has been hard-fought, but their implementationboth at the national and international levels is sure to stillface many obstacles. Parallel to this historic development havebeen decisions by the European Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as provisionsin the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), givingstanding to victims in ICC proceedings, but also certain rightsof compensation. These parallel developments, as well as otherswithin domestic legal systems, evidence a wide movement towardsthe recognition of the rights of victims of crime, whether domesticor international, or gross violations of human rights. Thisarticle re-traces the historic origin of victims' rights indomestic and international legal systems, focusing particularlyon the adoption of the two international instruments mentionedabove, and more particularly on the negotiating history of the2006 Principles. A detailed commentary of these Principles constitutesthe centerpiece of this article.     

欧洲法律下的提单管辖权条款

本文通过对荷兰法律及有关管辖权和民商事判决执行方面的两个主要公约 (EEX公约和 L ugano公约 )的介绍 ,结合大量的案例和欧共体法院对公约的解释 ,论述了欧洲法律下一个有效的标准格式中的管辖权条款所包含的条件及公约和各国国内法对当事人自由订立的标准格式中的管辖权条款的限制。     

The Last Bite of the BITs—Supremacy of EU Law versus Investment Treaty Arbitration

According to Article 267 TFEU, national courts of the EU Member States can (and sometimes must) ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation and application of Community law, including international treaties and recommendations, and on the validity of Community secondary legislation. In this way, it is ensured that EU citizens are treated equally throughout the Union. However, this is not applicable when it comes to arbitral proceedings, be they commercial or investment arbitrations. The Court does not accept references for preliminary rulings from arbitral tribunals. For this reason, respondent states in international arbitral proceedings have argued that arbitration and EU law are utterly incompatible. In their submissions as respondents in arbitral proceedings, EU Member States have argued that, as a result of EU accession, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been automatically terminated. In subsidiary, they sometimes claim that, due to their incompatibility with EU law, BITs cannot apply. But if BITs are not applicable anymore, there are few remedies left for investors within the EU.     

论英国法院的止诉禁令

分析止诉禁令与仲裁的关系,归纳申请伦敦仲裁一方当事人面对另一方在其他国家法院起诉的对策,探讨《布鲁塞尔规则》对英国法院就欧盟法院诉讼作出止诉禁令的冲击后,提出保护伦敦仲裁与针对the"Front Com or"案可以考虑的6个对策及向英国法院申请止诉禁令的原则等。     

Principle of Community exhaustion upheld by Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice confirmed that Article 4(2) ofthe Information Directive did not permit member states to introduceor retain a rule of international exhaustion of the distributionright and rejected a challenge to the validity of that provision.     

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).     

Protecting Supremacy from External Influences: A Precondition for a European Constitutional Legal Order?

The number of international law obligations that have binding force on the Union and/or its Member States is sharply increasing. This paper argues that in this light the well‐functioning of the European Union ultimately depends on the protection of the principle of supremacy from law originating outside of the EU legal order. The supremacy of EU law is essential to ensuring that Member States cannot use national rules to justify derogation from EU law. As a matter of principle, international treaties concluded by the Member States rank at the level of ordinary national law within the European legal order and below all forms of European law (both primary and secondary). Article 351 TFEU exceptionally allows Member States to derogate from primary EU law in order to comply with obligations under anterior international agreements. It does not however allow a departure from the principle of supremacy that underlies the European legal order. In Kadi I, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that Article 351 TFEU, while it permits derogation from primary law, may under no circumstances permit circumvention of the “very foundations” of the EU legal order. This introduces an additional condition that all acts within the sphere of EU law need to comply with a form of “super‐supreme law”. It also strengthened the principle of supremacy and gave the Court of Justice the role of the guardian of the Union's “foundations”. The Court of Justice acted on the necessity of defending the Union as a distinct legal order, retaining the autonomous interpretation of its own law, and ultimately ensuring that the Union can act as an independent actor on the international plane.     

Reparations To Victims Before The International Criminal Court: Lessons From International Mass Claims Processes

The implementation of the rights of victims under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court presents momentous challenges to the Court. Given the nature of the crimes falling under the Court's jurisdiction, victims' reparation claims are often likely to number thousands, if not tens of thousands. Under the Statute, it is the Court's task to organize and determine the modalities of victims' participation in the reparation proceedings. The Court is well advised to closely examine the approaches and solutions developed by modern international and national mass claims programs that have faced similar challenges. The paper analyses in detail these challenges and outlines the options available to the Court. The authors are attorneys with Lalive, an international law firm based in Geneva, Switzerland. For further information see http://www.lalive.ch.