美国公司人格化的司法历程及意义

发布时间：2018-04-15 23:35

本文选题：公司 + 公司人化　；参考：《山东大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：公司自然人化产生于美国,在这个过程中,美国法院的司法判决功不可没,美国公司的“人”化演进过程也是一系列司法判决推演的过程。美国公司人化影响深远,欧洲、澳大利亚、新西兰、台湾、日本等纷纷借鉴美国,通过最高法院司法判例的形式或者通过宪法条款明文规定的方式赋予公司“人”的宪法地位。凯恩斯学派倡导国家干预有一个理论假设：政府是“无所不能与仁慈的”或“聪明且意愿良好”的政府。但是,这一基础理论假设仅仅是一种假说,没有证据证明政府比市场更聪明,那由政府对经济进行调节的充分理由是什么呢?市场经济并非排斥政府的干预,政府对经济的干预也体现了某种必然性,政府调控经济的经济立法是普遍的,在大部分情况下经济立法的目的是好的,但这并不能保证经济立法适度。经济立法者不能既充当运动员又充当裁判,其经济立法的目的有无实现的可能性,其立法手段与立法目的是否相符,不能由经济立法者自己证明。而且,由于经济立法者不是经济调控的对象,其对经济立法的不适度导致的不良后果,只有当损失已实际发生并且已经累积到一定数量时才会意识到,具有明显的滞后性,而公司作为经济调控的受调控方,是与经济调控直接相关的利益相关方,是以最小的社会成本感知经济立法不适度的主体。通过赋予公司以自然人的权利,当经济调控的不适度侵犯了公司的基础性经济权利,公司会及时对政府的侵权作出回应,通过行使诉权由法院对经济立法的适度与否作出判决。通过赋予公司自然人权利以对抗国家的不当干预符合经济学最基本的逻辑——成本收益的比较分析,以最小的社会成本实现最大的社会收益。文章分为四个章节,分别从美国公司法民主化与人格化的关系、美国公司人格化的司法历程、美国公司人格化的意义以及美国公司人格化对我国公司的启示四个方面进行分析。第一章,对美国公司法的民主化历程进行概述,并对其与公司人格化的关系进行分析。第二章,分别阐述了在公司是人造之物的“授予权”理论下、自然实体理论下的司法判例以及对公司取得每一项具体人权产生重大影响的司法判例。第三章,分别从国家干预与经济自由之间的平衡、为经济繁荣保驾护航以及对其他国家的影响的角度阐述了美国公司人格化的意义。第四章,美国公司人格化对我国公司的启示,从我国公司人权缺失的实例入手,根据我国的实际情况探讨出公司人权在我国的实现路径。
[Abstract]:The naturalization of the corporation comes into being in the United States. In this process, the judicial decision of the American court can not be ignored, and the evolution of the "personalization" of the American company is also the process of a series of judicial decision deduction.In Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan and so on, we have drawn lessons from the United States to endow the company with the constitutional status of "person" through the form of judicial precedents of the Supreme Court or by the way expressly stipulated in the Constitution.The Keynesian school advocated state intervention on the theoretical assumption that government is "omnipotent and merciful" or "smart and well-intentioned".However, this basic hypothesis is only a hypothesis, there is no evidence that the government is smarter than the market, so what is the good reason for the government to regulate the economy?The market economy is not exclusive of the government's intervention. The government's intervention in the economy also reflects a certain inevitability. The economic legislation governing the economy by the government is universal, and in most cases the purpose of the economic legislation is good.But this does not guarantee moderate economic legislation.Economic legislator can not act as both athlete and judge, the possibility of whether the purpose of economic legislation can be realized or not, and whether the legislative means are consistent with the legislative purpose can not be proved by the economic legislator himself.Moreover, since economic legislators are not the object of economic regulation and control, the undesirable consequences of their improper economic legislation will only be realized when the losses have actually occurred and have accumulated to a certain amount.As the regulated party of the economic regulation, the company is the stakeholder directly related to the economic regulation and control, and is the subject that perceives the economic legislation with the minimum social cost.By endowing the company with the right of natural person, when the economic regulation and control has violated the basic economic rights of the company, the company will respond to the infringement of the government in time, and the court will decide whether the economic legislation is moderate or not through the exercise of the right of action.By giving the natural person the right to resist the improper intervention of the state, it is in line with the most basic logic of economics, the comparative analysis of the cost and benefit, to realize the maximum social benefit with the minimum social cost.The article is divided into four chapters. It analyzes the relationship between the democratization and personalization of American corporate law, the judicial process of corporate personalization in the United States, the significance of personalization of American companies and the enlightenment of personalization of American companies to Chinese companies.The first chapter summarizes the democratization process of American Company Law and analyzes its relationship with corporate personalization.In the second chapter, the judicial precedents under the theory of "granting power" of the company's artificial objects and the judicial precedents which have a significant impact on the company's acquisition of each specific human right are expounded respectively.The third chapter discusses the significance of American company personalization from the point of view of the balance between state intervention and economic freedom to protect economic prosperity and influence on other countries.The fourth chapter, the American company personalization to our country company enlightenment, starts from our country company human rights flaw example, according to our country actual situation discusses the company human rights realization path in our country.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.29;DD916.2

【参考文献】