美国联邦应对“挑选法院”规则的嬗变与启示

发布时间：2018-01-18 12:07

本文关键词：美国联邦应对“挑选法院”规则的嬗变与启示　出处：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：去年七月，韩亚航空的一架波音777客机在即将降落旧金山机场时突生事故，偏离航道，起火燃烧，造成3名中国学生死亡，引发国人的广泛关注。今年三月的“马航事件”，马来西亚航空一架同型号客机突然失联，并在数十天的紧张搜索后被确认失事，机上包括154名中国乘客在内的227名乘客和12名机组人员无一生还，更是使国人陷入巨大的哀痛。悲痛之余，受害者家属们事后对于索赔诉讼的管辖地选择也引起了新闻界的广泛关注，即使并非专注于法律报道的媒体也开始讨论这一选择背后的原因和可操作性，因为虽然过程和性质都明显不同，但两起事件的遇难乘客家属都不约而同地以航空公司和飞机制造商为被告，选择在美国起诉。当事人对于诉讼管辖地的选择除因为事故本身存在美国因素外，也是因为美国在赔偿和诉讼制度上的巨大优势。动辄百万千万美元的的赔偿数额、高昂的诉讼代理费和方便熟悉的庭审程序对于当事人和律师都有很大的吸引力。然而，美国法官如何确认对案件的管辖权，而不是以认定当事人存在不正当的“挑选法院”行为而驳回诉讼，作为一个摆在当事人和律师面前的前提问题，却缺乏深入全面的阐释。本文的第一章，即以“挑选法院”概念的性质本身为关注对象，，偿试厘清美国法律尤其是判例法中对于“挑选法院”行为的定性及其与相似概念间的关系，一方面得出关于“挑选法院”、“法院选择”、“不方便法院”和“不适当审判管辖地”等反映案件管辖权瑕疵相似概念间差异的初步结论，从而得出“挑选法院”的认定只是以“不方便法院”原则驳回诉讼的前提；另一方面也探寻法官针对上述不同概念分别可能会作出的大致处理方式。第二章则着重介绍美国联邦法院法官在个案中对“挑选法院”问题加以定性和处理时所形成的思路与判例规则，并突出地向大家展示处理思路因“挑选法院”问题存在于联邦法院之间、联邦与州法院之间以及联邦与国外法院之间而体现出的差异，并找出差异背后的一条明晰规律。第三章则力求对这一问题的认识能向更深层次推进，展现出规则及规律背后的动因——这些动因是具有价值冲突性质的，并根植于深厚的经济、政治与法律的历史背景之下。本文第四章则将焦点转向中国，探寻研究对象——美国联邦法院对“挑选法院”的应对，可为我国提供借鉴与启发之处。在讨论这一问题时，笔者分国家和公民个人两个层面加以论述。对于国家的启示和借鉴，自然不可回避本国同样是多法域国家这一事实，针对本国区际和涉外管辖权冲突问题的应对分别作了阐述；对于公民个人的启示和借鉴，则以如何在赴美诉讼中取得法院的审理为论点加以论述。理解美国的管辖权冲突处理经验，对本国司法和公民个人利益的维护都不无帮助。结语部分，笔者重申了“挑选法院”现象利弊并存的观点，它可能导致的管辖权竞争对国家法制公正与稳定造成的威胁，及其背后所隐藏的正义相对性理念和自由主义精神都值得我们关注。无论如何，若想根本解决其中的弊端，都须以实体法的统一为终极目标，并且行且思，顺势而为。
[Abstract]:Last July, Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft landed at SanFrancico Airport in the sudden accident, off course, fire, killing 3 students China death, caused widespread concern in China. In March this year, Malaysia Airlines incident, Malaysia Airlines aircraft of the same type aircraft suddenly lost contact has been confirmed crash in tense search several days after the machine includes 154 China passengers, 227 passengers and 12 crew aboard, is to make people fall into the huge grief. Grief, the families of the victims to claim the jurisdiction after the selection has aroused wide attention from the press. If not focus on Legal media have begun to discuss the reasons behind this choice and operability, because although the process and properties are obviously different, but the passengers killed two incidents of family members are invariably to hang Air companies and aircraft manufacturers are chosen to be prosecuted in the United States.
The parties to litigation jurisdiction choice in itself because of the accident factors exist in the United States, because the United States is a huge advantage in compensation and lawsuit system. The amount of compensation for the hundreds of million million dollars, high litigation fees and convenient with the trial procedure have a great attraction for the parties and lawyers. However, the U.S. how to confirm the jurisdiction of judge, rather than to the determination of the existence of unfair "forumshopping" behavior and dismissed the lawsuit as a lawyer in front of the parties and the premise of the problem, but the lack of in-depth and comprehensive interpretation.
The first chapter of this article, namely "forumshopping" concept of the nature of itself as the research object, try to clarify the law of the United States especially the case law qualitative for "forumshopping" behavior and similar relations between concepts, on the one hand drawn about "forumshopping", "court", "inconvenient court" and "no proper jurisdiction" reflects the jurisdiction and preliminary conclusions similar concept differences between defects, so that the "identified forumshopping" is "without conveniencee dismiss the lawsuit; on the other hand also explore the way the judge handled roughly according to the different concept may be given by the second chapter. Introduces the ideas and rules formed by the federal court of justice to the determination and management of" forumshopping "problem in the case when, and mainly to show treatment Ideas for "forumshopping" problems in the federal court, the difference between the federal and state courts and federal courts between with foreign and reflect, and to find out the differences behind a clear law. The third chapter to the understanding of this issue can promote to a deeper level, showing the rules and laws behind motivation -- the motivation is of value conflict in nature, and is deeply rooted in the profound economic, political and legal under the historical background. The fourth chapter will focus on China, explore the research object of the United States federal court selected court "to" pick the response, can provide reference and inspiration for our country. In the discussion of this problem the author, from two aspects of state and individual citizens of countries for inspiration and reference, can not avoid their nature is also the fact that the country's multiple jurisdictions, for their regions and Foreign jurisdiction conflict coping were elaborated for individual citizens; enlightenment and reference, in the United States on how to obtain a court trial proceedings for argument are discussed. Understanding the jurisdiction conflict treatment experience of the United States, to maintain their justice and interests of individual citizens are not without help. In the conclusion part, the author reiterates the "forumshopping" phenomenon of advantages and disadvantages coexist, it may lead to the jurisdiction of the competition to the national legal justice and stability threat, hidden behind the concept of justice and its relative and liberal spirit are worth our attention. In any case, in order to solve the problems, have to be unified substantive law for the ultimate goal, and the line and thinking, with them.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D971.2;D925.1

【相似文献】