国际民商事仲裁中国家豁免权问题探析

发布时间：2018-07-12 17:01

本文选题：国家豁免权 + 绝对豁免　；参考：《复旦大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：国家豁免权从产生到如今具有很长的历史了,俨然成为一条国际法的原则。在这漫长的历史岁月中,国家豁免权从概念的产生,范围的调整以及判断标准都在不断变化。本论文的着重点在于对国际民商事仲裁中国家豁免权问题的分析。中国的经济不断发展,国家与外国的法人以及自然人之间的各种法律纠纷时有产生,而我国目前并没有在国家豁免问题上立法,仅有一些相关规定散见于《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》、《中华人民共和国民法通则》、《中华人民共和国外交特权与豁免条例》等法规中。这样所造成的结果就是当争议发生时,不能通过法律途径来加以解决,而大多依靠外交途径。在争议数量不多的情况下,外交途径在一定程度上可以解决相关争议,然而在经济高速发展的今天,这种方式就显得力不从心了,而且外交途径缺乏统一性和预见性,这样就会对投资产生不利影响。依据以往的案例中方关于国家主权豁免的态度是坚持绝对豁免为原则,以放弃豁免为例外,而这种态度与现在大多数西方国家都通过立法和判例的形式确立了相对豁免原则的国际大环境不符。中国之所以坚持这样的原则,笔者考虑最为主要的原因是中国的经济形式是以公有制为主体的,在中国存在大量的国有以及公有制企业,为了防止国有资产的流失,国家主张绝对豁免的原则。然而随着中国经济的高速发展,我国的企业开始走出国门,到国外建厂或者投资,因此发生经济纠纷时由于两个国家的法律规定的不同就会产生争议。此时如果外国法院依据其国内法对争议做出了裁决,并执行了中国企业在该国的财产,这时我国的境地就会相当尴尬,难道要通过报复的方式加以解决吗?显然这是不明智的,由于我国己加入WTO,为了更好地吸引投资和保护本国的企业,增强其竞争力,势必需要我们转变态度,从绝对豁免主义向相对豁免主义过渡。如果依然在法律实践中坚持绝对豁免主义,很可能就会剥夺与政府进行贸易的私人的司法救济权利,国家从而赢得与私人交易不恰当的竞争优势。因此在当前市场经济体制下,在国家与个人主体进行商业交易时,如受到损害要怎样获得救济成为一个迫切需要解决的问题。因此必须明确国家享有豁免权的范围,以及国家的何种行为可以主张豁免权,这样对于国家以及其他主体都是极其重要的。由此可见我国急需出台一部关于国家豁免方面的法律,目前国外较为典型的有1976年美国《外国主权豁免法》、1978年英国《国家豁免法》、1979年新加坡《国家豁免法》、1982年加拿大《国家豁免法》、1985年澳大利亚《外国国家豁免法》,然而中国出台相关法律并非一朝一夕能完成的事,我们必须承认中国的法制还有待健全。笔者也希冀法律的尽快出台。然而贸易的争端依然要解决,怎样的一种方式可以在中国法律缺失的情况下有效地解决这些争议? 答案是利用国际民商事仲裁这样方式,仲裁对于法律的选择,时间,地点以及豁免权的问题上都具有很大自由度。接下来全文就将对国家豁免权进行分析,进而在法律实践中,尤其是国际民商事仲裁中国家豁免权应如何处理。
[Abstract]:The national immunity has a long history from its emergence to the present, and it has become a principle of international law. In this long history, the national immunity has changed from the concept, the adjustment of the scope and the standard of judgment. The emphasis of this paper is on the analysis of the immunity of the Chinese family in the international civil and commercial arbitration.
China's economy continues to develop, and there are various legal disputes between the state and foreign legal persons and natural persons, and our country is currently not legislates on the issue of state immunity. Only some of the relevant provisions are scattered in the People's Republic of China civil procedure law, the general principles of the civil law of People's Republic of China, < People's Republic of China diplomacy. In the rules of privilege and exemption regulations, the result is that when the dispute occurs, it can not be solved by legal way, and most of it depends on diplomatic channels. In the case of low number of disputes, diplomatic channels can solve relevant disputes to some extent. However, in the rapid economic development today, this way appears. Lack of strength and lack of unity and foresight in diplomatic channels will have an adverse impact on investment.
According to the previous cases, China's attitude to state sovereignty immunity is the principle of insisting on absolute immunity and giving up exemption as an exception, and this attitude is not consistent with the international environment that has established the principle of relative immunity in the form of legislation and precedents in most western countries. The main reason is that China's economic form is subject to public ownership. There are a large number of state-owned and public owned enterprises in China. In order to prevent the loss of state-owned assets, the State advocates the principle of absolute immunity. However, with the rapid development of China's economy, Chinese enterprises begin to go out of the country and build factories or investment abroad. In the case of an economic dispute, there will be a dispute due to the different legal provisions of the two countries. At this time, if the foreign court made a decision on the dispute according to its domestic law and carried out the property of the Chinese enterprise in the country, the situation in our country would be quite embarrassing. Is it to be solved in the way of retaliation? Obviously it is unwise. Because our country has joined the WTO, in order to attract investment and protect the domestic enterprises and enhance its competitiveness, we must change our attitude, transition from absolute immunity to relative immunity. If we persist in absolute exemption in legal practice, it will be able to deprive the private judicial rescue of trade with the government. In the current market economic system, it is an urgent problem to be solved, such as how to get relief, in the current market economic system, if it is damaged. Therefore, it is necessary to make clear the scope of the immunity of the state and what the state is. Behavior can claim immunity, which is extremely important for the country and other subjects.
This shows that China is in urgent need of a law on state immunity. At present, there are more typical foreign countries in 1976, such as the United States, the foreign sovereign immunity law, the national immunity law of the United Kingdom in 1978, the state immunity law of Singapore in 1979, the state immunity law of Canada in 1982, and the immunity law of Australia in 1985, but China has promulgated the law in 1985. The law is not completed overnight. We must admit that China's legal system remains to be improved. The author also hopes that the law will be promulgated as soon as possible. However, the dispute of trade remains to be solved. What kind of way can we solve these disputes effectively in the absence of Chinese law?
The answer is to make use of international civil and commercial arbitration in such a way that arbitration has great freedom for the choice of law, time, place and immunity. Then the full text will analyze the immunity of the state, and then how to deal with the immunity of the Chinese family in the legal practice, especially in the international civil and commercial arbitration.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D997.4

【参考文献】