涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权研究
发布时间：2018-12-11 19:48
【摘要】：随着网络技术的发展和经济全球化的推进,涉外网络消费日渐流行。根据参与主体的不同,涉外网络消费可分为B2C模式和C2C模式两种,即企业对个人模式和个人对个人模式。B2C模式的涉外网络消费是最先发展起来的涉外电子商务类型,在给人们的生活带来便利的同时,也不可避免的导致了各种纠纷的产生,合同纠纷便是其中最主要的一类。纠纷发生之后,若当事人向法院提起诉讼,法院只有确定了管辖权才能保证后续程序的开展。然而,由于网络空间与现实空间的差异,现有的管辖权规范难以直接应用,所以我们有必要对涉外网络消费纠纷的管辖权进行深入探讨。本文立足于涉外B2C合同纠纷,运用案例分析法、比较分析法,全文包含五部分内容。第一部分是涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权概述。本部分采用递进式结构,首先对“B2C合同”和“涉外B2C合同”分别进行了解析,然后介绍涉外B2C合同纠纷的起因及特征,最后引出涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权的内涵及意义。第二部分是对涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权归属争议的分析。首先阐述涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权归属争议的表现,主要表现为管辖权的积极冲突,也有消极冲突的情形。然后分析了涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权归属争议的直接原因、主要原因以及根本原因。本文第三部分是对涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权相关学说的介绍。首先根据学说的内容将其划分成三类来阐述,分别是“强调网络空间独立性的理论”、“强调网络空间技术性的理论”和“主张沿用传统管辖依据的理论”,然后从优势和不足两方面对各种学说进行了评析。本文第四部分从国家和国际组织两个层面展开,选取了两大法系中的典型国家瑞士、美国以及欧盟和海牙国际私法会议两大国际组织,介绍了它们在立法中规定的管辖权规则,包括“消费者原地管辖规则”、“协议管辖规则”以及“最低联系标准”。在介绍美国的管辖权规则时,结合了 “Aero Toy Store,LLC v. Grieve”、“Butler v.Beer Across America” 和 “Christopher Spechat etc. v.Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc ” 三个案例进行论述。接着,本文对这些典型国家和国际组织的管辖权规则进行了分析,指出了它们在立法思路上的相同点以及它们在价值取向上的不同点。本文第五部分将研究的视角转向我国,首先介绍了我国涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权的立法现状,然后总结了我国当前立法的不足之处,最后,本文尝试提出了一些建议,以期对涉外B2C合同纠纷管辖权立法的完善有所裨益。
[Abstract]:With the development of network technology and the advancement of economic globalization, foreign internet consumption is becoming more and more popular. According to the different participants, the foreign network consumption can be divided into two types: B2C mode and C2C mode, that is, the business-to-individual mode and the individual-to-individual mode. The foreign network consumption of the B2C model is the first type of foreign-related electronic commerce developed. While bringing convenience to people's life, it inevitably leads to all kinds of disputes, of which contract disputes are the most important. After the dispute occurs, if the parties bring a lawsuit to the court, the court can guarantee the subsequent procedure only if the jurisdiction is determined. However, due to the difference between cyberspace and real space, the existing jurisdiction norms are difficult to be directly applied, so it is necessary for us to explore the jurisdiction of foreign network consumption disputes. Based on the foreign B 2 C contract dispute, this paper uses case analysis method and comparative analysis method, which contains five parts. The first part is an overview of the jurisdiction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. This part adopts the progressive structure, analyzes "B2C contract" and "Foreign-related B2C contract" respectively, then introduces the causes and characteristics of the foreign B2C contract dispute, finally leads to the connotation and significance of the foreign B2C contract dispute jurisdiction. The second part is the analysis of jurisdiction over foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. Firstly, this paper expounds the behavior of jurisdiction ownership dispute in foreign B2C contract disputes, which mainly shows the positive conflict of jurisdiction and the situation of negative conflict. Then it analyzes the direct reason, main cause and root cause of jurisdiction dispute about foreign B 2 C contract dispute. The third part of this paper is the introduction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes related to jurisdiction theory. Firstly, it is divided into three categories according to the content of the theory, namely "the theory of emphasizing the independence of cyberspace", "the theory of emphasizing the technicality of cyberspace" and "the theory that advocates to follow the traditional jurisdictional basis". Then from the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of theories are evaluated. In the fourth part of this paper, from the two aspects of national and international organizations, the author selects Switzerland, the United States, the European Union and the Hague Conference on Private International Law to introduce the jurisdiction rules stipulated in their legislation, which are the typical countries in the two legal systems, the United States and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. These include the Consumer in place Rule, the Agreement Rule and the minimum contact Standard. In introducing the United States jurisdiction rules, a combination of "Aero Toy Store,LLC v. Grieve", "Butler v.Beer Across America" and "Christopher Spechat etc." V.Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc is discussed in three cases. Then, this paper analyzes the jurisdiction rules of these typical countries and international organizations, and points out their similarities in legislative thinking and their differences in value orientation. In the fifth part of this paper, we turn the research angle to our country. Firstly, we introduce the current legislation of the jurisdiction of foreign B2C contract disputes, then summarize the shortcomings of our current legislation. Finally, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions. With a view to foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes jurisdiction legislation to improve some benefits.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6
[Abstract]:With the development of network technology and the advancement of economic globalization, foreign internet consumption is becoming more and more popular. According to the different participants, the foreign network consumption can be divided into two types: B2C mode and C2C mode, that is, the business-to-individual mode and the individual-to-individual mode. The foreign network consumption of the B2C model is the first type of foreign-related electronic commerce developed. While bringing convenience to people's life, it inevitably leads to all kinds of disputes, of which contract disputes are the most important. After the dispute occurs, if the parties bring a lawsuit to the court, the court can guarantee the subsequent procedure only if the jurisdiction is determined. However, due to the difference between cyberspace and real space, the existing jurisdiction norms are difficult to be directly applied, so it is necessary for us to explore the jurisdiction of foreign network consumption disputes. Based on the foreign B 2 C contract dispute, this paper uses case analysis method and comparative analysis method, which contains five parts. The first part is an overview of the jurisdiction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. This part adopts the progressive structure, analyzes "B2C contract" and "Foreign-related B2C contract" respectively, then introduces the causes and characteristics of the foreign B2C contract dispute, finally leads to the connotation and significance of the foreign B2C contract dispute jurisdiction. The second part is the analysis of jurisdiction over foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes. Firstly, this paper expounds the behavior of jurisdiction ownership dispute in foreign B2C contract disputes, which mainly shows the positive conflict of jurisdiction and the situation of negative conflict. Then it analyzes the direct reason, main cause and root cause of jurisdiction dispute about foreign B 2 C contract dispute. The third part of this paper is the introduction of foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes related to jurisdiction theory. Firstly, it is divided into three categories according to the content of the theory, namely "the theory of emphasizing the independence of cyberspace", "the theory of emphasizing the technicality of cyberspace" and "the theory that advocates to follow the traditional jurisdictional basis". Then from the advantages and disadvantages of a variety of theories are evaluated. In the fourth part of this paper, from the two aspects of national and international organizations, the author selects Switzerland, the United States, the European Union and the Hague Conference on Private International Law to introduce the jurisdiction rules stipulated in their legislation, which are the typical countries in the two legal systems, the United States and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. These include the Consumer in place Rule, the Agreement Rule and the minimum contact Standard. In introducing the United States jurisdiction rules, a combination of "Aero Toy Store,LLC v. Grieve", "Butler v.Beer Across America" and "Christopher Spechat etc." V.Netscape Communications Corporation and America Online, Inc is discussed in three cases. Then, this paper analyzes the jurisdiction rules of these typical countries and international organizations, and points out their similarities in legislative thinking and their differences in value orientation. In the fifth part of this paper, we turn the research angle to our country. Firstly, we introduce the current legislation of the jurisdiction of foreign B2C contract disputes, then summarize the shortcomings of our current legislation. Finally, this paper tries to put forward some suggestions. With a view to foreign-related B-2 C contract disputes jurisdiction legislation to improve some benefits.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 刘学在;郑涛;;网购纠纷诉讼中的消费者住所地管辖规则[J];理论探索;2015年05期
2 孙尚鸿;;中国涉外网络侵权管辖权研究[J];法律科学(西北政法大学学报);2015年02期
3 刘益灯;陈璐;;论网络消费法律问题及其解决对策[J];湖南大学学报(社会科学版);2013年05期
4 张颖;;我国互联网案件管辖权规则的完善[J];长江大学学报(社会科学版);2012年04期
5 刘益灯;;涉外网络消费中的法律难点问题研究[J];政治与法律;2011年09期
6 石峰;蔡杰;;原告住所地与网络侵权案件的法院管辖[J];上海大学学报(社会科学版);2011年02期
7 袁海龙;;我国电子商务纠纷管辖权现状及其完善构想[J];绵阳师范学院学报;2011年01期
8 潘军;胡成建;;论冲突法视角下互联网法律纠纷的管辖权[J];鸡西大学学报;2010年03期
9 夏晓红;;互联网环境下的国际民商事管辖权[J];北方法学;2008年02期
10 黄任众;;论与网络相关的争议之管辖权[J];法学评论;2006年06期
相关会议论文 前1条
1 杨o，
本文编号：2373122
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2373122.html
