海峡两岸区际民事平行诉讼问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-11 09:10

【摘要】：在中国这一“一国四法域”的国家中，祖国大陆地区和台湾地区各自构成独立的法域。由于分属不同的法域，海峡两岸有关民事管辖权的立法必然存在差异，就同一纠纷事实两岸法院均享有管辖权的情况并不鲜见，若此时相同当事人就同一纠纷事实分别向两岸法院起诉，则可能形成两岸区际民事平行诉讼。随着近年来两岸民众间的民事纠纷的增多，两岸区际民事平行诉讼的数量迅速攀升。然而目前两岸对待彼此间的平行诉讼的态度仍然是总体上放任其存在，没有形成系统的规制措施，现有的零星的规制措施难以满足现实规制的需要，造成了两岸司法资源的极大浪费。因此，我们有必要在探讨两岸区际民事平行诉讼的基本理论的基础上，借鉴国外的经验，考察海峡两岸的规制现状，总结出一套行之有效的规制措施，以期能对规制两岸区际民事平行诉讼的立法和司法实践有所助益。本文共计四万余字，主体结构分为四个部分，分别就两岸区际民事平行诉讼的界定，，成因与效应，国外对平行诉讼的规制措施，两岸规制彼此间的平行诉讼的现状与完善建议等问题进行探讨。主要内容如下：第一部分：两岸区际民事平行诉讼的界定。首先，辨析其概念。两岸区际民事平行诉讼是指相同当事人就同一纷争事实同时或先后向一个中国内的大陆和台湾地区法院起诉，并由两岸法院同时或先后受理的法律现象。其次，分析其特征。当事人相同，纠纷事实相同，诉讼进行的平行性以及规制的艰巨性是两岸区际民事平行诉讼的四大特征。最后，划分其类型。以当事人的诉讼地位为标准，可将其可分为重复诉讼和对抗诉讼两种类型；而依据不同的诉讼阶段，又可分为受理前、受理后审结前以及审结后的两岸区际民事平行诉讼这三大类型。第二部分：两岸区际民事平行诉讼的成因及效应分析。两岸区际民事平行诉讼的成因可先分为客观原因和主观原因两个层面。其中，大陆当事人赴台行使诉权的受限、两岸民事管辖权立法的差异以及一事不再理原则在规制两岸区际民事平行诉讼上的缺欠是三大客观原因，而当事人受诉讼利益的驱动是造成两岸区际民事平行诉讼的主观原因。而就两岸区际民事平行诉讼的效应分析而言，虽然其会对当事人债权的全面保护、诉讼时效经过的避免等方面产生积极影响，但其会带来诸如当事人的诉累、两岸司法资源的浪费等诸多弊端。第三部分：平行诉讼的规制模式及其评价——比较法上的考察。这部分着重介绍目前国外规制平行诉讼的三大模式。以美国为代表的英美法系国家采用的是以法官利益衡量为核心的自由裁量模式，由法官对各种利益关系的比较衡量，分别采取不方便法院原则、未决诉讼、禁诉令和国际礼让等多种方式对平行诉讼问题加以解决。而以德国、瑞士为代表的大陆法系部分国家采用承认预期模式，即以预测在先的外国诉讼日后能作出为本国法院所承认的判决为前提来限制本国的诉讼。最后，既有英美法系国家，又有大陆法系国家加入的欧盟组织采用的是先受诉法院模式，即通过事先规定由最先受理的法院行使管辖权来限制平行诉讼。第四部分：两岸区际民事平行诉讼的规制现状及完善建议。本部分为文章重点。首先考察两岸区际民事平行诉讼的规制现状。先分别从立法层面和司法层面客观描述两岸区际民事平行诉讼的规制现状，再对规制现状进行评价。在分析规制现状的基础上，本文最后提出完善构想，即对两岸区际民事平行诉讼的规制必须先形成一个总体思路，在总体思路的指导下再构建具体规制措施。而具体规制措施有：协议管辖制度、不方便法院原则以及先受诉法院与未决诉讼相结合的制度。
[Abstract]:In China, a country with "one country, four jurisdictions", the mainland of China and Taiwan constitute separate jurisdictions. Due to their respective jurisdictions, there are bound to be differences in legislation on civil jurisdiction between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. It is not uncommon for courts on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to enjoy jurisdiction over the same dispute, if the same parties at this time have jurisdiction over the same dispute. With the increase of civil disputes between the people of both sides of the Strait in recent years, the number of parallel civil litigation between the two sides of the Strait has increased rapidly. However, the attitude of the two sides towards parallel civil litigation between each other is still generally laissez-faire, no form. Systematic regulation measures, existing sporadic regulation measures are difficult to meet the needs of practical regulation, resulting in a great waste of judicial resources on both sides of the Strait. Therefore, it is necessary for us to study the basic theory of cross-strait civil parallel litigation, draw lessons from foreign experience, inspect the status of cross-strait regulation, and summarize a set of practices. Effective regulation measures are expected to be helpful to the legislation and judicial practice of regulating cross-strait civil parallel litigation.
This paper is composed of more than 40,000 words. The main structure is divided into four parts. It discusses the definition, causes and effects of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation, foreign regulations on parallel litigation, the status quo of cross-strait parallel litigation and suggestions for improvement.
The first part is the definition of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation. First of all, the concept of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation is analyzed. The four characteristics of the cross-strait civil parallel litigation are the same parties, the same facts of disputes, the parallel nature of litigation and the difficulty of regulation. Before the end of the hearing, the three types of civil parallel litigation across the Taiwan Strait were concluded before and after the conclusion.
The second part is the analysis of the causes and effects of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation.The causes of cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation can be divided into objective and subjective reasons. The lack of parallel action is the three objective reasons, and the litigants are driven by the litigation interests, which is the subjective cause of the cross-strait civil parallel action. But it will bring many disadvantages, such as the litigation of the parties, the waste of judicial resources on both sides of the Straits.
The third part: the regulation mode of parallel litigation and its evaluation - Comparative Law investigation. This part focuses on the three major modes of regulating parallel litigation in foreign countries. The principle of inconvenience of court, pending litigation, injunction of prohibition and international comity are adopted to solve the problem of parallel litigation respectively. Finally, both common law countries and continental law countries have joined the European Union to adopt the model of court of first instance, that is, to restrict parallel litigation by prescribing in advance that the court of first instance should exercise jurisdiction.
This part is the focus of the article. Firstly, the paper investigates the current situation of the cross-strait civil parallel litigation. First, it objectively describes the current situation of the cross-strait civil parallel litigation from the legislative level and the judicial level, and then evaluates the current situation of the regulation. On the basis of the present situation of the regulation, this paper finally puts forward the idea of perfecting it, that is, the regulation of the cross-strait interregional civil parallel litigation must first form a general idea, and then construct specific regulatory measures under the guidance of the overall idea. The system.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】