我国国际商事法庭的管辖权制度在一定程度上不恰当地限制了当事人的意思自治,在商事性认定方面,当前规则缺乏统一明确的标准,对商事性与非商事性案件的边界划分不明确,未能准确界定商事案件的范围,难以适应现代国际商事活动的多样化需求...我国国际商事法庭的管辖权制度在一定程度上不恰当地限制了当事人的意思自治,在商事性认定方面,当前规则缺乏统一明确的标准,对商事性与非商事性案件的边界划分不明确,未能准确界定商事案件的范围,难以适应现代国际商事活动的多样化需求,可能导致案件性质界定不清、管辖范围过窄;另外在协议管辖方面,严格要求“实际联系”原则以及协议形式要求限制了协议管辖权的适用范围,难以满足国际商事实践的灵活性和多样性。我国国际商事法庭应当进一步明确商事性案件的范围,逐步弱化实际联系原则,放宽对管辖协议形式的要求,更加尊重当事人意思自治以提升国际商事司法的吸引力和影响力。The jurisdiction system of China’s international commercial courts, to some extent, inappropriately restricts the principle of party autonomy. Regarding the determination of “commerciality,” current rules lack uniform and clear standards, leading to ambiguous boundaries between commercial and non-commercial cases. This results in an unclear scope of commercial cases, making it difficult to meet the diverse needs of modern international commercial activities and potentially causing unclear case categorization and overly narrow jurisdictional scope. Additionally, with respect to jurisdiction by agreement, the strict requirement for the “substantial connection” principle and formal requirements for jurisdiction agreements limit the applicability of such agreements, failing to accommodate the flexibility and diversity of international commercial practices. China’s international commercial courts should further clarify the scope of commercial cases, gradually weaken the substantial connection principle, relax formal requirements for jurisdiction agreements, and place greater emphasis on respecting party autonomy to enhance the attractiveness and influence of international commercial judiciary.展开更多
文摘我国国际商事法庭的管辖权制度在一定程度上不恰当地限制了当事人的意思自治,在商事性认定方面,当前规则缺乏统一明确的标准,对商事性与非商事性案件的边界划分不明确,未能准确界定商事案件的范围,难以适应现代国际商事活动的多样化需求,可能导致案件性质界定不清、管辖范围过窄;另外在协议管辖方面,严格要求“实际联系”原则以及协议形式要求限制了协议管辖权的适用范围,难以满足国际商事实践的灵活性和多样性。我国国际商事法庭应当进一步明确商事性案件的范围,逐步弱化实际联系原则,放宽对管辖协议形式的要求,更加尊重当事人意思自治以提升国际商事司法的吸引力和影响力。The jurisdiction system of China’s international commercial courts, to some extent, inappropriately restricts the principle of party autonomy. Regarding the determination of “commerciality,” current rules lack uniform and clear standards, leading to ambiguous boundaries between commercial and non-commercial cases. This results in an unclear scope of commercial cases, making it difficult to meet the diverse needs of modern international commercial activities and potentially causing unclear case categorization and overly narrow jurisdictional scope. Additionally, with respect to jurisdiction by agreement, the strict requirement for the “substantial connection” principle and formal requirements for jurisdiction agreements limit the applicability of such agreements, failing to accommodate the flexibility and diversity of international commercial practices. China’s international commercial courts should further clarify the scope of commercial cases, gradually weaken the substantial connection principle, relax formal requirements for jurisdiction agreements, and place greater emphasis on respecting party autonomy to enhance the attractiveness and influence of international commercial judiciary.
