最新修订的民事诉讼法在涉外编中增加了应诉管辖条款,但该条款在文义和体系解释上与国内部分原有的应诉管辖条款有龃龉,不仅不能回应实践中现存的疑惑,还有可能引起新的问题,为了解决这一问题,本文梳理了我国民诉法中应诉管辖条款的变...最新修订的民事诉讼法在涉外编中增加了应诉管辖条款,但该条款在文义和体系解释上与国内部分原有的应诉管辖条款有龃龉,不仅不能回应实践中现存的疑惑,还有可能引起新的问题,为了解决这一问题,本文梳理了我国民诉法中应诉管辖条款的变迁及其背后的原理,在此基础上结合实践中的难题探讨了涉外编应诉管辖条款的性质,并针对该条款的进一步修改或解释提出建议。The newly revised Civil Procedure Law has added the provision of jurisdiction over lawsuits in the foreign-related part, but this provision is in disagreement with some of the original provisions of jurisdiction over lawsuits in China in terms of textual meaning and systematic interpretation, which not only fails to respond to the existing doubts in practice, but also may give rise to new problems. In order to solve the problem, this paper combs through the changes and the rationale behind the provisions of the jurisdiction over lawsuits in the Civil Procedure Law of China. On the basis of this, it discusses the nature of the provisions on respondent jurisdiction in the foreign-related codification in the light of the difficulties in practice, and puts forward suggestions for the further modification or interpretation of the provisions.展开更多
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
文摘最新修订的民事诉讼法在涉外编中增加了应诉管辖条款,但该条款在文义和体系解释上与国内部分原有的应诉管辖条款有龃龉,不仅不能回应实践中现存的疑惑,还有可能引起新的问题,为了解决这一问题,本文梳理了我国民诉法中应诉管辖条款的变迁及其背后的原理,在此基础上结合实践中的难题探讨了涉外编应诉管辖条款的性质,并针对该条款的进一步修改或解释提出建议。The newly revised Civil Procedure Law has added the provision of jurisdiction over lawsuits in the foreign-related part, but this provision is in disagreement with some of the original provisions of jurisdiction over lawsuits in China in terms of textual meaning and systematic interpretation, which not only fails to respond to the existing doubts in practice, but also may give rise to new problems. In order to solve the problem, this paper combs through the changes and the rationale behind the provisions of the jurisdiction over lawsuits in the Civil Procedure Law of China. On the basis of this, it discusses the nature of the provisions on respondent jurisdiction in the foreign-related codification in the light of the difficulties in practice, and puts forward suggestions for the further modification or interpretation of the provisions.
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.
