【作者】 韩朝炜；

【导师】 徐明；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 经济法学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 在激烈的证券市场利益冲突之中，我国证券交易所因履行自律职责已经被推上涉诉的“风口浪尖”。尽管法院所持立场从“拒之门外”到“谨慎介入”，其中进步有目共睹、令人可喜，但法院在审理案件时所感到的困惑，以及案件背后所存在的深层次问题不断地浮出水面。对此，学界尚缺乏深入的理论探讨，无法有效地为探索形成合理的司法介入政策提供足够的智力支持。本文试图在对证券交易所自律的法理和司法介入的基本理论进行研究的基础上，从自律侵权的民事司法救济、自律规则的法律效力及司法审查、纪律处分行为的司法审查等三个方面入手，对司法介入的典型问题予以探讨，进而在全面剖析我国司法介入的现状及权证诉讼典型案例之后，从司法、司法之外两个方面就如何完善相关制度提出建议。全文除导论外，共分为七章，主要内容如下：第一章是“证券交易所自律的理论基础”，共分两节。主要对自律进行了法理分析，并论述了证券交易所的角色定位。“自律”一词被广泛地运用于社会经济领域，通过对自律、市场自律、证券交易所自律的层层分析，界定了司法介入对象的基本内涵和外延。从国家与自律组织之间的关系看，自律可以分为四种基本模式，即政府（法定）模式、有限交易所的自律组织模式、强力交易所的自律组织模式以及独立会员的自律组织模式。证券交易所自律是对商人自律传统的传承，有着深厚的制度变迁底蕴。相对政府监管，证券交易所自律具有提高效率、降低成本、增加收益等重要优势。政府与市场是配置资源的两种基本制度安排。随着“无形之手”神话破灭，以及“有形之手”效用受到质疑，自律组织可以起到纠正市场失灵和政府失灵的“润滑剂”作用。证券交易所属于自律组织的重要组成部分。我国证券交易所虽然在法律上被定性为实行自律管理的法人，但其与政府监管机构之间的关系具有特殊性，导致独立法律人格缺失。第二章是“司法介入与证券交易所自律”，共分三节。主要对司法介入证券交易所自律的正当性、限度进行了研究，并分析了交易所自律面临的诉讼风险。司法介入是一个比较宽泛的概念，包括司法干预、司法监督、司法审查、司法救济等含义。而且，司法介入并不意味着突破被动性这一司法的固有性质。司法具有公正性、终局性和裁判性，这为其介入证券交易所自律奠定了坚实的基础。证券交易所自律因其存在利益冲突、不透明性和垄断等失灵现象，使司法介入有其必要性。司法所能解决的问题毕竟是有限的，这同样适用于司法介入证券交易所自律。关于能动抑或克制的司法哲学问题，对于确立司法介入的限度具有重要的理论借鉴价值。我国应当在复杂的价值取向之间进行妥善的平衡，通常应以尊重证券交易所自律为前提。证券交易所自律职责的多样性导致其诉讼风险的易发性。管理上市公司面临因审核上市申请、准予上市交易、强制退市等与上市企业、投资者之间发生纠纷；管理会员面临因会员资格管理、纪律处分行为等与会员、其他市场参与者之间发生纠纷；管理证券交易面临因自律规则合法性、交易信息、交易异常情况等与市场参与者之间发生纠纷。第三章是“司法介入证券交易所自律的一般问题”，共分两节。主要对证券交易所的法律属性、自律管理权的基本结构进行了研究。证券交易所的法律属性具有双重面相，公、私法人区分标准运用于交易所出现困境。证券交易所具有私法人基因，在本质上是互益法人。同时，证券交易所带有公法人因素，具有公共机构性质。这是由证券交易所经济功能的演进、会员主导模式的变迁、行政任务的民营化等因素造成的。即使在证券法制高度发达的美国，法院对证券交易所法律属性的认定，往往徘徊于私人组织与公共机构之间。英国法院通过确立“功能属性”标准对自律组织进行司法审查。我国司法实践对该问题的认识比较模糊，深感困惑。由于证券交易所兼具公私法人属性，其自律所引起的案件既有可能是民事诉讼，也有可能是行政诉讼。建议摈弃“行政主体”标准，借鉴“公共职能”标准确定案件诉讼类型。证券交易所自律管理权是权利与权力的混合体。自律管理权作为一种权利，主要是相对于国家权力而言的，是交易所具有独立人格的重要表现，包括“正当性”和“行为”两大要素，并具有派生性、集体性和固有性等基本特征。证券交易所自律管理权的权力属性起作用的关系包括两个方面：一是自律管理权与国家权力的关系；二是自律管理权与会员权利的关系。自律管理权力的来源包括法律授予之权力、契约所设之权力，而自律规则制定权、惩罚权、市场管理权、争端解决权等构成其基本内容。第四章是“证券交易所自律侵权的民事司法救济”，共分五节。主要论述了证券交易所自律侵权民事责任的基本法理，介绍了美国证券交易所自律民事责任豁免制度，探讨了交易所自律侵权中的归责原则和过错认定、因果关系认定以及交易所自律涉数人侵权的责任分担形态。自律侵权民事责任是证券交易所在履行自律职责过程中违反义务而应承担的不利后果，以回复权利为目的、兼具强制性和任意性并以财产责任为主，具有补偿、预防功能。证券交易所自律侵权责任的构成要件包括过错、损害事实、行为与损害事实之间的因果关系。自律侵权的损害后果属于纯粹经济损失。证券市场参与者特别是投资者可以向法院起诉要求证券交易所进行损害赔偿。在美国，默示私人诉权制度适用于证券交易所自律侵权。目前，我国法院从务实的角度出发对案件按照民事诉讼程序予以受理。美国证券交易所自律获得民事责任豁免是以主权豁免原则为理论基础的，相关典型案例代表着美国法院将绝对豁免原则适用于自律组织的基本发展过程。但是，美国法院也正在进行刺破民事责任绝对豁免“面纱”的尝试，由此引发激烈争论。对于美国的这项制度，我国学者见仁见智，而司法实践不予承认。我国没有必要全面引进该项制度，因为证券交易所的重要地位要求其有承担责任的压力；适当责任能够促进资源更有效率地分配；适当责任能够有效约束证券交易所的自利性；民事责任豁免违背程序正义原则。自律侵权民事责任的归责原则，可以过错责任原则为基础，并采用过错推定的方法来认定证券交易所的过错。在界定证券交易所自律侵权中的过错时，适合采用客观过错说，这与保护金融消费者的目标相契合、能够合理解释自律管理法人的过错、有利于节省司法资源确保审理效率。按照不同标准，可以将自律侵权中的过错分为故意与过失、作为过错与不作为过错，对证券交易所的责任认定均产生重要影响。尤其是，证券交易所应就其不作为过错承担侵权责任。对自律侵权中过错的判断宜采用客观标准，包括法定标准和善良管理人标准两个方面。关于自律侵权的因果关系，学界及实务界中主要存在必然因果关系说和相当因果关系说，但居于通说地位的必然因果关系理论存在严重缺陷。建议借鉴二元论因果关系学说，从事实层面考察自律管理行为是否是损害的充分原因，并从法律层面考察此种因果关系是否具有相当性。在涉数人侵权的责任分担中，证券交易所因共同侵权行为、以累积因果关系表现的无意思联络数人侵权而承担连带责任；当受害人因交易所自律管理对象从事证券禁止性行为或违反法定义务而遭受损失时，如果交易所没有履行或者没有完全履行自律职责，应当在其能够防止或制止损害的范围内承担相应的补充赔偿责任。第五章是“证券交易所自律规则的法律效力及司法审查”，共分四节。主要对证券交易所自律规则进行了法理研究，分析了自律规则的效力基础，对境外自律规则涉诉情况进行了考察，探讨了自律规则的司法审查问题。证券交易所自律规则是交易所履行自律职能的法律渊源，以其普遍约束力维护公共利益，且具有优先适用效力。与法律规范相比，自律规则具有专业性、低成本、灵活性等优势，并具有填补价值、转化价值和共生价值等内在价值。从总体上说，自律规则属于行业自治性规范，但表现出行政规范性文件的面相、商事习惯的特征以及契约的性质。目前，我国证券交易所已经基本形成与其履行自律职能相适应的规则体系。自律规则的效力由其合法性所生成，反映证券市场参与者对自律规则的认同。内容的合目的性和形式的正当性是自律规则获得效力的重要前提。在自律规则制定的实体性控制方面，制定时应当遵循不得与上位法相互抵触、符合资本市场发展需求、确保规则自身科学有效、维护规则内部体系和谐等原则，内容主要包括上市规则、交易规则、会员管理规则等。在自律规则制定的程序性控制方面，自律规则制定适用正当程序是实现证券交易所自律法治化、提高自律规则理性程度、确保自律规则有效实施的内在需要，程序民主、程序平等、程序理性和程序效率是必须遵守的程序公正标准，但标准的适用与立法相比是有限的。而且，审议机构、提出程序、形成程序和生效程序等制度构成遵循正当程序标准的基本环节。境外证券交易所自律规则制定程序对我们有重要启示。自律规则对市场参与者具有约束力，有利于确保证券交易所更好地履行自律职责、维护证券市场的交易安全和秩序以及促进证券交易市场的创新与发展。自律规则的规定和合同条款的约定是自律规则约束市场参与者的具体路径。不仅如此，自律规则也是证券市场监管机构行使职权以及衡量市场行为合法性的重要依据。由于自律规则具有法源性、适应性和正当性，其可以作为法院在裁判文书中判断和说理的重要依据，但不是审判依据。境外证券交易所自律规则涉诉情况时有发生，美国、我国台湾地区和香港特别行政区的典型案例背后所反映出的司法观点具有积极的启示作用。对自律规则进行司法审查，是制约证券交易所自律管理权、保障市场参与者合法权益以及规范证券市场创新发展的需要。而且，国外先进经验可资借鉴、证券市场法治生态环境逐步改善、实现难度不大、实际已经存在等因素，决定了司法审查的可行性。法院对案件的管辖适宜采用指定管辖模式。对自律规则的司法审查，可以采用附带审查方式。司法审查可以遵循以合法性审查为主的基本原则。对法律问题和事实问题的审查，可以根据实际情况采用明显性审查、可支持性审查、强烈内容审查等标准。对程序问题的审查，法院适宜采用正当程序标准或者“最低限度之公正”要求。关于司法审查的效果，比较恰当的是在具体案件中对该自律规则不予适用。第六章是“证券交易所纪律处分行为的司法审查”，共分五节。主要研究了证券交易所纪律处分行为的法理问题及制约机制，对境外主要证券交易所的纪律处分制度进行了比较分析，进而对纪律处分行为的可诉性、穷尽先行救济原则和司法审查的强度进行了探讨。社团罚是自律组织制裁的典型代表，其不同于行政处罚、行政处分。证券交易所纪律处分作为一种社团罚，其包括主体、对象、依据和方式等基本要素，其性质是纪律罚。设定具体边界和确定权力运行的正当程序，是对证券交易所纪律处分权的重要制约。在设定边界方面，可以适用法律保留原则。正当程序制约包括无偏私地对待当事人、听取陈述和申辩、说明理由等三项要素。在境外成熟证券市场，作为证券交易所自律重要组成部分的纪律处分制度比较完备。纽约证券交易所、伦敦证券交易所、东京证券交易所和香港联合交易所的纪律处分制度对我国证券交易所相关制度的完善，在独立运作机制、程序繁简结合、调查程序规范、听证审理模式、救济措施完备等方面具有重要借鉴意义。由于自律与他律、特权与法治、需求与回应等价值、理念、制度方面的障碍，证券交易所纪律处分行为的可诉性受到巨大挑战。但是，可诉性对于解决证券交易所自律纠纷、相对人权利获得救济、保障交易所自律等具有积极作用。在实践中，可以行政法律关系界定纪律处分行为的可诉性，采用“公共职能”标准为实质的受案标准，使司法成为一个必要且适当的救济途径。合理安排司法审查证券交易所纪律处分行为的时机，有利于尊重交易所自律和保障相对人合法权益。国外证券监管领域存在行政救济制度，比如英国的行政裁判所制度、美国的行政上诉制度。因此，穷尽行政救济原则在行政诉讼中成为重要制度。该原则适用于证券交易所自律领域，包括穷尽内部救济规则和行政复议前置规则两层含义。其对于纪律处分争议的有效化解、维护自律组织的和谐秩序、提高法院审查质效以及减轻负担等具有重要价值。在设计相关程序时，适宜采用复审和复议“并行制”。司法审查强度是司法审查的中枢神经。在案件事实的审查强度方面，大陆法系和英美法系的态度并不相同，建议我国法院在审查时采用相对宽松的实质性证据标准，有利于法院在没有放弃审查证券交易所认定的事实的前提下，促进自律在法治轨道上运行。在处分程序的审查强度方面，适宜采用最低限度的程序公正标准。因为，证券交易所作为自律组织，其适用正当程序原则是有限的，是尊重自律、区分程序性质和兼顾自律效率的需要。美国法院的典型判例充分体现了对证券交易所自律的尊重，强调了自律遵守正当程序的特定环境。根据“最低限度的程序公正标准”，应当具体确定有关违反反偏私原则、职能混同、律师代理、听证程序、违反说明理由等方面的判断标准。第七章是“我国司法介入证券交易所自律的现实图景及制度完善”，共分四节。主要剖析了我国司法介入证券交易所自律的现状，对权证纠纷中的典型案例进行了分析，并从司法、司法之外两个方面就如何完善相关制度提出建议。现实需求与制度供给、自律管理与外在干预、转型因素与法治标准之间存在矛盾，是我院司法介入证券交易所自律的基本现状。基于法院审理的27起权证诉讼案件，就这些案件的每年收案数量、当事人情况、涉案标的额、案件类型、案件处理情况、上诉情况、涉案权证、案由等方面进行了司法统计分析。同时，对涉及权证创设、权证信息披露、权证行权、权证规则效力、权证公告内容、权证交易受限等六种类型的典型案件进行了剖析。总体而言，我国司法介入证券交易所自律的合理定位是有所作为、保持谨慎。司法具有回应社会需求、最终解决纠纷和提供规则指引的功能，使其能够对纠纷的是否曲直作出合理判断。但是，必须对司法的有限介入作出明确的制度安排，包括确定适当的受案范围、充分考虑行业的特性、设置必要的前提条件、重点审查程序正当性以及慎重确定责任的承担等。在具体步骤上，应当个案审判先行，要特别重视案例的示范效应和指导作用，及早完善相应的法律规范。此外，司法规范证券交易所自律只是手段而非目的，真正改善自律的力量来自司法之外。这些措施主要是完善自律管理权内部运行机制、改善自律管理权外部生存环境等。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the fierce beneficial conflict of stock market, stock exchanges in China havebeen pushed on the forefront of involving with appeals as performing theself-regulation duties. It could be remarkable progress from exclusion to beinginvolved with prudence by the courts, however, the confusion of hearing cases incourts and the underlying issues come out. The academic circle has not in-depththeoretical study and may not provide enough intellectual support for formingreasonable judicial intervention policies. On the basis of research on jurisprudentialissues on the self-regulation and judicial intervention, this article aims to explore thetypical issues of judicial intervention from civil judicial relief of self-regulation tort,the validity of self-regulation rules and judicial review, the discipline treatment ofjudicial review so as to provide the advice on how to perfect the relevant systems inand out of administration of justice on the basis of analyzing actuality and warrantlitigation cases.The first chapter is about theoretical basis of self-regulation of stock exchange,including two sections, focusing on the jurisprudential analysis on self-regulation andelaborating on the role of stock exchange. Self-regulation is widely used in social andeconomic fields and defines the basic connotations and denotations of judicialintervention by analyzing the self-regulation, market self-regulation andself-regulation of stock exchange. In the light of the relation of nation andself-regulated organization, self-regulation can be categorized into four basic models,i.e., government (statutory) model, limited exchange SRO model, strong exchangeSRO model and independent member SRO model. Self-regulation of stock exchange inherits from the business self-regulation and has profound foundation of institutionaltransition. Compared with the government supervision, self-regulation of stockexchange has the vital superiority of increasing efficiency, reducing cost andincreasing profit. Government and market are the basic institutional arrangements inthe allocation of resources. With the evaporation of the myth of the invisible hand andthe doubt on the effectiveness of the visible hand, self-regulated organizations couldserve as lubricant correcting the market and government failure. Stock exchanges areimportant part of self-regulated organizations. Stock exchanges in China are definedas legal persons of exercising self-regulation, but as the especial characteristic of therelation with the governmental supervision department, its judicial personality hasvanished.The second chapter is judicial intervention and self-regulation of stock exchange,including three sections, focusing on the legitimacy and limitation of judicialintervention, analyzing litigation risks of self-regulation. The concept of judicialintervention is relatively broad, including judicial interference, judicial supervision,judicial review, judicial remedy, and so on. Moreover, judicial intervention does notmean that the nature of passivity of jurisdiction would be broken. Justness, finalityand judgment are the basic characteristics of judicature, which establishes profoundfunctional base for self–regulation of stock exchange. As the existence of failurephenomenon such as interest conflicts, non-transparency and monopoly in stockexchange, judicial intervention is necessary. Problems that could be settled byjudicature are limited, and it also applies to judicial intervention into stock exchange’sself-regulation. Judicial philosophy issues of active or suppression has importanttheoretical reference value on establishing the limitation of judicial intervention. Weshould make proper balance in complicated value orientation which is based on thepremise that judicature must respect the self-regulation of stock exchange. Thediversity of self-regulation duty for stock exchange leads to susceptibility of litigationrisks. Because of stock exchange performing the duty of examining the application oflisting, approving listing and compulsory withdrawal, disputes arise among stockexchange, the listed companies and investors. Because of stock exchange performingthe duty of mamaging membership and disciplinary treatment, disputes arise amongstock exchange, members and other market participants. Because of legitimacy ofself-regulated rules, transaction information, abnormal transaction, disputes arisebetween stock exchange and other market partipants. The third chapter is about the common issues of judicial intervention into stockexchange’s self-regulation, including two sections, focusing on legal attribute of stockexchange, the basic infrastructure of self-regulated power. Stock exchange has dualcharacteristics, and there is in a dilemma when dividing standards of public legalperson and private legal person are applied. Stock exchange has the gene of privatelegal person and is mutual-benefit legal person in nature. Stock exchange has factorsof public legal person, the characteristic of public organizations simultaneously, all ofwhich are caused by the transition of economic functions of stock exchange, themodels predominated by the members and the privatization of administrative tasks.Even in US where is possessed of sophisticated securities law, the identification oflegal attribute of stock exchange by courts hesitated between private organizationsand public organizations. British courts reviewed the self-regulation organizations byestablishing the standard of function attribute. Judicial practice in China has obscurepoint of view and been in deep confusion. As stock exchange has the attribute ofpublic and private legal person, cases caused by self-regulation are probably civillitigation or administrative litigation. The standard of administrative subject could beadvised to abandon, and types of litigation can be defined in light of standard ofpublic function. Self-regulation power of stock exchange is mixture of power andright. Self-regulation, as a kind of right compared with national power, is the vitalrepresentation of independent person of stock exchange, and has two factors ofjustification and conduct, the basic characteristics of derivatives, collective and innate.There are two kinds of relationship in which power attribute of self-regulation ofstock exchange functions: one is the relationship between the self-regulated powerand national power, the other is the relationship of self-regulated power andmembership right. The power of self-regulated originates from rights granted by laws,contracts. The main contents are formulation power, punitive power, marketmanagement right and dispute settlement power and so on.The four chapter is about the civil judicial remedies of tort in self-regulation ofstock exchange, including five sections, elaborating the legal theories of liability fortorts, introducing the exemption system in self-regulation of American stock exchange,studying doctrine of liability fixation and the criterion of fault affirmation, theidentification of causal relationship and the shapes of responsibilities share in the jointact of tort. The liability of tort in self-regulation is the unfavorable consequence boreby the stock exchange in breach of obligation when performing the duty of self-regulation, aimed at renewing rights, combing the mandatory and optional rules,having the function of remedy and prevention. Constitutive requirements in theliability of tort in self-regulation include fault, fact of damages and the causalrelationship between them. The consequence of damages for tort in self-regulation isthe pure economic loss. Participants in stock market especially the investors couldprosecute to require damages by stock exchange. In US, implied private right ofaction is applied in the tort of self-regulation. At present, court in China would acceptthe cases in accordance with civil litigation procedure from the perspective ofpragmatism. Immunity from civil liability for self-regulation of stock exchange in USis based on the theory of sovereign immunity. The relevant cases represent thedeveloping progress that courts in US adopt the principle of immunity inself-regulated organizations. However, now they are piercing the veil of absoluteimmunity from civil liability, which has led the fierce disputes. In terms of thisinstitution of US, opinions of scholars in China vary and judicial practice refuses toadmit. We are unnecessary to introduce this institution as the important role of stockexchange is required to bear the burden of liability. Proper liability could promote toassign the resources more efficiently and restrict the self-interest of stock exchangemore effectively. Immunity from the civil liability is in breach of the principle of dueprocess. The doctrine of liability fixation of tort in self-regulation could be based onthe principle of fault liabilities and adopt the method of fault assumption to affirm thefault of stock exchange. Where defining the fault of tort in self-regulation of stockexchange, it is appropriate to adopt the doctrine of objective fault, which is inaccordance with the goal of protecting the financial consumers, can explain the faultof self-regulated legal person reasonably, and economize the judicial resources toensure trial efficiency. In terms of the different standards, fault in tort ofself-regulation can be divided into intention and negligence, action and inaction, all ofwhich would have significant influence on the liability of stock exchange. Especially,stock exchange should assume the liability for inaction. It is proper to adopt theobjective criterion for fault of tort including the legitimate standard and bonus paterfamilias standard. In the light of the causal relationship, there are the theory ofpositive causal relationship and relevant causal relationship in academic circle andpractice, but there are severe defects in the theory of positive casual relationships inthe predominant role. The dualism of causal relationship is advised to be drawn fromthe theories. Whether self-regulation is the reason for infringement should be examined from the perspective of facts, and whether such a casual relationship isproper should be examined from the legal perspective. In terms of the appointment ofliability involved with the joint infringement, stock exchange should assume the jointand several liabilities for joint act of tort and autonomy act of tort of casual relation.Where victim endangered losses as self-regulated targets are in breach of obligation, ifstock exchange has not performed the duty of self-regulation totally, it should assumethe relevant responsibility of compensation in the circumstances that damages wouldbe prevented or prohibited.The fifth chapter is about the legal effect for self-regulated rules of stockexchange and the judicial review system, including four sections, focusing on legalresearch on self-regulated rules of stock exchange, analysis on the effective basis forself-regulated rules, study on oversea litigation regarding self-regulated rules,discussion on judicial review for self-regulated rules. Self-regulated rules constitutethe legal source for stock exchange to perform its duty of self-regulation, protectingpublic interests as through its general binding force, which should be prevail inapplication. Compared with legal regulations, self-regulated rules have the advantagesof professionalism, low cost, flexibility, etc. as well as intrinsic values includingmaking up, transformation and symbiosis. Generally speaking, self-regulated rulesbelong to industry self-regulation system while manifesting the appearance ofadministrative regulatory documents, characters of commercial customs and nature ofthe contracts. Nowadays, the stock exchanges in our country have basically formed itsregulation system which could adapt to its self-regulation duties. The force ofself-regulated rules comes from its validity, reflecting the acknowledgement of thesecurities market participants to the self-regulated rules. The important prerequisitesfor self-regulated rules are purposiveness in content and justice in form. In theperspective of the substantial control of formulating self-regulated rules, the rulesshould follow the principles of non-conflict with superior law, fitting the developmentrequirements of capital market, ensuring the self-scientific and validity of the rules,maintaining harmony of internal regulation system, which includes listing rules,trading rules, membership management rules and etc. In the perspective of proceduralcontrol of formulating self-regulated rules, it is the internal need for realizing thelegalization of stock exchange’s self-regulation, enhancing the rationality ofself-regulated rules and ensuring the effective implementation of the self-regulatedrules to formulate rules through due process. Procedural democracy, procedural equality, procedural rationality and procedural efficiency are standards for proceduraljustice which must be complied with. However, the application of the standards islimited compared with legislation. The systems of proposing, forming and cominginto force by legislation constitute the basic links of complying with due process.Establishing procedure of self-regulated rules established by foreign stock exchangehas given us important enlightenment. Self-regulated rules are binding on marketparticipants, and are conducive for the stock exchange to fulfill the duty to regulateitself, to maintain the transaction safety and order in the securities market, to promotethe innovation and development in the securities market in a better way. The provisionof self-regulated rules and the terms of the contract are the practical way of theself-regulated rules to constrain markets participants. In addition, self-regulated rulesare the important basis for the securities market regulatory authorities to exercise theirfunctions and powers, and to judge the legitimacy of the market behavior. With thenature of legitimacy, adaptability and validity, self-regulated rules can be regarded asthe basis for the court to make argument in judgment documents, but not the basis tomake trial. Self-regulated rules involve in suit from time to time in foreign countries,judicial point of view reflected in typical cases in US, Taiwan Region, Hong KongSpecial Administrative Region has given us positive enlightenment. Judicial review ofthe self-regulated rules is needed to restrict self-regulated power of stock exchange, tosafeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the market participants, and regulatethe innovation and development of securities market. Moreover, the facts that theadvanced experience of foreign countries being adopted, the ecological environmentof securities market being gradually improved, coming to realty being little difficult,actually already being existed, determine the feasibility of judicial review of theself-regulated rules. It is appropriate for the court to adopt designated jurisdiction insuch cases. The method of incidental review shall be used and the basic principle thatlegitimacy review dominates shall be followed. In reviewing the legal and factualissues, standards such as significance review, supportability review, strong contentreview shall be used according to actual situation. In reviewing the procedural issues,it is appropriate for the court to adopt the due process standard or “minimal level ofjustice” requirements. Considering the effect of the judicial review, it is moreappropriate not to use the self-regulated rules in specific cases.The sixth chapter is about the judicial review of discipline treatment of stockexchange, including five sections, focusing on the jurisprudential issues and the restrictive mechanism of discipline treatment, comparing the institutions of disciplinetreatment of stock exchange beyond seas, and then probing into the justiciability, theprinciple of exhaustion of priority remedies and the intension of judicial review. Theassociations’ punishment is typical of self-regulated organization saction, differentfrom the administrative penalty and punishment. The discipline treatment of stockexchange is associations’ punishment, including the main body, the objects, the gist,the methods and so on. Its nature is discipline punishment. Setting the concreteboundary and justifying the exercise of power is important restriction to the disciplinetreament power of stock exchange. In terms of setting the concrete boundary, it isproper to apply the principle of law reservation. The restriction of due processcomprises treating the litigants fairly, hearing their statement and defense andelaborating the reasons. In the sophisticated securities market overseas, the system ofdiscipline treatment is rather complete as vital part of self-regulation of stockexchange. It processes reference meaning that the discipline treatments of New Yorkstock exchange, London stock exchange, Tokyo stock exchange and Hong Kong stockexchange is to perfect relevant system in our country when it comes to theindependent operation mechanism, the combination of prorogation and simplicity ofthe procedure, the formality of investigation process, the hearing model and theperfection of relief measures. As the hurdle of value, opinions and institutions such asautonomy and heteronomy, privileges and rule of law, demand and law, justiciabilityof discipline treatment in stock exchange is challenged. However, justiciability playspositive role in settling the dispute of autonomy, reliefing right of counterpart,safeguarding the self-regulation of stock exchange. In practice, the justiciability inwhich the administrative relationship can define the discipline treatment, would makejudicature a proper and necessary remedy way when adopting the public function ofaccepting cases by court. It would be helpful for respecting the self-regulation ofstock exchange and safeguarding the legitimate interest of counterpart if rulesrationally arrange the timing of disciplinary treatment of stock exchange by judicialreview. There are administrative remedies concerned in the field of stock supervision,such as UK Administration Judicatory System and the system of administrative appealsystem in US. The principle of exhausting administrative remedies is very importantsystem in administrative litigations which applies in self-regulation of stock exchangeincluding the exhausting internal remedies and administrative reconsideration. It hasimportant value to resolve the dispute of discipline treatment, make harmony in self-regulated organizations and improve the quality and efficiency of the judicialreview. When it comes to set the relevant procedure, it would proper to combine thereexamination and reconsideration. The intension of the judicial review is of theessence. In the stringency of reviewing the facts of cases, opinions held by thecontinental law system vary with that by the common law system. Judicial review byour courts would be advised to adopt the flexibility of substantial evidence standardwhich would promote self-regulation to operate in the orbit of the rule of law onpremise that courts do not abandon reviewing facts. In the stringency of reviewing theprocess of disciplinary treatment, it may be proper to adopt the minimal level ofstandard of due process. As stock exchange is self-regulated organization, applyingthe principle of due process is limited and necessary for respecting the rule of law,differiateing the nature of procedure and considering the efficiency of self-regulation.The typical cases of US adequately incarnate that courts respect self-regulation ofstock exchange, and stress the specific circumstances in which self-regulation abideby due process. According to “minimal level of procedural justice” requirements,standards of judgment are confirmed. These standards involve treating the litigantsfairly, function confusion, procuration by the lawyer, hearing procedure andelaborating the reasons.The seventh chapter is about the reality and system perfection of China’s judicialintervention into self-regulation of stock exchange, including four sections, focusingon anatomising the reality of judicial intervention in China, analyzing typical cases ofwarrants disputes, and providing advice on how to perfect relevant systems in and outof judicature. There exist difficulty issues for judicial intervention into self-regulationof stock exchange, which include conflicts between real demand and system supply,self-regulation and external intervention, transformation factor and nomocracystandard. Based on27warrants cases to be accepted by the court, the number ofannual lawsuits, the situation of the parties, the amount of the subject involved, thetypes of case, the disposition of case, appeal instance, warrants involved, the cause ofaction and other aspects of these lawsuits are analyzed by judicial statistics.Meanwhile, six types of typical cases are analyzed, involving warrant creation,warrant information disclosure, exercise of warrant, validity of warrant rules,announcement content of warrant, restriction of warrant transaction. Overall,reasonable positioning of China’s judicial intervention into self-regulation of stockexchange may get things done and be cautious. Justice has functions of responding to the demand of society, finally resolving disputes and providing rule guide, which canmake it enter reasonable judgment on disputes. However, definite institutionalarrangements must be made for limited judicial intervention, including determiningappropriate scope of case accepted, fully considering characteristic of industries,setting necessary preconditions, focusing on reviewing procedural legitimacy andcarefully determining liability, etc. In specific steps, individual case should be first,specially attention should be paid to the demonstration effect and guidance function ofcase, and perfect relevant laws and regulations as soon as possible. Besides, judicaturemodulating self-regulation of stock exchange is just means rather than purpose, thereal strength of improving self-regulation of stock exchange comes from out ofjudicature. These measures mainly aim at improving internal operating mechanism ofself-regulated power and improving external environment of self-regulated power.更多还原