【作者】 刘剑；

【导师】 陆志芳；

【作者基本信息】 对外经济贸易大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 不方便法院原则是英美法项下法院拒绝行使管辖权的一种重要制度。此原则存在的前提是审判法院具有适当的管辖权，同时存在另一个具有管辖权的法院。如果从当事人与诉因的关系以及当事人、证人、律师或法院的便利或者花费等角度看，审判法院审理案件是极不方便的，而由另一个法院审理更为适宜，在此种状况下原审法院有权拒绝行使管辖权。不方便法院原则起源于十八世纪的苏格兰，最初被称为“非管辖法院”（Forum Non Competens），是指法院缺乏管辖能力（lack of competence），从而拒绝行使管辖权的情况（很明显，法院缺乏管辖能力和法院因为不便利而拒绝管辖是有区别的。）。到十九世纪末，苏格兰法院发展出了现代的不方便法院原则，以减少通过扣押财产而产生的管辖权（arrestment ad fundandam jurisdiction）所可能带来的损害。不方便法院原则存在两个不同的适用标准，即程序滥用标准（abuse of process approach）1和最合适法院标准（most suitable forum approach）。早期适用的是程序滥用标准，即只有在存在压制或无理取闹（oppressive or vexatious）时，继续诉讼程序会导致不公正，存在对法院程序的滥用的情况下才能适用不方便法院原则。而随着法律的发展，不方便法院原则的适用逐步过渡到最合适法院标准，即直到法院确认存在另一个拥有管辖权的替代法院地，且在当地审理对于各当事人的利益更为合适，更有利于正义的要求时，才适用不方便法院原则。美国不方便法院原则在美国得到了极大的承认和发展。1929年，帕克斯顿.布莱尔（Paxton Blair）在哥伦比亚大学法学评论中发表了“英美法中的不方便法院原则”一文，标志着美国法学理论正式承认了此原则。美国联邦最高法院在1947年“海湾石油公司诉吉尔伯特”及1981年“派珀飞机公司诉雷诺”这两个经典案例中，明确将不方便法院原则适用于美国国内及国际诉讼，从而正式确立了不方便法院原则在美国法律实践中的地位。最高法院以两步标准来判断是否应适用不方便法院原则：（1）是否在另一国家或司法辖区存在合格的替代法院；（2）当存在这一替代法院时，法院必须考虑多种因素，例如原告的国籍、替代法院的能力、案件适用的法律及其后果以及进行利益衡量。法院必须考虑并衡量私人权益和公共利益，例如取得证据的相对便<WP=3>利、出庭人员的出庭费用、判决的可执行性以及法院的工作负担、案件与法院地的关联性等。只有在这两类因素衡量的结果有力的支持被告时，才能对原告的法院选择（Forum Selection）作出干预，即法院以其自由裁量权作出是否适用不方便法院原则的决定。不方便法院原则的优点为可以限制过度管辖及挑选法院的行为，减少法院的负担，使得最方便的法院审理案件，有利于案件的解决。但其缺点也是非常明显的，诸如阻碍了外国原告对美国公司提起诉讼，违反了公平及国民待遇原则，给予法院过大的自由裁量权并可能对案件的解决造成新的拖延。英格兰不方便法院原则在英国并未象在美国那样得到广泛的承认，相反英国法院在很长时间内拒绝适用苏格兰法上的“不方便法院原则”。1906年以前，英国法院在审判中，通过自由裁量权中止诉讼的依据都是未决判决原则（Lis Alibi Pendens Doctrine）。即当相同当事人之间涉及同一或类似争议的诉讼同时在英国或某外国进行审理时，如该诉讼是压制或无理取闹的（oppressive or vexatious），则英国法院可中止英国的诉讼（stay of proceedings）或者通过强制令制止外国的诉讼（leave to serve a writ out of jurisdiction）。1936年，斯科特法官在圣皮埃尔（St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd.）一案中明确表示阐述了法院的基本行动原则，即英国法院只有在存在“压制或无理取闹”时才能中止诉讼。1973年，上议院在审理“大西洋之星”（The Atlantic Star）一案中，被要求在英国法中援引不方便法院原则，但上议院拒绝了此种请求，只是将斯科特法官阐述的，“压制或无理取闹”标准予以更宽的解释，并据此中止了诉讼。1978年，在麦克香农案（McShannon V. Rockware Glass Ltd.）中，上议院迪普洛克勋爵对斯科特法官的阐述的原则进行了重述，并与上议院其它法官（基思勋爵除外）一起在事实上停止适用“压制或无理取闹”标准，并转而采用最合适法院标准。此后，在1980年具有里程碑意义的Spiliada一案中，上议院重新解释了其在麦克香农案中阐明的原则，并明确将不方便法院原则引入了英国法律，这一判例也标志着不方便法院原则最终在英国得到确立。相较于美国法院适用的“不方便法院原则”，英国规则适用起来更为严格。英格兰法院在适用“不方便法院原则”时规定了严格的两阶段方法：第一步，被告负举证责任证明存在另一有管辖权的法院地，且比英格兰法院更为适当或该法院为审理案件的自然法院。第二步，当被告证明了外国法院作为案件的自然法院比英格兰法院更为适当后，原告必须证明英格兰法院中止诉讼是不符合正义要求的，其正当权益将收到影响。不方便法院原则在其它国家的发展<WP=4>随着英国逐步确认了不方便法院?更多还原

【Abstract】 The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is a common law discretionary power that allows a court to decline the existing jurisdiction upon a plaintiff’s action. The prerequisite for the doctrine is that the convenience of the parties involved, including the cost of the parties, the availability of the evidence and witnesses, e.t.c, may be better served if the action can be brought and tried in an alternative forum. Therefore, a judge may declare the forum to be non vonveniens (inconvenient) and refuse to exercise the jurisdiction despite the jurisdiction already exists.The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is originated from the Scotland in 18th century, which provided for dismissal of actions under the term of forum non competens (which means the court is lack of competence). By the end of the 19th century, the Scottish court had developed the doctrine into Forum Non Conveniens to balance undue hardship arising out of arrestment ad fundandam jurisdiction. The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens has two approaches: abuse of process approach (also called oppressive or vexatious approach) and most suitable forum approach. Abuse of process approach is adopted in early times, which means the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens can only be applied when there exists the oppressive or vexatious conditions and the abuse of process may led to injustice. With the development of the law, most suitable forum approach is becoming more and more popular. The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens shall be applied only when an alternative forum with the jurisdiction exists and the interests of the parties are better served in that alternative forum. America The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is a very important doctrine in American law. In 1929, Paxton Blair published his famous article "the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law" in Columbia Law Review, which represents the theoretical recognition of Forum Non Conveniens in U.S. law. Two leading cases, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert in 1947 and Piper Aircraft v. Reyno in 1981 by US Supreme Court mean the American court have officially applied Forum Non Conveniens into the court practice. The Supreme Court adopts two-step criteria to determine whether to apply Forum Non Conveniens: a. Whether there exists a proper alternative forum; b. The<WP=6>court must consider many factors, such as the applied law, citizenship and a balance of interests if the alternative forum exists. The court should balance the private interests and the public interests. Only when the result of the balance of interests are strongly in favor of the Defendant, the judge can exercise its discretion to decline the jurisdiction of the court.The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens can limit the excessive jurisdiction and the forum shopping; reduce the workload of the court and choose the most suitable forum to hear the case. However, the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens also has some disadvantages, such as giving the judge too much discretionary powers, making new delays and encumbering the foreign plaintiff to bring a legal action in US. EnglandThe Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is not widely recognized in England, whereas the court in England has refused to apply the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in a very long time. Before 1906, the court in England exercised discretionary power to decline the jurisdiction by serving a writ out of jurisdiction pursuant to Lis Alibi Pendens Doctrine (concurrent jurisdiction or parallel proceedings). In leading case "St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd., 1936", Justice Scott proclaimed that only when there exists oppressive or vexatious conditions the court can stay a proceeding. In 1973, the House of Lords refused to apply the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in the lead case "The Atlantic Star". It only made a wider explanation to the principles established by Justice Scott in the case "St. Pierre V. South American Stores Ltd.". In the lead case "McShannon V. Rockware Glass Ltd.", 1978, Lord Diplock res更多还原