【作者】 刘琼瑶；

【导师】 肖北庚；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 国际法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 非方便法院原则是起始于英美普通法系影响法院行使管辖权的一项重要原则，是在涉及不同法律体系的案件中，法院是否拥有自由裁量权中止或撤销诉讼的问题。由于在国际民商事诉讼中，尚无一致的国际法制来规制国际民商事案件的管辖权。在实践中，各国完全根据本国的社会、政治和经济等方面的利益，从有利于自己国家及其国民进行国际民事诉讼活动的角度出发，依据本国的法制原则和法制观念来规范国际民商事案件的管辖权问题，这一现象导致了各国在国际民商事案件中存在任意扩大司法管辖权的趋势，使得在国际民商事案件管辖权问题上出现积极冲突和消积冲突，原告得以利用其广泛的选择法院的权利挑选对自己有利的法院进行诉讼，给被告造成不必要的不方便和加重其负担，该现象不仅有违诉讼程序的公平和正义理念，而且有害于国际民商事纠纷的合理解决。非方便法院原则由于具有公平、正义、便利以及效率的价值，不仅仅被英美普通法系国家采用，而且近年来逐渐被其它法系国家所采用，用来限制司法扩大化的趋势。在实践中，非方便法院原则在不同国家采纳的情况各不相同，适用的范围和条件以不一致，主要有英国模式、美国模式、加拿大模式、澳大利亚模式等，每种模式特点各异。 本文采用比较法方法，对上述不同模式中非方便法院原则的演变历程及其特征加以比较研究，以期寻找共同的适用非方便法院原则的基础和条件。文章首先介绍了非方便法院原则的概念及起源，接着分别介绍其在普通法系国家的实践，并总结出其中的一些特征。文章的第三部分以魁北克、德国和日本为例着重介绍非方便法院原则在大陆法系的拓展。最后从理论上探析了非方便法院原则的适用原因，对其使用标准进行了比较，而且还指出了非方便法院原则存在一定的局限性，如法官过宽的自由裁量权等。在此基础上，对非方便法院原则在我国适用的可行性加以理论和实践两方面的考察。笔者认为，尽管我国立法对非方便法院原则为加以规定，但在实践中，法院在处理国际民商事案件时经常采用该原则。特别是由于我国有着特殊的国情，即区际法律冲突大量产生，区际管辖权冲突在所难免，为非方便法院原则的适用创造了潜在性空间。最后为我国的非方便法院原则的立法提出了富有建设性的建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The doctrine of forum non conveniences is an important principleoriginated in Common Law System and it influences the court to exercisethe jurisdiction , it is a problem concerning whether the court has thediscretionary power to stay or to revoke an action which involvingdifferent legal systems. Because in the international civil and commerciallitigation ,there is not identical international legal system to regulate thejurisdiction. In the practice, each country enacts the jurisdiction to theinternational civil and commercial case according the social, politicaland economical interests of the own ,on the basis of the own principle ofrule of law and the spirit of legality. This phenomena leads to thetendency that arbitrarily expanding of the jurisdiction in internationalcivil and commercial case, which causes the positive negative conflicts .Through the extensive right, the plaintiff can choose the favorable courtwhich may bring unnecessary inconvenient and heavy burden to thedefendant. This phenomena is not only contrary to the principles ofjustice and equity of the legal procession but also harmful to thereasonable resolution to the international civil and commercial actions.Because the doctrine of forum non conveniences has the value of justice ,equity, conveniences and efficiency, it has not only been adopted tolimit the tendency of jurisdiction expanding by Common Law System ,but also gradually accepted by other law system countries. In differentcountries’ practice ,there are different in the range of using theprinciple ,the conditions and so on. The doctrine has different types, theEngland model, the American model, the Canadian model and theAustralia model, each model has different characters.This article uses comparative method ,studies the evolving processand the character of different types of the above -mentioned the doctrine of forum non conveniences , try to find out the same basis and condition in using the principle. First it introduces the concept and origin of the doctrine of forum non conveniences ,then it introduces the practice of the doctrine in some different Common Law System countries. In the third part of this article, it introduces the development in some Civil Law System countries ,setting Quebec, Germany and Japan as examples. At last ,it explores the reason of the application of the principle theoretically ,compares the standards of it ,at the same time ,it points out the limitations of the doctrine of forum non conveniences ,such as the vast discretionary power and so on. On the basis of this ,the author inspects the feasibility of the doctrine in China theoretically and practically . The author holds that though there is no regulation in our law, in the practice, our courts often use it in international civil and commercial litigation . Specially ,because our country has special national conditions interregional conflicts of laws often occurs ,and the conflicts of territorial jurisdiction can hardly be avoided, which provides potential space for the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniences. At last ,this article puts forward some constructive suggestions on the legislation of the doctrine of forum non conveniences.更多还原