【作者】 丛林；

【导师】 赵威；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文认为，完整的证券监管体制应当包括三个部分：主动式监管方式，被动式监管方式，及证券仲裁。依据监管的主体、监管程序、职能和特点，以及监管者的不同的法律地位，本文把证券监管的方式分为被动式监管和主动式监管两种。被动式监管是指根据一方当事人的请求，由司法机关或准司法机关介入个别证券事项，通过个案判决实现对证券违规行为以及证券市场的监管。由于司法机关对个案所做出的判决，在普通法国家有可能被当作法律而适用于其他案例；在民法法系国家虽然不会被当作法律加以适用，但在证券监管过程中或在证券监管行政立法中也可能被作为参考，因此，从这一意义上来说，被动式监管对于证券市场的监管是间接的、普遍的监管，当然，被动式监管在整个证券监管体制中也是不可或缺的。主动式监管是指监管机构(包括政府监管机构和自律监管组织)根据法律法规的授权，依照法律或行业组织章程主动地介入证券市场，主动地对证券市场进行监管。在主动式监管方式中，监管机构的监管权力源于国家法律法规的授权。现代世界各国立法对于证券监管机构的法律地位、法律职能都给予了明确的规定，而且监管机构对市场主动监管往往是法定的职责，不主动即失职。被动式监管与主动式监管在监管方式、程序、监管的功能、作用等方面有很多区别，但最根本的区别在于，被动式监管过程是司法机关或准司法机关(如仲裁机构)实现司法权或准司法权的过程；而主动式监管则是政府监管机构或自律组织实现行政权的过程。证券仲裁是被动式监管一种有益的补充方式，也是证券监管体制不可缺少的组成部分。本文通过对英、美、德等国的证券市场监管方式的考察，发现其历史发展的规律类似，即都是随着证券市场的发展，被动式监管的形式暴露出越来越多的局限性，对证券市场不足以有效地进行监管，从而导致主动监管方式的产生，也就是说，主动监管方式的产生是证券市场进一步发展的内在需求。主动式监管方式在当今各国证券市场上发挥着主要作用，这是由证券市场自身发展规律决定的。但是，随着证券市场的更深一步的发展，人们又意识到证券市场的监管也离不开法院的介入。纯主动式监管也有其自身的缺陷。只有两种监管方式互为补充、相互配合证券市场才能获得有效的监管，才能健康地发展。而中国证券市场由于独特的历史背景，在其产生之初几乎就只有主动式监管这一种方式存在，也就是说，针对中国证券市场的监管方式在结构上先天不足，一开始就是金鸡独立。随着我国证券市场的深入发展，许多事实已经表明，单靠主动式监管这一种方式已经不能够完全解决证券市场暴露出的许多问题。因此，我国目前的证券市场同样需要两种监管方式并存，只有这两种方式相互配合，才能提高对证券市场的监管效力。也只有如此，我国的证券监管体制才算完整。从英、美、德等国以及我国的证券监管经验来看，都证明了这一点，而且，从世界范围来看，采用两种监管方式相结合的监管体制将是一种趋势。更多还原

【Abstract】 The System of Securities Supervision, I think, includes three parts: the positive supervision, the passive supervision, and securities arbitration. The classification between the positive supervision and the passive supervision is based on the difference of the procedure, duty, role and supervisor’s legal position between the former and the latter.The passive supervision refers the judicial authorities or the quasi-judicial authorities supervise the securities market through holding the securities cases and making the decisions upon some party’s application. The decisions on securities may become case law in common law, or be considered as important factors during the Securities Supervision or the procedure of making administrative legislation in civil law, on this point, so the passive supervision is indirect and universal supervision on the securities market. In addition, the passive supervision is also indispensable in the whole Securities Supervision system.The positive supervision refers the supervision agency, including the government agency and the self-discipline institute, which is authorized by the law and rules, actively supervises the securities market upon the law, rules, or the industry charter. The supervision authority is originated from the statute law and rules. The supervision agency’s legal status, powers and legal functions are all clearly defined in most countries’ law, therefore actively supervising the securities market is the legal duty of the supervision agency, otherwise failing in its duty. There are many differences in way of supervision, procedure, functions, etc. between the passive and the positive supervision. However, most of all, the difference in character lies in two different courses: the passive supervision is the course of the judicial authorities or the quasi-judicial authorities performing the judicial authority; while the positive supervision is the course of the supervision agency performing the administrative authority.Securities Arbitration is the supplementation to the passive supervision, and also the necessary composition of the System of Securities Supervision.The author finds the history developing rule of securities markets in different countries are similar, namely that with the development of securities market, the passive supervision is exposed more and more limitations, unable to effectively supervise the securities market, which lead to the rise of positive supervision. That is to say, the birth of positive supervision is the result of the deeply development of securities market. The positive supervision has been performing great functions in most countries’ securities markets, which is determined by the law of development of the securities market itself. However, with more deeply development of securities market, people are ware of that, the supervision on securities market is heavily reliant on the judicial intervention, and the mode with only positive supervision has deficiencies itself, increased interaction between the two supervision modes will improve the supervision efficiency in securities market, and promote it to develop healthily.Nevertheless, because of the special history background, there has been only positive supervision on securities market, with primary deficiency in supervision system’s structure. With the development of the securities market, it proves that the positive supervision is not enough to solve some problems happened on securities market, such as stockholder’s derivative suit. Accordingly, the two modes of supervisions are both needed in our securities market, just as other countries’ securities market, where nothing but increasing the coordination between the two modes of supervisions can improve the efficiency on supervision of securities market. It proved to be true from the internal and international experiences of Securities Supervision, and it is also a tendency all over the world.更多还原