美国不方便法院原则的典型判例评析
徐伟功;
摘要(Abstract):
不方便法院原则是美国联邦普通法的一项重要原则。在1947年的海湾石油公司案中,美国联邦最高法院第一次承认了联邦普通法的不方便法院原则,建立了不方便法院原则的"滥用程序"的分析标准;在1981年的帕珀飞机公司案中,将不方便法院的"滥用程序"标准转变为较为灵活的"最适当法院"的标准;在2007年的中国中化集团公司案中,认为联邦地区法院在决定案件的管辖权之前可以根据不方便法院原则拒绝诉讼。我们可以吸取美国的经验与教训,根据我国的具体情况规定具有中国特色的不方便法院原则。
关键词(KeyWords): 不方便法院原则;海湾石油公司案;帕珀飞机公司案;中国中化集团公司案
基金项目(Foundation):
作者(Author): 徐伟功;
Email:
DOI:
参考文献(References):
- [1]See Braucher,The Inconvenient Federal Forum,60Harv.L.Rev.pp.908-909(1947).
- [2]See Dicey and Morris,The Conflict of Laws,12thed,London:Sweet&Maxwell,1993,p.398.
- [3]19,R 655,Derlord Law,p.666.
- [4]See Russell J.Weintraub,Commentary on the Con-flict of Law,3rd ed,Mineola,N,Y.:FoundationPress,1986.
- [5]广东省高级人民法院(1995)粤法经二监字第3号民事裁定书。
- [6]最高人民法院(1995)经终字第138号民事裁定书。
- [7]最高人民法院(1999)经终字第194号民事裁定书。
- [8]See Lawrence M.Friedman,A History of AmericanLaw,2nd ed,New York:Simon and Schuster,1985.
- [9]See Paxton Blair,The Doctrine of Forum Non Con-veniens in Anglo-American Law,29,Colum.L.Rev.1(1929).
- [10][12][13][14][15][16][17][24]See 330U.S.1947.501,502,506-507,508,508-509,508,507,501.
- [11]See Gilbert.v.Gulf Oil Corp.62F.Supp291(S.D.N.Y.1945).
- [18]See David W.Robertson,Forum Non Conveniensin American and England:“A Rather FantasticFiction”,103 LawQ.Rev.(1987).
- [19][20][22][25][27][28][29][30][31][33]
- [34]See 454 U.S.(1981).248-256,257,244,247,235、250,249-252,249,255,256,259-261,260.
- [21]See Reyno v.Piper Aircraft Co.,479 F.Supp.727,738(M.D.Pa.1979).
- [23]See Reyno v.Piper Aircraft Co.,479 F.Supp.727,735(M.D.Pa,1979).
- [26]See Reyno v.Piper Aircraft Co.630 F.Zd 149,163(3d,Cir,1980).
- [32]See 955,F,2d 368,394(5th,Cir 1992).
- [35]See Sinochem Int’l Corp.Lid.v.Malaysia Int’lShipping Corp.,127 S.Ct.1184(2007).
- [36]See Sinochem Int’l Corp.Lid.v.Malaysia Int’lShipping Corp.,127 S.Ct.1184,1188(2007).
- [37]See Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp.v.SinochemInt’l Corp.Lid.,436 F.3d 349,350(3d,Cir.2006).
- [38]Steel Co.v.Citizens for a Better Environment,523U.S.83,93-102(1998).
- [39]Ruhr Gas AG v.Marathon Oil Co.,526 U.S.578,585(1999).
- [40]Sinochem Int’l Corp.Lid.v.Malaysia Int’l Ship-ping Corp.,127 S.Ct.1191(2007).
- [41]See Alexander Reus,Judicial Discretion:A Com-parative Viewof the Doctrine of the United,the U-nited Kingdom,and Germany,16 Loy.La Int’l&Comp L.J(1994).
- [42]See Emma Suarez,Stangvik v.Shielf and ForumNon Conveniens Analysis:Does a Fear Too MuchJustice Really Close California Courtrooms to For-eign Plaintiffs?Transnational Lawyer,Spring,2000,pp.189-190.
- [43]See Friedrich K.Juenger,Forum Shopping,Do-mestic and International,pp.554.63 Tul.L.Rev.(1989).
- [44]See Helence Curtis Indus v.Sales Aftiliates,105F.Supp.886,902(S.D.N.Y.1952).
- [45]See Wright JS,The Federal Court and Nature andQuality of State Law,13.Wayne L.R.(1967).
- [46]See Paxton Blair,The Doctrine of Forum NonConveniens in Anglo-American Law,29,Colum.L.Rev.1(1929).
- [47]See Peter Prince,Bhopal,Bougainvil and Tedi:Why Australia’s Forum Non Conveniens ApproachIs Better,International and Comparative LawQuar-terly,1998.
- [48]See Alan Reed,To Be or Not to Be:The ForumNon Conveniens Performance Acted Out on Anglo-American Courtroom Stages,George Journal of In-ternational and Comparative Law,2001.
- [49]See 634F.Supp.At842(1986).
- [50]See 454 U.S.255(1981).
- [51]See Robertson,The Federal Doctrine of ForumNon Conveniens:“An Object Lesson in Uncon-trolled Doctrine”,29 Tex,Int’L J.(1994).
- [52]See Hu Zhen jie,Forum Non Conveniens:An Un-justed Doctrine,NILR 2001,p.155.
- [53]See 330 U.S.504(1947).
- [54]See 330 U.S.501,507(1947).
- [55]See 454 U.S.254 n2l(1981).