LL.M. (International Commercial Law) / This dissertation concerns a comparative analysis of Brazilian, Indian and South African private international law principles on the exercise of jurisdiction in international civil and commercial cases. The intention is to uncover the fundamental grounds of jurisdiction in these legal systems and in doing so draw attention to their comparable characteristics. Emphasis is placed on matters of a commercial nature. Furthermore, a discussion of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements provides insight on the Convention’s purpose and its possible influence on and implications for jurisdictional rules found in the private international law of the IBSA countries should they become members to the Convention.

The purpose of the thesis is to offer a comprehensive commentary of the choice-of-court agreements under the Brussels I bis regulations and the 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements ("Convention") and to refer to the main problems which may arise during the application of these instruments to the disputes arising from relationships in which the choice- of-court agreement was concluded. The paper is composed of five main chapters. The first four chapters deal with the framework of the Brussels I bis, the fifth chapter illustrates the rules of the Convention. Chapter one is dedicated to the fundamental characteristics of the Brussels I bis. It compares the rules contained therein with the previous legislation, analyses its principles and purposes, the interpretation of the terms contained therein and the relation to the other instruments. Chapter two deals with the detailed analysis of the choice-of-court agreements under the Brussels I bis, particularly with the scope of effect of art. 25, the effect of jurisdictional agreements, their characteristics, formalities necessary for their creations, their extent, forms, formal and material validity, cases where the Brussels I bis restricts the effect of the choice-of-court agreements and the consequences of such violation. Chapter three explains...

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

由於國際間目前有關國際裁判管轄權之規定尚未統一，各國確立國際民事管轄權之原則或基礎不同，因此，同一涉外案件，有二個或二個以上之國家主張其享有國際裁判管轄權，為甚為常見之情形。本文於第二章即說明了國際裁判管轄權之競合與衝突之問題，其最終之目的係在避免國際私法上之裁判矛盾發生，以促進裁判一致之理想。解決國際裁判管轄權潛在衝突之切入點，應是各國基於公共利益與當事人利益，致力於確立公平、合理之管轄權規則，避免過剩管轄之現象發生，預先防範國際管轄權實質衝突之發生，減少當事人不當挑選法院（forum shopping）之機會。解決國際間重複起訴（即管轄權實質衝突之問題）之切入點，係各國基於當事人之利益（避免當事人重複應訴、避免判決牴觸導致跛行之法律關係）與國際協調之整體利益（促進國際交易之安全與圓滑、促進訴訟經濟），對於已經發生之管轄權實質衝突，於事後採取必要之處理，法院得拒絕行使管轄權、駁回訴訟或停止訴訟（如我國民事訴訟法第一百八十二條之二之規定係採取停止訴訟之方式）。對於此等管轄權之衝突問題，除以國際公約之方式尋求解決外，承認國際裁判管轄之合意與法院之拒絕管轄權限，亦可發揮避免管轄權衝突之功能。 對當事人而言，在一國際民事事件中，若具有管轄權之法院有數個時（即國際裁判管轄權競合之情形），原告原則上得選擇對自己有利之法庭地起訴，此時應避免原告為不公平之法庭地選擇。本文於第三章第一節所論述之當事人「挑選法院」問題，除了各國應致力於確立公平、合理之管轄權規則以尋求解決外，尚有二種避免之方法：一係承認當事人得透過協商之方式為國際裁判管轄之合意，另一係藉由法院「拒絕管轄」之裁量權限，以求調和。 本文於第三章所論述之「國際裁判管轄之合意」，從我國法院之立場觀之，可分為三種型態，即（一）當事人合意選擇我國之法院為管轄法院；（二）當事人為「併存之外國法院合意管轄」；（三）當事人為「排他性外國法院合意管轄」。此三種型態之國際裁判管轄合意，本文認為均應承認其合法性。在要件之探討上，本文認為國際裁判管轄合意之共通要件為：「合意管轄之意思表示一致與不要式性」、「合意管轄不得違反關於專屬管轄之規定」、「合意管轄須非重大之不合理或不公平」、「當事人須有訴訟能力」、「合意須限於第一審法院」及「合意須針對特定之法律關係」等。在「排他性外國法院合意管轄」之情形，因涉及我國法院之法定管轄權是否被排除之問題，我國法院尚須考量「合意管轄法院對該事件依該國法是否有管轄權」，而在合理性原則之分析中，法院亦得斟酌「合意法院之判決將來於我國之承認、執行可能性」。 在國際裁判管轄之合意中，合理性原則之分析，係賦予內國法院一定之裁量權限。其法理依據，與本文第四章所論述之國際裁判管轄權之基本理念有其共通性，即基於「當事人間之公平」、「裁判之適正、迅速」之理念，由法院認定是否有「不合理」之情事。按合意管轄係基於雙方當事人之自主意思而約定，當事人雙方既已就其「實體利益」與「程序利益」之利害狀況作一評估與安排，內國法院原則上應盡量尊重當事人之合意。在例外之情況下，應由反對該合意管轄之當事人負主張及舉證之責任，以該合意管轄約定具有「重大不合理」之情事為限，內國法院始得否認該合意管轄之效力。和第四章本文所述之「拒絕管轄」相同，法院關於「合理性」之裁量權限不宜過大（限於有重大不合理之例外情事），以期在法之一般安定性與個案之具體妥當性中尋求一平衡點。 第四章關於法院之拒絕管轄方面，本文主要以英美法上之「不便利法庭原則」作為論述對象，並與美國法上之「正當法律程序分析」與日本法上之「特別情事原則」作一分析與比較。不便利法庭原則賦予法院拒絕管轄之權，可說係對於原告挑選法院（forum shopping）的一種制衡手段，亦可某程度減少過剩管轄之發生，調和管轄權衝突之問題。然而，不便利法庭原則本身並非剛性規則，而係委由法院自由裁量；若無合理、具體之標準，在適用上將欠缺明確性與預見可能性。不便利法庭原則在美國實務已有高度之發展，然美國在確定是否有國際裁判管轄權時，一方面極力擴大本國之管轄權，另一方面又限制本國法院行使管轄權之權限，自我修正此種過度管轄問題。本文認為，若在檢討國際裁判管轄權之有無時即採取較為限縮的態度，並輔以利益衡量之方式運用裁量權，則承認不便利法庭原則之必要性，即有斟酌餘地。 「特別情事」分析方法已為日本實務上認定國際裁判管轄權時所採取之「標準模式」，於世界各國關於「拒絕管轄」之實務運作上，日本之特別情事分析可說係一經過高度發展、且自成一格之體系。在認定國際裁判管轄權之階段，日本法制係以「法理」（即管轄分配說）之理念為本，以內國民事訴訟法關於土地管轄之規定作為具體認定之標準，並配合「特別情事」原則之分析（即一定之利益衡量）。此等方式，可謂係兼採「逆推知說」、「管轄分配說」與「利益衡量說」之精神，以認定國際裁判管轄權之有無。於管轄權有無之認定階段，日本法院已賦予法院一定之裁量空間，以兼顧個案之具體妥當性，則將英美法上之「不便利法庭原則」導入之必要性並不高。 在我國，適用英美法上「不便利法庭原則」之下級法院裁判為數不少，惟此等裁判多僅將此原則作為「認定國際管轄權有無」之依據，而非在肯認我國有管轄權後進而適用此原則拒絕管轄。因此，不便利法庭原則在我國之適用與英美法院仍有差異。本文認為，我國實務上將不便利法庭原則作為管轄權有無之認定依據之一，實際上僅為管轄權分配規則之一部分而已，採取「利益衡量說」或「修正類推說」，即可達到同樣之目的。本文認為，與其一面採納「不便利法庭原則」、一面改變此原則之固有意義（將之作為管轄權有無之認定標準），不如採納日本法制所發展之「特別情事」原則。 於探討當事人之法庭地選擇與法院之拒絕管轄問題後，本文於第五章進一步說明其二者間之適用關係為何。在國際裁判管轄之合意與不便利法庭原則之適用上，二者間究竟孰為優先，容有爭議。從國際私法與國際民事訴訟法上「普遍主義」之精神觀之，各國之裁判機關應立於世界一體性之立場，以確保國際私法交流之圓滑與安全為目的，並基於國際間之協力而分擔、發揮國際上民商事案件之裁判功能，則內國法院對於外國當事人所為之「授與管轄權」之合意，應隨著國際趨勢承認之，並行使管轄權。從國際裁判管轄合意之功能性分析之，國際裁判管轄合意具有固定法廷地（forum fixing）之機能，解決管轄權規則不可避免之法律上衝突與矛盾；若減少管轄權規則之衝突，則同一事件重複起訴之情形亦能避免，對於當事人之程序利益之追求，對於國際間裁判矛盾之防止，均有裨益。因此，國際裁判管轄之合意應優先尊重，合意管轄之法院不宜適用不便利法庭原則以拒絕管轄。 本文探討者，係國際裁判管轄權之重要問題，於探討後回歸本論文之研究動機：如何致力於確立公平、合理之管轄權規則，消除過剩管轄之現象，並防範國際裁判管轄權衝突之發生，以期促成「國際間裁判一致」之理想？ 在我國法制上，本文認為，宜以法律之一般安定性為原則，以具體妥當性為例外。在國際裁判管轄權之認定上，以「管轄分配說」之理念為基礎，將國際裁判管轄之分配理解為：基於國際間之協力而分擔、發揮國際上民商事案件之裁判功能（即普遍主義之理念）。具體之認定過程中，原則上以民事訴訟法關於土地管轄之規定作為參酌之依據，惟仍須斟酌涉外事件之特殊性，例外時從事利益衡量。如此，較能兼顧「法的一般安定性」（即明確、可預測）之要求與「具體妥當性」之要求。 在各國法制上，關於國際裁判管轄權之認定規則，多有不同，大陸法系國家與英美法系國家有其不同之管轄體系，各國究以何種方式認定裁判管轄權，若無公約在各國間加以規範，恐難防範國際裁判管轄權衝突之發生。因此，國際間公約之締結或區域性立法仍係日後各國所應努力之方向。於二ＯＯＯ年十二月二十二日歐盟理事會正式通過之「民商事管轄權及判決承認與執行條例」（簡稱「歐盟管轄條例〈44/2001〉」），係對「歐洲共同體民商事事件管轄及判決執行公約」（「布魯塞爾公約」）進行修訂與更新之結果，已於二ＯＯ二年三月一日生效。此條例即為此一發展趨勢之指標。海牙國際私法會議長久以來亦在國際管轄公約方面有相當之努力，其於一九九九年海牙國際私法會議於特別委員會中作成「民事及商事事件管轄權與外國判決效力之公約準備草案」（簡稱「海牙管轄公約草案〈1999〉」），惟該公約草案自二ＯＯ一年六月召開之外交大會以來，因為各國間對於某些重要之條文多有意見之差異與對立，故至今仍未通過。由此觀之，目前欲使多數國家接納此種大規模條約之制定，實有重大困難。 在各國之間合理分配國際裁判管轄權，係為了提供更有效率、更合理之紛爭解決方式，並使裁判在國際社會間不受妨礙地自由流動。在世界各國程序規範尚未統一之今日，各國法院就每一案件所為之「國際裁判管轄權之認定」，應盡量客觀、公正，而非任由各國法院基於主觀或國家利益，而犧牲國際經濟、社會整體之秩序與和諧。從而，一國法院於判斷國際裁判管轄權時，應盡可能不受不確定之偶然因素或人為因素（如當事人挑選某國法院起訴）之支配，而以客觀、公正之態度認定「最適之管轄法院」為何，以期在「國家主權利益」、「當事人之利益（實體利益與程序利益）」及「國際民商法律秩序之整體利益」三者之間尋求一個合理之平衡點。或許，只有在世界各國均朝此方向努力，國際私法關於世界法之統一與避免裁判歧異之理想，始具有實現之可能性。

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE DISPUTES RESOLUTION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN FRANCE Comparative study of legal regulation in the Czech Republic and in France with emphasis on point of view of extent and limits of parties' autonomous will within dispute resolution ABSTRACT In relation to an important and continuously increasing growth of international trade and economic cooperation, a logic and proportionally increasing fact occurs, namely the existence and necessity of resolution of disputes arising out of such cooperation and business relationships. This dissertation focuses on specific area of such relations - on solution of property disputes in international trade and business relations arising out on private law basis between entrepreneurs and which affect in any manner the territories, more precisely the jurisdictions and the legal orders of two particular states, and that of France and the Czech Republic. The aim of the dissertation is to examine the extent of autonomous will, which the parties may assert within various methods of disputes resolution and to notify of its limits set by the respective legal regulation. Considering namely the main criteria of examination - i.e. the extent and limits of autonomous will of the parties within the dispute resolution - the author concentrates more...

LL.M. (International Commercial Law) / This essay seeks to look at the role of express submission to jurisdictjon under the Brussels I Regulation,lthe Brussels I (recast) Regulation2 and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.3 The express submission to jurisdiction under the three instruments mentioned in the previous sentence refers to the situation in which parties to an international commercial contract include in their contract a court of their choice to govern any disputes that may arise between them. This designated court may or may not be situated in a country that is a member of the three instruments mentioned above. The purpose of this thesis is to determine what will occur when the court chosen is from a country that is not a member of either of the three instruments mentioned. We will first look at express submission and the role it plays in determining which court has jurisdiction. This section on express submission will provide the definition of express submission in the context of a contract which incorporates a choice-of-forum agreement between the parties who are engaged in an international commercial transaction. The thesis will view the role of submission in a common-law and civil-law country in light of express submission by contract. Finally, a distinction will be made between an exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. A brief discussion ofthe Brussels Convention4 (The Convention) will be provided in order to present the fact that the Convention only applies when a choice-of-forum agreement in a contract has assoned thejurisdiction to a court of a country which is a member of the Convention. The Convention would not apply when a choice-of-forum agreement in a contract has assigned jurisdiction to the court of a country which is not a member to the Convention. ln order to determine whether the position has changed since the enactment of the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation) with regard to choice-of-forum agreements that designate jurisdiction to the court of a country in a nonmember state of the Regulation, provisions relating to express submission clauses will be discussed. A further discussion will be provided to ascertain whether the enactment of the Council Regulation (EC) No 4412001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement ofjudgments in civil and commercial matters.