Some Fundamental Jurisdictional Conceptions as Applied in Judgment Conventions
Some Fundamental Jurisdictional Conceptions as Applied in Judgment Conventions
复制标题
判决公约中适用的一些基本管辖权概念
DOI：
10.1017/cbo9780511511196.006
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Michaels
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Michaels
管辖权法与外国判决的承认和执行法混淆不清。关于这一问题的辩论也是如此，基本概念，甚至是管辖权的概念，都有模糊的含义。由此产生的后果是误解，最突出的是未能在海牙缔结一项全球判决公约。本文试图通过对概念和关系的分析来澄清该领域的概念。文章首先指出，管辖权作为作出裁决的一个条件（直接管辖权）和管辖权作为裁决在其他地方的可执行性的一个条件（间接管辖权），在逻辑上是相互独立的。它继续表明，道义逻辑的三种可能的价值--强制性的、可选择的和不允许的行为--反映在管辖权基础可以具有的三种可能的状态中：这种基础可以是必需的、排除的或允许的。这两种区分的结合导致了直接管辖权和间接管辖权的九种不同的可能组合。本文对这九种方法逐一进行了详细分析。这种分析对于起草判决惯例至关重要。传统上，只规范外国判决的执行的所谓单一公约和也规范直接管辖权的双重公约之间存在着区别。亚瑟·冯·梅伦（Arthur von Mehren）发展了第三种类型，即所谓的混合习俗。虽然这是一个相当大的进步，但混合公约的确切结构从未完全清楚。本文提出了一种新的类型学，既丰富，更准确。虽然本条从现有公约中汲取了丰富的比较材料，虽然它一再强调不同的管辖权依据价值和不同类型的公约所涉的规范问题，但本条的主要目的是分析性的，而不是规范性的。然而，这种分析远非仅仅是形式主义的做法，而是为适当的规范分析奠定了不可或缺的先决条件。明确概念的定义并不能保证适当的政策辩论，但没有明确的概念，政策辩论是不可能的。从这个意义上说，本文希望有助于为此类辩论提供新的基础。
The law of jurisdiction and of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is confused. So is the debate about it. Basic concepts, even that of jurisdiction, have ambiguous meaning. Misunderstandings, most prominent in the failure to conclude a worldwide judgments convention at the Hague, are the consequence. This article tries to bring conceptual clarity to the field through an analysis of concepts and relations. The article first shows that jurisdiction as a requirement for the rendering of a decision (direct jurisdiction) and jurisdiction as a requirement for the decision's enforceability elsewhere (indirect jurisdiction), are logically independent from each other. It goes on to show that the three possible values of deontic logic - obligatory, optional, and impermissible conduct - are reflected in three possible statuses that jurisdictional bases can have: such bases may be required, excluded, or permitted. A combination of both distinctions leads to nine different possible combinations of direct and indirect jurisdiction. The article analyzes each of these nine in detail. Such an analysis is crucial for the drafting of judgment conventions. Traditionally, a distinction existed between so-called single conventions that regulate only enforcement of foreign judgments, and double conventions that regulate also direct jurisdiction. Arthur von Mehren, for whose memorial volume this article is written, developed a third category, the so-called mixed convention. Although it represented a considerable improvement, the exact structure of mixed convention never became fully clear. This article proposes a new typology that is both richer and more exact. Although the article draws on rich comparative material from existing conventions, and although it emphasizes repeatedly the normative implications both of different values for jurisdictional bases and of different types of conventions, the article's prime aim is analytical, not normative. However, far from being a mere formalist exercise, such an analysis lays the indispensable prerequisites for a proper normative analysis. The definition of clear concepts does not guarantee proper policy debates, but without clear concepts policy debate is impossible. In this sense, the paper hopes to help provide new foundations for such debates.