跨法域合同纠纷中强制性规范的类型及认定规则

跨法域合同纠纷中强制性规范的类型及认定规则

Classification and Interpretation Rules of Mandatory Norms in Contract Disputes Involving Cross-departments of Law

    期刊名称：《法学研究》
    期刊年份：
    作者：陈醇
    单位：
    中文关键词：强制性规范;对赌协议;缔约过失;合同效力;合同履行
    英文关键词：mandatory norm; VAM; contracting fault; validity of contract; performance of contract
    中文摘要：
    在传统二分法关于管理性强制规范与效力性强制规范的区分之外，缔约过失理论以及对赌合同纠纷裁判采用的区隔论均隐含着对强制性规范的区分。联结传统二分法、区隔论与缔约过失理论，可以将合同流程分为缔约、效力与履行三个基本阶段，合同法与其他部门法的接触介面也可从合同效力的单一介面拓展至合同流程的全部介面。相应地，强制性规范可以分为缔约性强制规范、效力性强制规范与履行性强制规范，以实现合同法与其他部门法的价值融合与最大化。在跨法域合同纠纷的裁判中，应当以全介面理念为基础，在不减损其他部门法效果的前提下，尽量减少其强制性规范对合同效力介面的强制，以最后规则、补救规则、可能规则作为认定强制性规范类型的方法，并以此为基础更新跨法域合同纠纷的裁判理由。
    英文摘要：
    Both the separation theory adopted in the decisions on disputes over VAM contracts and the contracting fault theory imply the distinction between mandatory norms, which is quite different from the traditional classification of mandatory norms. By synthesizing these two theories, a contract in the sense of process can be divided into three basic stages: contracting, validity and performance, and interfaces between contract law and other departments of law should be extended from single interface (validity interface) to all interfaces. Correspondingly, mandatory norms on contract can be divided into the contracting norms, validity norms and enforceability norms, so as to pursue the integration and maximization of the values of the contract law and other departments of law. Based on the concept of all interfaces, the court should apply the final rule, the remedy rule and the possible rule as the methods of explaining mandatory norms in the judgment of contract disputes involving cross-departments of law, so as to reduce as more as possible the compulsion on the contract on the premise of not detracting the effect of other laws, update the existing classification and interpretation rules of mandatory norms as well as the grounds for the judgment of contract disputes involving cross-departments of law.
    全文阅读：  点击下载