域外管辖的体系构造：立法管辖与司法管辖之界分
宋晓域外管辖的体系构造：立法管辖与司法管辖之界分
System Construction of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Demarcation between Legislative Jurisdiction and Judicial Jurisdiction
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：宋晓
单位：
中文关键词：域外管辖;域外立法管辖;域外司法管辖;属地原则;长臂管辖
英文关键词：extraterritorial jurisdiction; extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction; extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction; the principle of territoriality; long-arm jurisdiction
中文摘要：
域外管辖的理论构造和国内法域外适用的体系构建是我国当前面临的重大课题，其中关键之处是需对域外立法管辖和域外司法管辖作出恰当界分。无论对于域外立法管辖还是对于域外司法管辖，公法和私法的区分都构成了理论和实践展开的基础。各国立法管辖和司法管辖均不同程度地超越了属地原则。域外立法管辖的基本方法是单边主义方法和多边主义方法，而域外司法管辖的基本方法是一般管辖方法和特别管辖方法。公法的域外立法管辖零散而具体标准不一，实际上并无体系可言，是整个域外立法管辖中最为复杂的，国际法只是进行外部限制而不能直接提出贯通的规则或标准。私法的域外适用及私法案件的域外司法管辖均不存在国际习惯法的限制。域外管辖的体系构造，不应依循某个统一原理自上而下地展开，而应沿着私法的域外立法管辖体系、私法案件的域外司法管辖体系以及公法的域外立法管辖"体系"分别展开。域外立法管辖和域外司法管辖具有不同的法律目标和功能，两者并不以实现相互统一为价值追求。
英文摘要：
Currently, a crucial issue faced by China is how to construct a theory on extraterritorial jurisdiction and build a system of extraterritorial application of domestic laws and the key to address this issue is the proper demarcation between extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction and extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction. For both jurisdictions, the distinction between public law and private law lays a foundation for theoretical and practical pursuits. The principle of territoriality has not been strictly followed by various states in legislative or judicial jurisdictions. The basic methods for extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction are unilateralism and multilateralism, while those for the extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction are general and specific jurisdictions. Because of the lack of uniform and systematic standards, the extraterritorial application of public law is a hard problem to tackle, and public international law cannot provide coherent principles or standards except for some external limitations. Public international law, including customary law, however, imposes no similar restrictions on the extraterritorial jurisdiction of private law. The system of extraterritorial jurisdiction should not be constructed in a top-down manner according to a unified principle. The appropriate way is to develop different rules for the extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction of private law, for the extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction of private law, and for the extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction of public law. Extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction and extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction pursue different legal aims and perform different legal functions, and they do not take value uniformity as their common objective.
全文阅读： 点击下载
