论《海牙判决公约》中的禁止实质性审查条款  

The No Review of Merit Clause in Hague Judgments Convention

作　　者：刘阳[1,2] 向在胜 LIU Yang;XIANG Zaisheng

机构地区：[1]中南财经政法大学 [2]浙江理工大学法政学院

出　　处：《武大国际法评论》2020年第5期44-65,共22页Wuhan University International Law Review

摘　　要：“禁止实质性审查”不仅是2019年《海牙判决公约》的基础性条款,而且是现代各国承认与执行外国判决时秉持的基本理念。该条款存在以下瓶颈:第一,理论困境在于禁止实质性审查条款的语义诠释。传统通说认为,禁止实质性审查,即意味着被请求国法院不得审查外国判决中的事实认定和法律适用。此传统语义不仅不符合法理学中“法”概念的基本要素,而且无法对外国判决的审查范围提供理性和清晰的指导,因为被请求国承认或执行外国判决时根本无法脱离对外国判决的事实和法律进行考量。第二,实践障碍在于禁止实质性审查条款的适用。禁止实质性审查的事项范围具有时间上的可变更性。在不同的演变阶段,禁止实质性审查的事项范围存在耦合,同时也存在突破。禁止实质性审查的行为主体是被请求国法院,但同时保留了当事人作为参与主体主动申请审查和提出异议的权利,并将当事人主动申请审查作为被请求国违反禁止实质性审查的除外情形。我国并不排斥确认性审查(外国判决的查明),也不排斥对外国判决是否符合承认与执行条件进行审查,除此之外的其他情形才属于我国对外国判决禁止实质性审查的范围。"No Review of Merit"is not only the basic provision of 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, but also the basic idea adopted by modern countries when recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments. The clause has the following bottlenecks: Firstly, the theoretical dilemma is semantic interpretation of the No Review of Merit Clause. According to the traditional general theory,No Review of Merit means that the court of the requested country may not examine the fact finding and the application of law in foreign judgments. But this traditional semantic is not only inconsistent with the basic elements of"law"concepts in jurisprudence, but also unable to provide rational and clear guidance on the scope of review of foreign judgments. Because it is impossible for the requested country to break itself away form considering the facts and laws of foreign judgments when recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments. Secondly, the practical obstacle lies in the application of the No Review of Merit Clause. The object scope of No Review of Merit is changeable in time. At different stages of evolution, the range of matters of No Review of Merit are coupled, but there are also breakthroughs. The court of the requested country is the behavior subject of No Review of Merit. At the same time, the parties as the participating parties have been reserved rights to actively apply for examination and raise objection. In addition, the parties’ taking the initiative to apply for examination is regarded as the exception of the requested state’s violation of No Review of Merit. The scope of the review of foreign judgments in China has broken through the traditional semantic limitation of No Review of Merit. Our country does not exclude confirmatory review(the identification of foreign judgments), nor does it exclude the examination of whether foreign judgments meet the conditions of recognition and enforcement. Other situations beyond this fall within the scope of our country’s prohibition of substantive review of foreign judgments.

关 键 词：禁止实质性审查 形式审查 海牙判决公约 外国判决的承认与执行 

分 类 号：D994[政治法律—国际法学]