海牙《选择法院协议公约》背景下管辖权协议之效力研究  

The Validity of Choice of Court Agreements under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

作　　者：杨赟 YANG Yun

机构地区：[1]外交学院国际法系

出　　处：《国际法学刊》2022年第3期136-152,157,158,共19页Journal of International Law

摘　　要：我国于2017年9月签署海牙《选择法院协议公约》,但公约与中国现行内国法存在一定的差异和冲突,特别是在管辖权协议方面。为与公约更好地衔接,本文依照公约结构,在直接管辖权和间接管辖权背景下讨论管辖权协议的准据法适用问题,“实际联系”标准与管辖权协议排他性的矛盾,以及作为未被选择法院而对案件享有管辖权时中国法院的应对模式。若批准该公约,当管辖权协议依据我国法院地法无效时,我国法院可以在判决承认与执行阶段维护自身利益,以违反我国公共政策为由拒绝承认与执行,同时我国应当对公约第20条内容声明保留,以维护对纯国内案件的管辖权底线。China has signed the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in September2017,but there are certain conflicts betweenthe Convention and China's current domestic law,especially in terms of jurisdiction agreements.To better connect with the Convention,according to the structure of the Convention,this article discusses the application of theapplicable law of the jurisdiction agreement,the contradiction be-tween the"actual connection"standard and the"exclusivity"of the jurisdiction agree-ment,and the response model of Chinese courts when they have jurisdiction over the case as a non-selected court in the context of direct jurisdiction and indirect jurisdiction.If the Convention is ratified,when the jurisdiction agreement is invalid according to the lex fori,the Chinese courts can safeguard their own interests in the stage of judgment recognition and enforcement,refuse to recognize and enforce the judgment on the grounds that it violates China's public policy.China shall make a declaration under Ar-ticle 20 of the Convention to maintain thebottom lineof jurisdiction overpurelydomes-tic cases.

关 键 词：《选择法院协议公约》 管辖权协议 直接管辖权 间接管辖权 实际联系标准 

分 类 号：D994[政治法律—国际法学]