中国政府及国有企业在美国法院面临的主权豁免问题分析——兼评美国Walters夫妇就“中国制造”手枪质量问题导致儿子死亡告中华人民共和国政府缺席判决执行案被引量：11

The Sovereign Immunity Issues in the Cases against the Chinese Government and/or State-Owned Enterprise before the U.S.Court——Comment on the Case,Debbie and Max WALTERS,Plaintiffs,v.the People's Republic of China,Defendant

下载PDF

导出

摘要美国Walters夫妇就"中国制造"手枪质量问题导致儿子死亡告中华人民共和国政府,美国密苏里州西区联邦法院用缺席判决判中国政府赔偿1000万美元。美国Walters夫妇要求扣留中国工商银行纽约分行等3家银行中相应的中国政府财产,美国纽约州南区联邦法院以该财产不在美国境内为由,驳回原告要求。2010年3月,美国原告提起上诉。本案仍然在进行中。本文通过对本案的分析,引出中国政府及国有企业在美国法院面临的主权豁免问题的分析,如中国政府在主权豁免案中可引用的抗辩理由;中国国有企业援引主权豁免的利弊;执行国有企业中相应财产问题。本文旨在引起学术界进一步关注在司法实践中涉及中国的主权豁免问题。 After default judgment was entered against People＇s Republic of China （PRC） in parent＇s products liability action for death of their son due to allegedly defective semi-automatic rifle, parents served restraining notices and subpoenas on New York branches of Chinese banks to forbid sale or transfer PRC assets. Banks filed motion to vacate the restraining orders and quash the subpoenas. The District Court, Sidney H. Stein, J., held that assets were located outside the United States. The FSIA provides no exception to the PRC＇s sovereign immunity that would justify that procedure. This article comments on the defence arguments for Chinese government on its sovereign immunity, the advantages or disadvantage for the Chinese state-owned company to claim the sovereign immunity, the execution of a default judgment on the Chinese government to the property of the Chinese state-owed company.

作者龚柏华

机构地区复旦大学

出处《国际商务研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2010年第4期22-30,共9页 International Business Research

关键词主权豁免国有企业美国法院中国政府 sovereign immunity state-owned enterprise U. S. court Chinese government

分类号 DF961 [政治法律—国际法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献54

1Walters v. Century International Arms, Inc., No. 93 Civ. 5188/5(W.D.Mo. Oct. 22, 1996).
2Debbie and Max WALTERS, Plaintiffs, v. The PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, Defendant. No.18 Misc. 302. Dec. 2, 2009o 672 F.Supp.2d 573.
3Elliott Associates, L.P.v. Banco De La Nacion, No. 96 Cir. 7916, 2000 WL 1449862, at *3 (S. D.N.Y.Sep 29 , 2000).
4Kensington Intern. Ltd. v. Republic of Congo, 461 F.3d 238, 243 (2d Cir. 2006).
5Fidelity Partners, Inc. v. Philippine Export & Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp., 921 F. Supp. 1113, 1119 (S.D.N.Y.1996).
6Aurelius Capital Partners, LP v. Republic of Argentina, 584 F.3d 120, 130 (2d Cir.2009).
7Jackson v. People' s Republic of China 550 F.Supp. 869 D.C.Ala.,1982. Sept. 1, 1982.
8Jackson v. People' s Republic of China ,596 F.Supp. 386 D.C.Ala.,1984. Oct. 26, 1984.
9Jackson v. People' s Republic of China ,794 F.2d 1490 C.A.11 (Ala. ),1986. July 25, 1986.
10Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004).