国际民事诉讼中应诉管辖标准研究

On the Submission to Jurisdiction in International Civil Litigation

我国2012年民诉法及其2015年司法解释对应诉管辖虽有规定,但尚有诸多不明确之处。在国际民事诉讼中,被告除提出管辖权异议之外,往往还伴有其他行为,这些行为给应诉管辖的认定造成了困难。通过考察分析英国、新加坡、津巴布韦、波兰、加拿大、英属维尔京群岛、中国香港特别行政区有关应诉管辖的不同司法实践,结合我国有关立法、司法解释,认为被告在提交答辩状期间未提出管辖异议,也不出庭的,不应认定构成应诉管辖;从诉讼经济角度考虑,对不在答辩期提出管辖异议,而出庭主张管辖权异议的行为不应认可;司法解释对既提出管辖异议又进行实体答辩的不构成应诉管辖的规定值得商榷,从程序经济性和安定性角度看,此种情形宜认定为构成应诉管辖。

Chinese Civil Procedure Law 2012 and its judicial interpretation in 2015 provide rules of submission to jurisdiction. Nevertheless, there are still some gaps and loopholes in the legislation. For the international civil litigation, the defendant often challenges the jurisdiction accompanied with some other conducts, which makes it more complicated to ascertain what constitutes submission to jurisdiction. After considering Chinese legal practice and comparing the different judicial practices in the UK, Singapore, Zimbabwe, Poland, Canada, British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong, the authors propose that there is no submission to jurisdiction when the defendant neither challenges the jurisdiction in the defense period nor appears in the trial. For efficiency, there is also no submission to jurisdiction when defendant makes-appearance in the trial to challenge jurisdiction rather than challenges in the defense period. The provision that the challenges to the jurisdiction and defenses substantially are not deemed as submission to jurisdiction in the 2015 judicial interpretation is worth reconsidering. From the perspective of efficiency and certainty in the litigation, the situation aforementioned should be identified as submission to jurisdiction.