2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》研究
|
摘要
2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》是海牙国际私法会议在国际民商事管辖权和外国判决承认与执行领域取得的最新和最重大成果。该公约是在目标宏大的民商事管辖权及外国判决公约流产的情况下,各国与会代表争取共识、缩小争议的产物。公约调整基于选择法院协议而提起的国际民商事诉讼,对各国选择法院协议和外国判决的承认与执行规则进行协调。由于海牙公约提供了国际法上的保障,选择法院协议和判决的承认与执行规则得到相当程度的确认,判决的可预见性提升,这将促使国际商事活动中的当事人对国际诉讼产生信任感。进而言之,海牙公约提供当事人一种有制度保障的选择,在国际仲裁之外选择诉讼亦可以获得争议的解决。2005年《协议选择法院公约》极有可能如公约起草者希望的那样,与1958年《纽约公约》处理国际仲裁一样成功,成为国际民商事诉讼领域内第一部广泛接受的全球性多边条约。
2007年9月,墨西哥成为加入2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》的第一个国家。2009年1月和4月,美国和欧共体的代表先后分别向海牙国际私法会议提交了加入公约的签字文件,其批准有待于其国内或内部的程序。由于只要第二个国家或组织批准或加入就能使公约生效,可以乐观地预计2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》的生效之日不会太远。
中国作为第三大经济体,作为迅速融入全球化的大国,在游戏规则的制定上应更多地主动参与,厕身于国际私法的统一化运动之外将不利于国际民商事交往和司法公正。研究2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》,不仅可以为我国加入公约的可行性和必要性进行深入和全面的研究,同时也能为完善我国的国际选择法院协议制度提供建设性的意见。
本文的正文部分分为四章。第一章为“2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》缔结背景”。该章对公约的起草作历史性的回顾。首先介绍美国和欧洲在缔结管辖权和判决公约方面的经历,以了解各国对管辖权和判决公约的需要；其次回顾了“大公约”和“小公约”两个阶段的起草过程,以便掌握公约谈判的脉络；最后分析原大公约草案失败的原因和教训,指出公约的达成必须充分考虑各国经济发展和法律传统的差异,公约应当在司法的确定性、判决的自由流动、法院的合理管辖和对被告的保护之间寻求适当的平衡。
第二章为“2005年海牙公约产生的制度背景”。该章对主要国家的国际选择法院协议的理论与实践进行阐述。首先探讨选择法院协议制度的一般理论；其次依国别分别介绍德国、英国、美国和欧盟的具体规则。通过对国际选择法院协议制度的比较,能全面了解各国在选择法院协议制度中的差异,有助于了解海牙公约规则的形成。
第三章为“2005年海牙公约主要内容和相关争议问题”。该章在尽量涵盖公约主要内容的基础之上,注意研究我国在谈判中的主要关注点。首先研究了公约的适用范围,这是公约中最为庞大的规则；其次研究公约的管辖权一般规则,主要涉及被选法院的管辖权和其他法院的义务；随后专题性地研究管辖权中案件争议与诉讼地的联系问题、选择法院协议的形式要件、选择法院协议的实质要件和法律适用问题；最后详细分析公约的判决承认与执行规则。
第四章为“中国加入2005年海牙公约的可行性”,该章是全文比较突出的部分。作者注意到仅研究公约与我国现行规则的潜在冲突,或者从单一的个案正义出发并不能为我国是否加入公约提供有力和全面的论证。文章认为我国对于批准海牙公约的价值取向和内在需求是“充分保护我国当事人的利益和平等保护外国当事人的权利”。在借鉴欧盟《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》的四项管辖权原则的基础之上,提出符合我国经济发展和法治需要的四项管辖权原则：“争议应在适当法院解决原则”、“保护被告抗辩权原则”、“司法的确定性原则”和“合理和公正判决的自由流动原则”。文章运用这四项原则对海牙公约进行全面的考查,认为2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》以“司法的确定性”和“判决的流动”为基本构架,重视“争议应在适当法院解决”,但是对于保护弱方当事人和被告抗辩权利,公约提供是间接和较低的保护,其保护程度不如《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》。尽管公约存在缺陷,但公约的声明条款可被利用而加以弥补。最后,文章认为我国应该加入海牙公约,并对我国加入公约的具体措施和今后如何完善我国的国际选择法院协议制度提出了个人的建议。
The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements is the latest and most significant achievement in the field of international jurisdiction and recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters hold by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Since the huge Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters was unattainable, the Hague Conference decided to scale down the objective of convention to choice of court agreements in international business-to-business cases. The goal of the Hague Convention is to improve the ability to efficiently resolve disputes and enforce judgments in international transactions. Like the New York Convention, the Hague Convention establishes rules for enforcing choice of court agreements, and rules for recognizing and enforcing the judgments issued by the chosen court, thus enhancing the predictability and certainty of results of litigation between international business-to-business parties who signed exclusive choice of court agreements. Furthermore, the Hague Convention provides the parties a reliable option instead of international arbitration to oversea litigation to resolve their disputes. The Hague Convention is quite likely to be the first widely accepted global multilateral treaty on international civil jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments.
On 26 September 2007, Mexico deposited its instrument of accession to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. On 19 January 2009, the Hague Convention received its first signature from the Legal Adviser to the US Secretary of State. On 1 April 2009, the European Community also signed the Hauge Convention. If either the EC or US ratify it, or another Hague member accedes and ratifies it, then the Hague Convention will enter into force. We can anticipate optimistically that its effective date will not be far away.
As the third largest economy and the grand power intending to peaceful rise and participate rapidly in the globalization, China should not be passive to formulate the rules of the international games, especially for the movement of the unification of private international law. The aims of doing research on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement are not only for China's accession to the Convention, but also providing constructive suggestions to improve its rules of international choice of court agreement and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
This dissertation is divided into four chapters. Chapter I of The Conclusion of the Hague Convention gives a historic review of its drafting and negotiation. Firstly, the author introduces the American unsuccessful experience in the UK/US Judgments Convention and the European successful convention, e.g. the Brussels Convention. Then the author reviews the two stages of drafting process, which help to understand the convention's context and subject issues. Lastly, the author analyzes the reasons for the failure of the previous huge convention, and concludes that the drafters must take full account the difference and diversity of economic development and legal traditions around the world. The Convention should seek a wise and exquisite balance amongst the principle which disputes should be decided by an appropriate court, the principle of the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the principle of free movement of reasonable and justice judgments.
Chapter II of The International Theory and Practice on Choice of Court Agreement discusses the international jurisdiction clause of several countries. First of all, the author explores the general theory of choice of court agreement. Then, the author compares the rules or cases in Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and the EU Regulation. Through the detailed comparison, we can comprehend the divergence and disagreement amongst the civil- and common-law systems which will help us to understand the formation of the Hague Convention.
Chapter III of The Major Issues of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement covers the three key rules and major issues which Chinese scholars concerned. First of all, the author studies the scope of the Convention, which is the most massive provision in the Convention. Secondly, the author discusses the general rules of the jurisdiction of the Convention, mainly involving the jurisdiction of the chosen court and the obligation of other courts. Then, the author investigates three important problems relating to the jurisdiction, which are the connection between the dispute or the defendant and the chosen forum, its formal validity and its substantive validity and the applicable law. At the final section of the chapter, there is a detailed analysis of rules of the recognition and enforcement of the Convention.
Chapter IV of The Feasibility of China's Accession to the Hague Convention is the most significant part of the dissertation. The authors noted that the comparison the rules between the Convention and Chinese law, or the research only from the single perspective of substantive justice, can not provide strong and comprehensive evaluation for China's accession or not. The author points out that a convention which can satisfy the Chinese needs and accord with those Chinese interests should fully protect Chinese litigants and equally protect the interest of foreign parities. Learning from the four EU principles of jurisdiction, the author makes a theoretical model which can accord with China's economic development and judicial reality. The four hierarchy principles with Chinese characteristics are "the principle which disputes should be decided by an appropriate court", "the principle of the protection of the rights of the defence", "the principle of legal certainty" and "the principle of free movement of reasonable and justice judgments". After testing the Hague Convention under the four principles, the author concludes that the Convention takes the two principles of "free movement of judgments" and "the legal certainty" as its basic framework, emphasizes on "the principle which dispute should be resolved by an appropriate court", but for the protection of the weak party and the rights of the defence, the Hague provides an indirect protection which is lower than that of Brussels Regulation. Fortunately, such flaw can be remedied inasmuch as the Hague Convention allows the contracting states making a statement where the state has a strong interest in not applying the Convention to a specific matter. The author proposes China accede to the Hague Convention with making such statement to protect those weak parties. The author suggests the Chinese legislative to constitute concrete and exquisite regulations to implement the Convention and improve its rules relating to international choice of court agreements and recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments.
2007年9月,墨西哥成为加入2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》的第一个国家。2009年1月和4月,美国和欧共体的代表先后分别向海牙国际私法会议提交了加入公约的签字文件,其批准有待于其国内或内部的程序。由于只要第二个国家或组织批准或加入就能使公约生效,可以乐观地预计2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》的生效之日不会太远。
中国作为第三大经济体,作为迅速融入全球化的大国,在游戏规则的制定上应更多地主动参与,厕身于国际私法的统一化运动之外将不利于国际民商事交往和司法公正。研究2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》,不仅可以为我国加入公约的可行性和必要性进行深入和全面的研究,同时也能为完善我国的国际选择法院协议制度提供建设性的意见。
本文的正文部分分为四章。第一章为“2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》缔结背景”。该章对公约的起草作历史性的回顾。首先介绍美国和欧洲在缔结管辖权和判决公约方面的经历,以了解各国对管辖权和判决公约的需要；其次回顾了“大公约”和“小公约”两个阶段的起草过程,以便掌握公约谈判的脉络；最后分析原大公约草案失败的原因和教训,指出公约的达成必须充分考虑各国经济发展和法律传统的差异,公约应当在司法的确定性、判决的自由流动、法院的合理管辖和对被告的保护之间寻求适当的平衡。
第二章为“2005年海牙公约产生的制度背景”。该章对主要国家的国际选择法院协议的理论与实践进行阐述。首先探讨选择法院协议制度的一般理论；其次依国别分别介绍德国、英国、美国和欧盟的具体规则。通过对国际选择法院协议制度的比较,能全面了解各国在选择法院协议制度中的差异,有助于了解海牙公约规则的形成。
第三章为“2005年海牙公约主要内容和相关争议问题”。该章在尽量涵盖公约主要内容的基础之上,注意研究我国在谈判中的主要关注点。首先研究了公约的适用范围,这是公约中最为庞大的规则；其次研究公约的管辖权一般规则,主要涉及被选法院的管辖权和其他法院的义务；随后专题性地研究管辖权中案件争议与诉讼地的联系问题、选择法院协议的形式要件、选择法院协议的实质要件和法律适用问题；最后详细分析公约的判决承认与执行规则。
第四章为“中国加入2005年海牙公约的可行性”,该章是全文比较突出的部分。作者注意到仅研究公约与我国现行规则的潜在冲突,或者从单一的个案正义出发并不能为我国是否加入公约提供有力和全面的论证。文章认为我国对于批准海牙公约的价值取向和内在需求是“充分保护我国当事人的利益和平等保护外国当事人的权利”。在借鉴欧盟《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》的四项管辖权原则的基础之上,提出符合我国经济发展和法治需要的四项管辖权原则：“争议应在适当法院解决原则”、“保护被告抗辩权原则”、“司法的确定性原则”和“合理和公正判决的自由流动原则”。文章运用这四项原则对海牙公约进行全面的考查,认为2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》以“司法的确定性”和“判决的流动”为基本构架,重视“争议应在适当法院解决”,但是对于保护弱方当事人和被告抗辩权利,公约提供是间接和较低的保护,其保护程度不如《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》。尽管公约存在缺陷,但公约的声明条款可被利用而加以弥补。最后,文章认为我国应该加入海牙公约,并对我国加入公约的具体措施和今后如何完善我国的国际选择法院协议制度提出了个人的建议。
The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements is the latest and most significant achievement in the field of international jurisdiction and recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters hold by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Since the huge Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters was unattainable, the Hague Conference decided to scale down the objective of convention to choice of court agreements in international business-to-business cases. The goal of the Hague Convention is to improve the ability to efficiently resolve disputes and enforce judgments in international transactions. Like the New York Convention, the Hague Convention establishes rules for enforcing choice of court agreements, and rules for recognizing and enforcing the judgments issued by the chosen court, thus enhancing the predictability and certainty of results of litigation between international business-to-business parties who signed exclusive choice of court agreements. Furthermore, the Hague Convention provides the parties a reliable option instead of international arbitration to oversea litigation to resolve their disputes. The Hague Convention is quite likely to be the first widely accepted global multilateral treaty on international civil jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments.
On 26 September 2007, Mexico deposited its instrument of accession to the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. On 19 January 2009, the Hague Convention received its first signature from the Legal Adviser to the US Secretary of State. On 1 April 2009, the European Community also signed the Hauge Convention. If either the EC or US ratify it, or another Hague member accedes and ratifies it, then the Hague Convention will enter into force. We can anticipate optimistically that its effective date will not be far away.
As the third largest economy and the grand power intending to peaceful rise and participate rapidly in the globalization, China should not be passive to formulate the rules of the international games, especially for the movement of the unification of private international law. The aims of doing research on the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement are not only for China's accession to the Convention, but also providing constructive suggestions to improve its rules of international choice of court agreement and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
This dissertation is divided into four chapters. Chapter I of The Conclusion of the Hague Convention gives a historic review of its drafting and negotiation. Firstly, the author introduces the American unsuccessful experience in the UK/US Judgments Convention and the European successful convention, e.g. the Brussels Convention. Then the author reviews the two stages of drafting process, which help to understand the convention's context and subject issues. Lastly, the author analyzes the reasons for the failure of the previous huge convention, and concludes that the drafters must take full account the difference and diversity of economic development and legal traditions around the world. The Convention should seek a wise and exquisite balance amongst the principle which disputes should be decided by an appropriate court, the principle of the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the principle of free movement of reasonable and justice judgments.
Chapter II of The International Theory and Practice on Choice of Court Agreement discusses the international jurisdiction clause of several countries. First of all, the author explores the general theory of choice of court agreement. Then, the author compares the rules or cases in Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and the EU Regulation. Through the detailed comparison, we can comprehend the divergence and disagreement amongst the civil- and common-law systems which will help us to understand the formation of the Hague Convention.
Chapter III of The Major Issues of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement covers the three key rules and major issues which Chinese scholars concerned. First of all, the author studies the scope of the Convention, which is the most massive provision in the Convention. Secondly, the author discusses the general rules of the jurisdiction of the Convention, mainly involving the jurisdiction of the chosen court and the obligation of other courts. Then, the author investigates three important problems relating to the jurisdiction, which are the connection between the dispute or the defendant and the chosen forum, its formal validity and its substantive validity and the applicable law. At the final section of the chapter, there is a detailed analysis of rules of the recognition and enforcement of the Convention.
Chapter IV of The Feasibility of China's Accession to the Hague Convention is the most significant part of the dissertation. The authors noted that the comparison the rules between the Convention and Chinese law, or the research only from the single perspective of substantive justice, can not provide strong and comprehensive evaluation for China's accession or not. The author points out that a convention which can satisfy the Chinese needs and accord with those Chinese interests should fully protect Chinese litigants and equally protect the interest of foreign parities. Learning from the four EU principles of jurisdiction, the author makes a theoretical model which can accord with China's economic development and judicial reality. The four hierarchy principles with Chinese characteristics are "the principle which disputes should be decided by an appropriate court", "the principle of the protection of the rights of the defence", "the principle of legal certainty" and "the principle of free movement of reasonable and justice judgments". After testing the Hague Convention under the four principles, the author concludes that the Convention takes the two principles of "free movement of judgments" and "the legal certainty" as its basic framework, emphasizes on "the principle which dispute should be resolved by an appropriate court", but for the protection of the weak party and the rights of the defence, the Hague provides an indirect protection which is lower than that of Brussels Regulation. Fortunately, such flaw can be remedied inasmuch as the Hague Convention allows the contracting states making a statement where the state has a strong interest in not applying the Convention to a specific matter. The author proposes China accede to the Hague Convention with making such statement to protect those weak parties. The author suggests the Chinese legislative to constitute concrete and exquisite regulations to implement the Convention and improve its rules relating to international choice of court agreements and recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments.
引文
1 本公约名或译2005年海牙《法院选择协议公约》。为行文的方便,文中简称其为海牙公约。在附录中附有公约的英文原文和中文译文,公约译文参考了宋连斌、孙劲和徐国建三位学者的翻译。附录中同时附上公约起草的预备文件清单,这些文件见诸海牙国际私法会议官方网站,后文首次引注时一般附网址,再引时省略。
2 Ronald A. Brand, The New Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006).
13 参见胡斌、田妮：《十字路口的海牙管辖权公约》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2002年卷,法律出版社2002年版,第542页。
4 Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000-Report on the preliminary draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (visited March 1,2006). Hereinafter [Nygh/Pocar Report (August 2000)].
5 The Permanent Bureau and the Co-reporters, Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission Ⅱ of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference (6-20 June 2001)-Interim Text (visited May 1,2006).
6 Draft on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006).
7 Masato Dogauchi & Trevor C. Hartley, Preliminary Document No 25 of March 2004-Draft Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, (visited May 1,2006). Hereinafter [Dogauchi/Hartley Report (March 2004)].
8 Draft on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006),.
9 Masato Dogauchi & Trevor C. Hartley, Preliminary Document No 26 of December 2004-Draft Report of Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006). Hereinafter [Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004)].
10 Trevor Hartley & Masato Dogauchi, Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention, (visited April 13,2009). Hereinafter [Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007)].
11 参见孙劲：《海牙(选择法院协议公约>评介》,2005年中国国际私法年会论文。
12 参见香港律政司国际法律科：《关于选择专审法院协议的海牙公约初稿的最新进展》,(visited May 12,2006).
13 See HCCH, European Community Signs Hague Choice of Court Convention (visited April 13,2009).
14 徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙(选择法院协议公约)述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第16页。
15 See David Luther Woodward, Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community,8 N.C.J. INT'L L.& COM. REG.299,310 (1983).
16 See Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: The United States Joins the Judgments Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L L.& BUS.1,3-4 (2006).
17 Hilton v. Guyot,159 U.S.113,202-203 (1895).
18 See Friedrich K. Juenger, A Hague Judgments Convention?,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 111,114 (1998).
19 Id. at 115.
20 See Russell J. Weintraub, How Substantial is Our Need for a Judgments-Recognition Convention and What Should We Bargain Away to Get It?,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.167,172-173 (1998).
21 参见孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第279-293页。
22 See Peter M. North, The Draft U.K./U.S. Judgments Conventions:A British Viewpoint,1 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus. 219,223,238 (1979); See also, Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Sister-state Judgments: Reflections on General Theory and Current Practice in the European Economic Community and the United States, 81 COLUM. L. REV.1044,1060 (1981).
23 See Linda Silberman, Symposium:Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:Eighth Annua Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy Article:Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?,52 DEPAUL L. REV. 319,319-320 (2002).
24 Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271,274 (1994).
25 仅塞浦路斯、荷兰和葡萄牙三国签署,公约从技术上讲有效,但因前述三国未缔结双边协定而未产生实际效果。
26 当时欧共体六国为比利时、法国、联邦德国、意大利、卢森堡和荷兰。
27 1978年丹麦、爱尔兰和英国加入公约,1982年希腊加入,1989年西班牙和葡萄牙加入。
28 这些双边条约的清单,可见于1988年《卢迦洛公约》。
29 当然,《卢迦洛公约》并没有就欧共体成员国之间的内部关系问题取代《布鲁塞尔公约》,《卢迦洛公约》适用于欧共体国家和欧洲自由贸易联盟国家之间的关系,以及欧洲自由贸易联盟内部国家之间的关系。并且,对这两个公约的解释和适用有时是不一致的,因为根据《卢迦洛公约》,欧共体以外的各国法院不受欧洲法院对《布鲁塞尔公约》解释的约束。
30 丹麦未加入《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》。由于《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》是对《布鲁塞尔公约》的继承,下文为行文方便,未特别说明时《布鲁塞尔公约》是对两者的通称。
31 Strengthening cooperation with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland:the Lugano Convention (2007), (visited April 13,2009).
32 See KEVIN M. CLERMONT, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION, in A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS:LESSONS FROM THE HZGUE 3,3-4 (J. J. Barcelo & K. M. Clermont eds.,2002).
33 参见贺晓翊：《英国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,法律出版社2008年版,第182-191页。
34 Arthur Taylor von Mehren, the Story Professor of Law Emeritus, born on August 10,1922 in Albert Lea, Minn., died on January 16 at the age of 83.
35 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271,271-287 (1994).
36 Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 16.
37 See P. PFUND, CONTRIBUTING TO PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:THE INTERNATIONAL PROCESS AND THE UNITED STATES APPROACH,249 Recueil des Cours 13 (1994), at 83; Ronald A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A view from the United States,21 J. L. & COM.191,192 (2002).
38 Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271,272 (1994).
39 The Permanent Bureau of Hague Conference on Private International Law, Annotated Checklist of Issues to be Discussed at the Meeting of the Special Commission on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments, Prel. Doc. No 1. at 1.
40 See Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters adopted by the Special Commission, Hague Conference, Prel. Doc. No 11, at 26.
41 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Dafting a Convention on Internatoinal Jurisdictin and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 AM. J. COMP. L.191, 196-197 (2001).
42 Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J. L.& COM.191,197 (2002).
43 R. Dreyfuss, An Alert to the Intellectual Property Bar:The Hague Judgments Convention,2001 U. ILL. L. REV. 421 (2001).
44 The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, Informational Note on the Work of the Informal Meetings Held since October 1999 to Consider and Develop Drafts on Outstanding Items, Prel. Doc.15.
45 The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Report of the Eexperts Meeting on the Intellectual Property Aspects of the Future Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Geneva,1 February 2001, Prel. Doc.13.
46 The Permanent Bureau and the Co-reporters, Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission II of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference (6-20 June 2001)-Interim Text.
47 美国国务院国际私法方面的助理司法顾问Jeffrey Kovar的声明,即Internet and Federal Court:Issues and Obstacles:Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Courts and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong.53, (2000); Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law,95 Am. J. INT'L. L.387,420 (2001).
48 See Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: The United States Joins the Judgment Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L.& Bus.1,7 (2006).
49 See Ronald A. Brand, Due Process, Jurisdiction and a Hague Judgment convention,60 U. PTTT. L. REV.661, 689-701 (1999).
50 See Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Thoughts About a Multinational Judgments:A reaction to the von Mehren Report, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. (No.3) 289,296 (1994)但有些美国学者希望删除海牙公约中的这一依据SeeKevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty,85 CORNELL L. REV.89,114-115 (1999); Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:End of the Century or Beginning of the Millennium?,7 TUL. J. INT'LCOMP. L. 111,119 (1999).
51 值得一提的是,《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行当事人协议管辖的民商事案件判决的安排》采取的就是单一模式,未明确规定直接管辖权问题。尽管大陆与香港两法域之间的经济关系密切,但是由于大陆与香港之间法律传统上的差异,历史上的政治隔绝加之司法互信的缺乏,采取单一模式显然只是现实和谨慎的政策选择。但这种保守性的安排,无疑是权宜之计,是否能有效地促进两地之间的经济发展和法律合作,仍有待观察。
52 See Arthur von Mehren, Enforcing Judgments Abroad:Reflections on the Design of Recognition Convention,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.23,25 (1998).
53 See Linda Silberman, Symposium:Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:Eighth Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy Article:Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?,52 DEPAULLL. REV.319,349 (2002).
54 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Dafting a Convention on Internatoinal Jurisdictin and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 Am. J. Comp. L.191,199 (2001).
55 FINAL ACT OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION, I PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION, MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS 29, at 63 (The Hague:SDU Publishers 1999).
56 第17条规定,依第4.5.7.8和12条,公约不禁止缔约国适用其国内法上的管辖权规则,只要不被公约第18条禁止。
57 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Dafting a Convention on Internatoinal Jurisdictin and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 AM. J. COMP. L.191,199 (2001).
58 Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J. L.& COM.191,196-197 (2002).
59 Case C-364/93 Marinari v. Lloyd's Bank plc and Zubaidi Trading Co [19951 E.C.R.2719,2739.
60 See Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21J. L.& Com.191,199-203 (2002).
61 See Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: The United States Joins the Judgments Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.1,17 (2006).
62 See Linda Silberman, Symposium:Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:Eighth Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy Article:Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?,52 DEPAULL. REV.319,330-331 (2002).
63 See Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J. L.& COM.191,205 (2002).
64 See Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:End of the Century or Beginning of the Millennium?,7 TUL. J. Int'L & COMP. L. 111,123 (1999).
65 See Friedrich K. Juenger, A Shoe Unfit for Globetrotting,28 U. C. Davis L. Rev.1027,1027 (1995).
66 Zivilpressordnung [ZPO] art.23 (F.R.G.).
67 C. Civ. Art 14 (Fr.)
68 大陆法系律师反感经济活动管辖或最低联系管辖依据,因为他们觉得该依据含糊而不可预见,因为原告可能以被告的实际到场、财产所有权或在法院从事商业为由,任意性地提起诉讼。由于从事经济活动管辖权规则在美国有很长的历史,美国代表认为至少应该将其列入灰色管辖区域,因为如果不允许实施这样的管辖依据,势必招致美国律师界的严厉批评。
69 See Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty,85 CORNELL L. REV.89,112 (1999).
70 1987年《美国对外关系第三次重述》第321条cmt.e认为过境管辖权依据一般不被国际法接受。后来美国最高法院在Burnham v. Super. Ct案(495 U.S.604,607-608(1990))认为只在美国公民之间实施此管辖依据,而不适用于国际案件。
钉参见韩德培主编：《国际私法专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第296-297页。
72 See Ronard A. Brand, Comparative Forum Non Convenies and the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments,37 Tex. INT'L L. J.467,493 (2002).
73 三次会议的报告分别为Prel. Docs No 20,21,22.
74 2003年草案及由T. C. Hartley和M. D. Dogauchi所作的解释报告,见Prel. Doc. No 25.
75 2004年草案及由T. C. Hartley和M. D. Dogauchi所作的解释报告,见Prel. Doc. No 26.
76 根据海牙国际私法会议章程,海牙会议每四年召开一次外交会议(章程第3条),至少批准一个公约。
77 特别委员会曾在某种程度上考虑是否安排像欧洲法院那样的机构,参见Castherine Kessedjian, Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of March 1998 on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Prel. Doc. No.9 (July 1998), at 45, no.118.
78 BERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 322 (4e ed., Economica 2003).
79 See Recent Case Notes, Contracts-Illegality-Ousting Court's Jurisdiction,28 YALE L. J.190,191 (1918).
80 粟烟涛：《冲突法上的法律规避》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第32页。
BERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 323 (4° ed., Economica 2003).
82 国际条约如1965年海牙《协议选择法院公约》、1968年《布鲁塞尔公约》、1988年《卢迦洛公约》和2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》。
83 See Continental Bank v. Aeakos Compania Naviera [1994] 1 WLR 588; [1994] 1 Lloyd's Rep.505 (Court of Appeal, England).
84 See DAVID JOSEPH Q.C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT 104 (1st ed, London Sweet & Maxwell 2005)多项公约接受仲裁协议的独立性原则,如《联合国国际商事仲裁示范法》第16条第(1)款规定：“仲裁庭可以对它自己的管辖权包括对仲裁协议的存在或效力的任何异议,作成裁定。为此目的,构成合同一部分的仲裁条款应视为独立与其他合同条款以外的一项协议。仲裁庭作出关于合同无效的决定,不应在法律上导致仲裁条款的无效。”1965年《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》第41条第1款及1961年《欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第5条均有相关规定。
85 Case C-269/95, Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl, [1997] E.C.R.I-3767 at 29. 86 T.G.I. Paris, July 10,1991, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 54 (1993), note Gaudemet-Tallon (Consorts Paoletti v. Privat Kredit Bank).
87 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967)可参见丁颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究——以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第33页。
88 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 (1974).
89 粟烟涛：《冲突法上的法律规避》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第32页。
90 M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.,407 U.S.1, (1972); 92 S.Ct.1907.
91 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., v. Shute,499 U.S.585 (1991).
92 See BURKHARD HESS, The Draft Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, External Competencies of the European Union and Recent Case Law of the European Court of Justice, in INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN EUROPE AND RELATIONS WITH THIRD STATES 263,271-272 (Arnaud Nuyts & Nadine Watte eds., Bruylant 2005).
93 ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE, POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF COMMON- AND CIVIL-LAW SYSTEMS, 295 RECUEIL Des COURS 257 (2002).
94 1975年改革法案将第331条修改为,如果该规则不适用于第29条第2款关于法院管辖权的当事人主张,法院必须依职权确定其是否有管辖权。
95 ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, THEORY ANE PRACTICE OF ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE, PILICIES AND PRACTICES OF COMMON- AND CICIL-LAW SYSTEMS, 295 RECUEIL DES COURS 262 (2002).
96 TREVOR C. HARTLEY, THE MODERN APPROACH TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND TTRANSACTIONS FROM A COMMON-LAW PERSPECTIVE. GENERAL COURSE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW,319 Recueil Des Cours (2006), at 113.
97 参见[德]马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》(1950年英文第2版),李浩培、汤宗舜译,北京大学出版社2009年第2版,第81页。
98 [1958] 1 WLR 159; [1958] 1 ALL ER 333; [1957] Lloyd's Rep.551 (Court of Appeal, England). See also, P. R. H. Webb, The Fehmarn,7 Int'L& COMP. L.Q.599 (1958).
99 [1970] P.94; [1969] 2 WLR 1073; [1969] 2 ALL ER 641; [1969] 1 Lloyd's Pep.237(England).
100 [1979] 1 WLR 1228; [1979] 3 ALL ER 280; [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep.172 (CA, England).
101 [1983] AC 565; [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep.1 (House of Lords).
102 See ANDREW BELL, VENUE BY CONSENSUS-THE ROLE OF JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS, in FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE IN TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION 275,297 (Oxford University Press 2003).
103 The Restatement (first) of Conflict of Laws, Comment a to (?) 617 (1934).
104 The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (?) 80 (1969).
105 报告中的注解援引Bremen案来支持举证责任。
106 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,13 U.L.A.261 (1986).
107 E. SCOLES. P. HAY, P. BORCHERS & S. SYMEONIDES, CONFLICT OF LAWS 335 (3rd ed.,St. Paul, Minn.& West Group 2000).
108 M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1 (1972); 92 S.Ct.1907.
109 Willis L. M. Reese, The Contractual Forum:Situation in the United States,13 AM. J. COMP. L.187,189 (1964).
110 Nute v. Hamilton Mutual Ins. Co.,72 Mass. (6 Gray) 174 (1856).
111 参见高凤仙：《美国国际私法之发展趋势》,台湾商务印书馆1990年版,第146页。
112 Unterweser Reederei Gm.b.H. v. Zapata Offshore Company (The Chaparral) 2 Lloyd's Rep 158 (1968).
113 Id. at 161.
114 Carbon Black Export, Inc. v. The SS Monsosa 254 F.2d 297 (5th Cir.1958).
115 Wisdom, J.,428 F.2d 888 at 896 (CA 5 1970).
116 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., v. Shute,499 U.S.585 (1991).
117 See M. Solimine, Forum-Selection Clauses and the Privatization of Procedure,25 CORNELL INT'L. L. J 51,101 (1992).
118 See A. Haines, The Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project:Thoughts for the Future, Permanent Bureau of the Conference, General Affairs, Prel. Doc., No.17,4-21 (February 2002).
119 Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer,515 U.S.528 (1995).
120 US Constitution, Article Ⅲ § 2; 28 USC (?) §1333.
121 Indussa Corp. v. S. S. Ranborg,377 F.2d 200 (1967).
122 对于纯美国的州际案件,是有美国联邦最高法院判决的。See Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation 487 US 22; 108 S. Ct.2239; 101 L. Ed.2d 22 (US Supreme Court 1988).
123 在多元管辖案件(diversity case)中,如果在联邦法院提起诉讼,联邦法院通常以选择法院协议的效力是程序问题为由而直接适用联邦法,从而承认协议的效力。
124 1968年《布鲁塞尔公约》中无此规定。在适用《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》前,非排他性选择法院协议引起了不少争议。因为《布鲁塞尔公约》第17条仅规定形式有效的选择法院协议给予被选的法院或几个法院排他性的管辖权。该规定忽略了协议明确声明条款是非排他性的这种情形,欧洲学者对此提出了不同的意见,SeeRichard Fentiman, Jurisdiction-When Non-Exclusive Means Exclusive,51 CAMBRIDGE L.J.234 (1992).
125 Case 24/76, Salotti v. RUWA [1976] E.C.R.1831.
126 Case 25/76, Segoura v. Bonakdarian [1976] E.C.R.1851.
127 Case 221/84, Berghoefer v. ASA, [1985] E.C.R.2699.
128 Case C-106/95, MSG v. Gravieres Rhenanes [1997] E.C.R.I-911.
129 欧洲法院的习惯用语in particular指句中接下来的事项不是穷竭性,而是例举,本文译为“在某种情况下”。
130 Case C-159/97, Trasporti Castelletti v. Hugo Trumpy [1999] E.C.R.1-1597.
131 Case 56/79, Siegfried Zelger v. Sebastiano Salinitri, [1980] E.C.R.89.
132 Case C-106/95, MSG v. Gravieres Rhenanes [19971 E.C.R.1-911.
133 Case C-214/89, Powell Duffryn v. Petereit [1992] E.C.R.1-1745.
134 Case C-150/80, Elefanten Schuh v. Jacqmain [1981] E.C.R.1671.
135 欧洲法院最后允许比利时法院审理案件,因为德国被告直到案件的实质审理阶段才对管辖权进行抗辩。比利时法院实际以《布鲁塞尔公约》的第18条取得管辖权(现《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》第24条)。
136 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPEe (3ed, L.G.D.J,2002), at 110.
137 Case C-387/98, Coreck Maritime v. Handelsveem [2000] E.C.R.1-9337.
138 见2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》第5条第1款,第6条(a)和第9条(a)。
139 Case 71/83, [1984] E.C.R.2417; [1984] 3 CMLR 499; [1985] 3 WLR 179.
140 [1983] AC 565; [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep.1 (House of Lords).
141 Case C-116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT [2003] E.C.R.I-14693.
142 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 21.
143 See Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002, at 4-5 (visited May 1,2006).
144 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (March 2004), at 7.
145 本文中关于2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》的案例假设,为行文方便,除非特别说明,所涉国家都假定为公约的缔约国。
146 Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Document No 11-Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, at 30-31.
147 International Road Transport Union (IRU), Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements Infringement of CMR Convention, CVR Convention and Vienna Convention, at 26-30 (visited Mar.1, 2006).
148 Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Prel. Doc. No 18 of February 2002, at 8.
149 See Richard Garnett, Enforcing International Arbitration Agreements in Australia,2 COMMERCIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION JOURNAL 88,94-96 (1995).
150 Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd v. Crehan [20011 E.C.R.1-6297.
151 Dogauchi/Harley Report (Dec.2006), at 11.
152 Harley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 33.
153 参见孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第93页。
154 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 63也可参见徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙《选择法院协议公约》述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第9页。
155 李浩培：《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第165-168页。
156 孙劲：《海牙<协议选择法院公约>评介》,载《中国国际私法学会2005年年会论文集》。
157 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 21.
158 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 18.
159 例如在Estasis Salotti and Colzani v. RUWA案中,如果当事人在契约纸张的一面签名,除非他在写有选择法院协议的另一面签字作为明示,欧洲法院将认为当事人并未同意反面的选择法院协议,本案中裁决依据欧共体法而不是缔约国法律。See Case 24/76, Estasis Salotti and Colzani v. RUWA, [19761 E.C.R.1831.
160 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 38.
161 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40-41
162 该规定的措词受1996年《联合国贸易法委员会电子商务示范法》(UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996)第6条第1款的启发。Id.at 41.
163 Id.at 41.
164 参见本公约第5条第3款(b)。
165 根据本公约,一项声明A仅可以在巴黎商事法院起诉B,而B仅可以在里昂商事法院起诉A的协议也是排他生的选择法院协议。如果指定的两法院不在同一缔约国,则另当别论。
166 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40.
167 Hartley/Dogauchi Report,at 39.
168 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 20.
169 Id. at21.
170 See JAMES J. FAWCETT, GENERAL REPORT,in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1,10-26 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995).
171 Yu Lap Man v. Good First Investment Ltd. (1998) HKLRD (Yrbk) 104; T & K Electronics Ltd. v. Tai Ping Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 1HKLRD 172.
172 See PAUL BEAUMONT, GREAT BRITAIN:FORUM NON CONVENIENS, in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 207,207-221 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995).
173 Civil Code of Quebec (?) 3135.
174 See JAMES J. FAWCETT, GENERAL REPORT,in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1,10-21 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995).
175 See Andrew Clark, A Toast from Wall Street:Examines London's Pre-eminence in Bank Litigation, FINANCIAL TIMES, Dec.19,1995, at 9.
176 See JAMES J. FAWCETT, GENERAL REPORT,in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1,18-19 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995)
177 See PHILIS S. THORSEN ET AL., FORUM SELECTION AGREEMENTS UNDER DANISH CIVIL LAW, in INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN CIVIL MATTERS 77,78 (Suzanne Rodriguez & Bertrand Prell eds.,1999).
178 值得一提的是,只有在争议一方当事人在卢迦诺公约成员国拥有住所,瑞士法院作为被选法院时才依卢迦诺公约必须接受管辖权。因此,如果日本公司和美国公司协议选择瑞士法院作为他们的管辖法院,卢迦诺公约将不适用,瑞士法院将适用瑞士法处理此选择法院条款的可执行性。
179 陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》,法律出版社1998年版,第36页。
180 ANDREA BUCHER, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE SUISSE 71 (Helbing & Lichtenhahan SA, Bale 1998).
181 Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Permanent Bureau Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002, at 5.
182 Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-Bohler,578 F.2d 953 (3rd Cir.1978).
183 V. Cass. com.19 dec.1978, Clunet 1979.366, n. Gaudemet-Tallon, Rev. Crit.1979.617, n. Huet.
184 Paris 10 oct.1990, R. C.605 (1991).
185 Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Permanent Bureau Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002.
186 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGENTS EN EUROPE, REGLEMENT N°44/2001 CONVENTIONS DE BRUXELLES ET DE LUGANO 110 (3e edition, Paris:L.GD.J 2002).
187 NY Bus. Cor. Law (?) 1314 (b)(1)-(5) and NY Banking Law (?) 200(b).
188 NY Gen. Oblig. Law (?) 5-1402.
189 Vanier v. Ponsoldt,251 Kan.88,833 P.2d 949, Kan.(1992).
190 McRae v. J.D./M.D,511 So.2d 540 (Fla. Sup. Crt 1987).该案中,尽管争议中的当事人来自美国不同州,但相同的理由适用于外国被告。澳大利亚也有相似的判决,See Mondial Trading Pty Ltd v. Interocean Marine Transport Inc.60 ALJR 277,65 ALR 155 (1985) (Dawson J, High Court of Australia).
191 WILLIAM W. PARK, INTERNATIONAL FORUM SELECTION 13-14 (Kluwer Law International 1995).
192 Peter Nygh and Fausto Pocar, The Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by Preliminary Document No.11 of August 2000, at 43.
193 GEORGES A. L. DROZ, PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS:PROVISIONS OF JURISDICTION, in A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS:LESSONS FROM THE HAGUE 15-36 (J. J. Barcelo & K. M. Clermont eds., Kluwer Law International 2002).
194 Andrea Schulz, Report on the First Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-October 22-25,2002, Preliminary Document No 20 of November 2002 for the attention of the meeting of the Informal Working Group of January, at 8.
195 Elefanten Schuh v. Jacqmain, Case 150/80 [1981] E.C.R.1671.
156 所谓功能对等方法,即运用现代信息通讯和存储方式实际上于以纸张为基础的概念如“书面”“签署”“原件”的功能对等。See UNCITRAL's Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996):Introduction to the Model Law, E. The "functional-equivalent" approach (visited April 13,2009).
197 See Robert Kossick, The Internet in Latin America:New Opportunities, Developments, and Challenges 13 FLA. J.INT'L L.263,269(2001).
198 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40-41.
199 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo v. RUWA Polsteimaschinen GmbH, Case 24/76 [1976] E.C.R.1831, at 7.
200 See e.g., Cass.com., Feb.27,1996, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 1996,734, note Gaudemet-Tallon.
201 Cass.2e civ., Feb.30,1980, Gaz. Pal.1980,2,494, note Dupichot.
202 Cass. le civ., June 30,1992, D.1994,169, note Guez.
203 CA Paris, June 29,1993, D.1993 inf. rap.,248.
204 Cass. Com., Dec.8,1998, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive,536, note Gaudemet-Tallon (1999).
205 CAAix-en-provence, Jan.22,1992,26,29 note Beignier.
206 HELENE GAUDEMET-TSLLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE n° 147, at 108 (3edtion, L.GD.J.2002).
207 See Transporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v. Hugo Trumpy SpA, Case 159/97 [1999] E.C.R. I-1597, at 30.
208 Id. at 36.
209 Evolution Online Sys. Inc. v. Koninklijke Nederland N.V., KPN,145 F.3d 505,509 (2d Cir.1998).
210 W.G Nichols, Inc. v. Kmart Corp.,2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24131 at 4 (E.D. Pa.2001)
211 Paper Express, Ltd. v. Pfankuch Maschinen GmbH,972 F.2d 753,757-758 (7th Cir.1992).
212 Paul R. Beaumont, A United Kingdom Perspective on the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.75,107 (1998).
213 Monsanto Co. v. McFarling,302 F.3d 1291,1294-1295. (Fed. Cir.2002).
214 CA Paris, Dec.18,1987 somm.343.
215 M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.,407 U.S.1,12,15 (1972).
216 See Restatement (Second) of Contracts (?) 208 (1981)显示公平理论一般不在商事案件中使用,法院假设商人有能力保护其利益,而B2B合同一般是表面有效的。美国州法院曾用显示公平理论使仲裁协议无效,见James Zimerman, Restrictions on Forum Selection Clauses in Franchise Agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act:Is State Law Preempted? 51 VAND. L. REV.759,767-768 (1998).
217 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE, nd° 152, at 110 (2002).
218 See DACID JOSEPH Q.C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT 104 (1st ed, London Sweet & Maxwell 2005).
219 Case C-269/95, Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl.,1997 E.C.R.I-3767 p29.
220 T.GI. Paris, July 10,1991, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 54 (1993), note Gaudemet-Tallon (Consorts Paoletti v. Privat Kredit Bank).
221 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967)可参见丁颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究—以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第33页。
222 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 n.14 (1974).
223 See, e.g., Farmland Indus., Inc. v. Frazier-Parrott commodities, Inc.,806 F.2d 848,851 (8th Cir.1986).
224 中华人民共和国最高人民法院(2001)民四终字第1号。
225 Hull 753 Corp. v. Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH,58. F. Supp.2d 928 (N.D.I11.1999)
226 Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT,293, F.3d 270 (5th Cir.2002); Terra It'l, Inc. v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 119 F. d 688 (8tn Cir.1997).
227 See STEPHEN O'MALLEY & ALEXANDER LAYTON, EUROPEAN CIVIL PRACTICE 568 (Sweet & Maxwell 1989)
228 判决公约的计划并不意图处理法律选择问题,只包括管辖权和判决承认与执行,但是2001年6月外交大会期间讨论选择法院协议中的法律选择问题,因此使之纳入公约成为可能。
229 Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000 for the attention of the Nineteenth Session of June 2001, at 42.
230 Andrea Schulz, Reflection Paper to Assist in The Preparation of a Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Preliminary Document No 19 of August 2002. at 7.
231 Id. at 8-9.
232 Andrea Schulz, Reflection Paper to Assist in The Preparation of a Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Preliminary Document No 19 of August 2002. at 11.
233 Andrea Schulz, Report on the Second Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-January 6-9,2003, Preliminary Document No 21 of January 2003, at 11.
234 See Article 5(2), Alternatives 2-4 (first sentence) in the draft annexed to Preliminary Document No 21 of January 2003在建议公约不决定当事人的能力的法律适用之外,代表们提供了5条选项供讨论。选项1：公约不决定选择法院协议的效力。选项2：当事人可以决定选择法院协议应适用的法律,包括选择法院协议的效力问题。当事人未选择法律时,受案地法(包括其国际私法)应决定选择法院协议的效力。选项3：当事人可以决定选择法院协议应适用的法律,包括选择法院协议的效力问题。当事人未选择法律时,被选法院的内国法应该决定选择法院协议的效力。选项4：当事人可以决定选择法院协议应适用的法律,包括选择法院协议的效力问题。当事人未选择法律时,受案地法应该决定该选择法院协议是否有效、不可执行或不能履行。选项5：受案地法应决定该协议是否有效、不可执行或不能履行。以上选项中,第2.3.4条规定当事人对于选择法院协议的实质效力可以选择法律。在5个选项中,在当事人未选择法律时,只有第3项将效力交由被选法院的内国法,第2.4.5条这三个选项则交由受案地法。第4或第5选项参照了1958年《纽约公约》第2条第3款,而第2条则采用海牙公约的一般术语。
235 Dogauchi/Hartley Report (April 2004), at 23.
236 Andrea Schulz, Report on the First Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-October 22-25,2002, Preliminary Document No 20 of November 2002 for the attention of the meeting of the Informal Working Group of January, at 7.
237 Id. at 8.
238 Inter-American Convention on Jurisdiction in the International Sphere for the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments of 24 May 1984 (the La Paz Convention).
239 Andrea Schulz, Report on the Second Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-January 6-9,2003, Preliminary Document No 21 of January 2003, at 10.
240 Harley/Dogauchi Report (2007) at 48.
241 [1979] 1 WLR 1228; [1979] 3 ALL ER 280; [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep.172 (CA, England).
499 US 585; 111 S. Ct.1522; 113 L. Ed.2d 622 (US Supreme court,1991).
243 ANDREAS F. LOWENFELD, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE QUEST FOR REASONABLENESS 136 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996).
244 但是会议认为缔约国没有义务执行其国内法律制度不存在的非金钱救济判决。不过,缔约国应依其国内法尽可能地给予外国判决最大程度的效力。See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 15.
245 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 36.
246 Id. at 35.
247 Id. at 35.
248 Id. at 37.
249 Id.at 31.
250 Id.at 31.
251 Id.at 31.
252 Supreme Court of Japan, judgment of 11 July 1997,51 Minshu 2578 (English translation in the Japanese Annual of International Law, No 41, at 104).
253 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 32.
254 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 32-33.
255 Id. at 33.
256 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 33.
257 对于先决问题,民法法系和普通法系采用不同的术语和基本概念,容易引起误解。例如普通法学者不称“先决问题”(incidental questions),而称其为“争点”(issues).
258 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 37.
259 请求排除与争点排除的区别,参见孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年,第93-95页。
260 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 33.
261 徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙(选择法院协议公约)述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第15页。
262 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 45.
263 Id. at.46.
264 See Nygh/Pocar Report (August.2000), at 109-110.
265 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004). at 41-42.
266 Id. at 41-42.
267 See Nygh/Pocar Report (August.2000), at 116.
268 See Andrea Schulz, Report on the Meeting of the Drafting Committee of 18-20 April 2005 in Preparation of the Twentieth Session of June 2005, at 4.
269 公约第19条允许缔约国作出限制管辖权的声明,如果被选法院所在国与当事人或争议之间并无联系,缔约国法院可以拒绝裁决该排他性选择法院协议所提交的争议。因该声明条款仅涉及管辖权问题,与第20条的内容相比不要求当事人的居所问题。
270 参见刘仁山主编：《国际私法》,中国法制出版社2007年版,第328页。
271 如Council Directive 93/13,1993 O.J. (L95) 29 (EC),指示欧盟全部成员国制定标准格式合同方面的规则；The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation,1994, S.I.1994/3159 (U.K.),英国依1993年13号欧盟指定制定消费者保护方面的规则；John Adams, Digital Age Standard Form Contracts under Australian Law: "Wrap" Agreements, Exclusive Jurisdiction, and Binding Arbitration Clauses,13 Pac. PIM L.& PoL'Y J.528(2004),讨论布鲁塞尔规则和卢迦洛公约中的相关规定.See also EUGENE F. SCOLES ET AL., CONFLICT OF LAWS (?) 11.2, at 481 n.12 (4th ed.2004)欧盟为保护弱方当事人而限制合同自由,对保险和消费者合同制定特别规则。
272 Guangjian Tu, The Hague Choice of Court Convention-A Chinese Perspective,55 Am. J. COMP. L.347 (2007).
273 王吉文：《2005年海牙<选择法院协议公约>研究》,东南大学出版社2008年版,第240-255页。
274 陈隆修：《2005年海牙法院选择公约评析》,台北五南图书出版公约2009年版,第142-153页。
275 See Recent International Agreement,119 HARV. L. REV.931,937 (2006).
276[德]拉德布鲁赫：《法学导论》(1929年第7/8版),米健、朱林译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第22页。
277 参见宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第348-356页。
278 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 17 (T.M.C. Asser Press 2004).
279 卢松：《关于涉外民事管辖权的几项原则》,载黄进、刘卫翔等编：《当代国际私法问题——庆祝韩德培教授八十五华诞论文集》,武汉大学出版社1995年版,第311-315页。
280 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CICIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE. at 116.
281 FRIEDRECH K. JUENGER, CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE, at 214.
282 陈隆修著：《2005年海牙法院选择公约评析》,台北五南图书出版公司2009年版,第150页。
283 C-295/95 Farrell v. Long [1997] E.C.R.I-1683,19.
284 Jenard Report. OJ 1979 C 59, at 18.
285 值得注意的是,2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》不影响已生效的其他有关管辖权的国际公约的效力。如《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》,若案件可能适用两公约时,则优先适用《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》。在这种情况下,海牙公约的协议管辖权没有优先力。
286 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, at 124.
287 Case 201/82 Gerling v. Tesoro [1983] E.C.R.2503,17.
288 参见罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第139页。
289 See Harley/Dogauchi Report (2007) at 31,63.
290 参见罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第148页。
291 C-269/95 Benincasa v. Dentalkit 17 [1997] E.C.R.1-3767.
292 这两个案例可参见罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,第120-121页。
293 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, at 125-126.
294 C-159/97 Castelletti v. Trumpy 19 [1999] E.C.R.I-1597 (re Mainschiffahrts 17); C-106/95 Mainschiffahrts v. Les Cravieres Rhenances 15 [1997] E.C.R.I-911 (re 24/76 Salotti 7; 25/76 Segoura 6),17; and C-116/02 Gasser v. MISAT 50 [2003] E.C.R.I-14693.
295 Case 24/76, Salotti v. RUWA 7 [19761 E.C.R.1831.
296 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40-41.
297 499 US 585; 111 S. Ct.1522; 113 L. Ed.2d 622 (US Supreme court,1991).
298 Case 22/85 Anterist v. Credit Lyonnais [1986] E.C.R.1951,14; and compare C-387/98 Coreck v. Handelsveem [2000] E.C.R.1-9337,14 (re 23/78 Meeth v. Glacetal 5).
299 Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh v. Jacqmain [1981] E.C.R.1671,24-26; C-269/95 Benincasa v. Dentalkit [1997] E.C.R.1-3767,28 (re Mainschiffahrts 34),29.
300 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 43.
301 Id.at 47.
302 Id. at 54.
303 JANNER A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CICIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, at 161.
304 李双元、谢石松著：《国际民事诉讼法概论》,武汉大学出版2001年第2版,第175页。
305 See Jenard Report OJ 1979 C 59 at 35.
306 Case 73/77 Sanders v. Van der Putte 11 [1977] E.C.R.2383.
307 参见肖永平主编：《欧盟统一国际私法研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版,第278页。
308 Case C-116/02, Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT [2003] E.C.R.1-14693.
309 李先波：《论国际民事案件管辖权协调的基本原则》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(第3卷),法律出版社2000年版,第575页。
310 Case 125/79 Denilauler v. Couchet Freres [1980] E.C.R.1553,13.
311 JANNER A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGINTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERICAL MMTTERS, at 45-47.
FRIDERECH K. JUEMGER, CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE 214 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).
313 See Nygh/Pocar Report (August 2000), at 99.
314 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 41.
315 《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》第60条第1款规定,公司、其他法人、自然人或法人之组织的住所为：法定所在地(本座)、中心管理地或主要营业地。第2款规定,对于英国和爱尔兰,法定所在地指官方注册地,没有官方注册地时为成立地,没有成立地时为所依成立的法律所属地。
316 公约以分割方法协议的实质效力区分为当事人的能力与其他问题,前者依法院地法,后者依被选法院地法。
317 58. F. Supp.2d 928 (N.D.I11.1999).
318 See DAVID JOSEPH Q.C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT 104 (1st ed, London Sweet & Maxwell 2005)多项公约接受仲裁协议的独立性原则,如《联合国国际商事仲裁示范法》第16条第(1)款规定：“仲裁庭可以对它自己的管辖权包括对仲裁协议的存在或效力的任何异议,作成裁定。为此目的,构成合同一部分的仲裁条款应视为独立与其他合同条款以外的一项协议。仲裁庭作出关于合同无效的决定,不应在法律上导致仲裁条款的无效。”1965年《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》第41条第1款及《欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第5条均有相关规定。
319 Case C-269/95, Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl, [1997] E.C.R.I-3767,29.
320 T.G.I. Paris, July 10,1991, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 54 (1993), note Gaudemet-Tallon (Consorts Paoletti v. Privat Kredit Bank).
321 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967)可参见丁颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究—以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第33页。
322 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 n.14 (1974).
323 刘卫国：《论国际民商事司法管辖条款的独立性》,载《法商研究》2002年第6期。
324 BURKHARD HESS, THE DRAFT HAFUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS, EXTERNAL COMPETENCIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RECENT CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, in INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN EUROPE AND RELATIONS WITH THIRD STATES 272 (ARNaud Nuyts & Nadine Watte eds., Bruylant 2005).
325 参见李国清：《美国证券法域外管辖权问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2003年版,第135-154页。
326 Intermetals Corp. v. Hanover Int'l AG fur Industrieversicherungen,188 F. Supp.2d 454,458 (D.N.J.2001).
327 See Jason Webb Yackee, Choice of Law Considerations in the Validity & Enforcement of International Forum Selection Agreements:Whose Law Applies!,9 UCLA J. INT'L L.& FOREIGN AFF.43,70-73 (2004).
328 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE, at 110.
329 Paris 10 oct.1990, R.C.1991,605在该案中,列支敦士登公司与毛里求斯岛公司之间的合同中指定由巴黎商事法院管辖,巴黎上诉法院承认了该选择法院协议的效力。
330 Cass. Civ. 1re,3 dec.1991, R.C.1992,340.
331 PIERRE. MAYER & VINCENT HEUZE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE, n° 301-302 (7e ed., Paris:Montchrestien 2001).
332 Max Planck Institute for Foreign Private and Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission's Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernization,68 RABELS ZEITSCRHIFT 24 (2004).
333 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 43.
335 Id. at 54.
334 Id. at 47.
336 BERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE, n° 394, at 302 (4e ed., Economica 2006).
337 C-260/97 Unibank v. Christensen [1999] E.C.R.I-3715,14.
338 JANET A. PONTER & EDWIGE BURGE, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCLAL MATTERS, at 28.
339 在外交会议上,代表们认为缔约国法院没有义务执行其司法制度中不存在的非金钱判决。当然,被请求法院应该给予外国判决在其内国法所可能的最大效力。See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), note 201.
340 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 50.
341 Id. at 50.
342 See JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS, ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE. at 32-33.
343 Id. at 44.
344 徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙<选择法院协议公约>述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第16页。
345 关于外国当事人对中国涉外司法制度的担心,可参见Roy F. Drow, Resolving Commercial Dispute in China: Foreign Firms and the Role of Contract Law,14 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.161,182 (1993). Stanley B. Lubman, Bird in a Cage:Chinese Law Reform After Twenty Years,20 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.383,420 (2000). James Hugo Friend, The Rocky Road Towards Rule of Law in China,20 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.369,379-80 (2000). Randall Peerenboom, The X-files:Past and Present Protrayals of China's Alien "Legal System ",2 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV.37,60 (2003). William Heye, Forum Selection for International Dispute Resolution in China-Chinese vs. CIETAC,27 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV.535 (2004).
346 See Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo v. RUWA Polsteimaschinen GmbH, Case 24/76 [1976] E.C.R.1831, at 7.
347 See Transporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v. Hugo Trumpy SpA, Case 159/97 [1999] E.C.R. 1-1597. at 30.
348 CA Paris, Dec.18,1987 somm.343.
349 The Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.,407 U.S.1,12,15 (1972).
350 See Restatement (Second) of Contracts 208 (1981).
351 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967).
352 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 n.14 (1974).
353 Case 71/83, [1984] E.C.R.2417; [1984] 3 CMLR 499; [1985] 3 WLR 179.
354 参见韩德培主编：《国际私法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第310页。
355 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 32.
[1]中国国际私法学会：《中华人民共和国国际私法示范法》,法律出版社2000年版。
[2]韩德培主编：《国际私法》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版。
[3]韩德培主编：《国际私法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
[4]韩德培：《韩德培文集》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[5]韩德培、韩健：《美国国际私法(冲突法)导论》,法律出版社1994年版。
[6]李浩培：《国际民事程序法概论》,法律出版社1996年版。
[7]李浩培：《李浩培文选》,法律出版社2000年版。
[8]李浩培：《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年第2版。
[9]李双元、谢石松：《国际民事诉讼法概论》,武汉大学出版社2001年第2版。
[10]张仲伯主编：《国际私法学》,中国政法大学出版社2007年版。
[11]黄进、刘卫翔等编：《当代国际私法问题——庆祝韩德培教授八十五华诞论文集》,武汉大学出版社1995年版。
[12]黄进主编：《国际私法》,法律出版社2005年第2版。
[13]肖永平：《肖永平论冲突法》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[14]肖永平：《国际私法原理》,法律出版社2007年第2版。
[15]肖永平主编：《欧盟统一国际私法研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[16]刘仁山主编：《国际私法》,中国法制出版社2007年版。
[17]刘仁山主编：《国际民商事程序法通论》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
[18]刘仁山：《加拿大国际私法研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
[19]陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》,法律出版社1998年版。
[20]张茂：《美国国际民事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
[21]徐宏：《国际民事司法协助》,武汉大学出版社2006年第2版。
[22]袁泉：《荷兰国际私法研究》,法律出版社2000年版。
[23]刘卫翔：《欧洲联盟国际私法》,法律出版社2001年版。
[24]徐卉：《涉外民商事诉讼管辖权冲突研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
[25]徐伟功：《不方便法院原则研究》,吉林人民出版社2002年版。
[26]李旺：《涉外民商事案件管辖权制度研究》,知识产权出版社2004年版。
[27]罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社2003年版。
[28]孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
[29]刘力：《国际民事诉讼管辖权》,法律出版社2004年版。
[30]何其生：《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社2004年版。
[31]宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
[32]屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民商事诉讼程序导论》,人民法院出版社2004年版。
[33]杜涛：《国际经济贸易中的国际私法问题》,武汉大学出版社2005年版。
[34]欧福永：《英国民商事管辖权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年版。
[35]杜焕芳：《国际民商事司法与行政合作研究》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[36]孙建：《国际关系视角下的国际私法问题》,人民出版社2007年版。
[37]邹国勇：《德国国际私法的欧盟化》,法律出版社2007年版。
[38]王保莳：《国际私法中的先决问题研究》,法律出版社2007年版。
[39]李颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究——以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[40]粟烟涛：《冲突法上的法律规避》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
[41]贺晓翊：《英国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,法律出版社2008年版。
[42]李广辉：《<民商事管辖权及外国判决公约>研究》,中国法制出版社2008年版。
[43]李国清：《美国证券法域外管辖权问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2008年版。
[44]钱锋：《外国法院民商事判决承认与执行研究》,中国民主法制出版社2008年版。
[45]高晓力：《国际私法上公共政策的运用》,中国民主法制出版社2008年版。
[46]李晶：《国际民事诉讼中的挑选法院》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
[47]王吉文：《2005年海牙<选择法院协议公约>研究》,东南大学出版社2008年版。
[48]陈隆修：《2005年海牙法院选择公约评析》,五南图书出版公司2009年版。
[49]高凤仙：《美国国际私法之发展趋势》,台湾商务印书馆1990年版。
[50][德]拉德布鲁赫：《法学导论》(1929年德文第7/8版),米健、朱林译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
[51][德]马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》(1950年英文第2版),李浩培、汤宗舜译,北京大学出版社2009年第2版。
[52][英]J.H.C.莫里斯主编：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(1980年英文第10版),李双元、胡振杰、杨国华、张茂译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
[53][英]施米托夫：《国际贸易法文选》(1988年英文版),赵文秀选译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版。
[1]ANDREAS BUCHER, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE SUISSE (Bale et Francfort-sur-le-Main: Helbing & Lichtenhahn 1998).
[2]ANDREAS F. LOWENFELD, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE QUEST FOR REASONABLENESS (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1996).
[3]ANDREW BELL, FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE IN TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION (Oxford University Press 2003).
[4]ARNAUD NUYTS & NADINE WATTE, INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN EUROPE AND RELATIONS WITH THIRD STATES (ed., Bruxelles:Bruylant,2005).
[5]ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE, PILICIES AND PRACTICES OF COMMON- AND CIVIL-LAW SYSTEMS:GENERAL COURSE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (1996),296 Recueil des Cours (2002).
[6]AUDIT BERNARD, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE (4e ed, Paris:Economica 2006).
[7]BERTRAND ANCEL & YVES LEOUETTE, LES GRANDS ARRETS DE LA JURISPRUDENCE FRANQAISE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE (5e ed, Paris:Dalloz 2006).
[8]DAVID JOSEPH Q. C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT (ed., London:Sweet & Maxwell 2005).
[9]E. SCOLES, P. HAY, P. BORCHERS & S. SYMEONIDES, CONFLICT OF LAWS (3rd ed., St. Paul, Minn.& West Group 2000).
[10]ECKART GOTTSCHALK, RALF MICHAELS, GIESELA RUHL & JAN VON HEIN, CONFLICT OF LAWS IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD (Cambridge University Press 2007).
[11]FAWCETT, J.J., DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:REPORTS TO THE XIVTH CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF COMPARATIVE LAW (Clarendon Press 1995).
[12]FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER, CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).
[13]GARY B. BORN, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND FORUM SELECTION AGREEMENTS: DRAFTING AND ENFORCING (2nd ed., Kluwer Law International 2006).
[14]GENE R. SHREVE, A CONFLICT-OF-LAWS ANTHOLOGY (ed., Cincinnati, Ohio:Anderson Pub. Co.1997).
[15]HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE, REGLEMENT N°44/2001, CONVENTIONS DE BRUXLLES ET DE Lugano (3e ed, L.G.D.J.2002).
[16]JACK L. GOLSMITH, INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION:THE REGULATION OF FURUM SELECTION (ed., New York:Transnational Publishers, Inc.1997).
[17]JAMES FAWCETT, REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF SIR PETER NORTH (ed., Oxford University Press 2002).
[18]JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS:ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (T.M.C. Asser Press 2004).
[19]JOHN J. BARCELO Ⅲ & KEVIN M. CLERMONT, A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS:LESSONS FROM THE HAGUE (ed., Kluwer Law International 2002).
[20]LAWRENCE COLLINS, ESSAY IN INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1996).
[21]NATHALIE COIPEL-CORDONNIER, LES CONVENTIONS D'ARBITRAGE ET D'ELECTION DE FOR EN DROIT INTERNATIONALPRIVE (L.G.D.J.1999).
[22]P. PFUND, CONTRIBUTING TO PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE INTERNATIONAL PROCESS AND THE UNITED STATES APPROACH,249 Recueil des Cours (1994).
[23]PETER NORTH & J.J. FAWCETT, CHESHIRE & NORTH'S PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (13th ed., London:Butterworths 1999).
[24]PETER NORTH, ESSAYS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1993).
[25]PETER NYGH & MARTIN DAIES, CONFLICT OF LAWS IN AUSTRALIA (7th ed., LexisNexis Butterworths 2002).
[26]PIERRE. MAYER & VINCENT HEUZE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE (7E ed., Paris: Montchrestien 2001).
[27]RONALD A. BRAND & PAUL HERRUP, THE 2005 HAGUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS:COMMENTARY AND DOCUMENTS (Cambridge University Press 2008).
[28]RONALD A. BRAND & SCOTT R. JABLONSKI, FORUM NON CONVENIENS:HISTORY, GLOBAL PRACTICE, AND FUTURE UNDER THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS (Oxford:University Press 2007).
[29]TREVOR C. HARTLEY, THE MODERN APPROACH TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND TRANSACTIONS FROM A COMMON-LAW PERSPECTIVT,319 Recueil des Cours (2006).
[1]徐宏、郭晓梅：《海牙国际私法会议关于民商事管辖权和判决承认与执行问题特委会会议情况》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》创刊号,法律出版社1998年版。
[2]赵健、孙晓虹、张茂：《国际民事诉讼法统一化运动评述》,载《法学评论》1998年第3期。
[3]胡斌、孙昂：《海牙“国际民商事管辖权和判决的承认与执行”特委会1998年会议情况》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》1999年卷,法律出版社1999年版。
[4]孙南申：《论国际私法中协议管辖的法律效力》,载《政治与法律》1999年第2期。
[5]汉斯·范·鲁：《迈向一个关于民商事件国际管辖权及外国判决效力的世界性公约》,粟烟涛译,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2000年卷,法律出版社2000年版。
[6]田妮：《面向21世纪的海牙国际私法会议》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社2001年版。
[7]沈涓：《存异以求同他石可攻玉——海牙(民商事管辖权和外国判决公约)(草案)与中国相关法律之比较研究》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社,2001年。
[8]肖永平、何其生：《对海牙<民商事管辖权和外国判决公约>(草案)的分析》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社2001年版。
[9]张兰兰：《国际协议管辖合意要件立法的比较分析——兼评我国<民事诉讼法>第244条》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社2001年版。
[10]郭玉军、向在胜：《欧盟(民商事管辖权及判决承认与执行条例>介评》,载《法学评论》2002年第2期。
[11]胡斌、田妮：《十字路口的海牙管辖权公约》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2002年卷,法律出版社2002年版。
[12]奚晓明：《论我国涉外民商事诉讼中协议管辖条款的认定》,载《法律适用》2002年第3期和第4期。
[13]吕晓莉：《欧盟国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖制度》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2002年卷,法律出版社2002年版。
[14]刘卫国：《论国际民商事司法管辖条款的独立性》,载《法商研究》,2002年第6期。
[15]邓杰：《论国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖制度》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年11月第6期。
[16]孙劲：《迈向关于外国判决承认与执行的新公约——海牙民商事管辖和外国判决公约草案的新发展》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2003年卷,法律出版社2003年版。
[17]章尚锦：《国际民事诉讼管辖权制度研究》,载《北京政法职业学院学报》2004年第1期。
[18]朱志晟：《国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖原则比较研究》,载《时代法学》2004年第5期。
[19]宋连斌译：《协议选择法院公约》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2005年卷,法律出版社2006年版。
[20]何其生：《(海牙排他性法院选择协议公约(草案))有关知识产权问题的建议》,载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005年第1期。
[21]李广辉：《外国惩罚性损害赔偿判决的承认与执行研究》,载《比较法研究》2005年第2期。
[22]杨弘磊、范晓华：《涉外民事诉讼协议管辖条款的性质及法律适用》,载《人民司法》2005年03期。
[23]徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙(选择法院协议公约)述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期。
[24]孙劲：《海牙(选择法院协议公约)评介》,2005年中国国际私法年会论文。
[25]贺晓翊：《论我国关于承认与执行外国法院判决制度的立法改革与完善》,载《法律适用》2005年第7期.
[26]蒋剑伟：《国际民商事合同管辖权条款适用规则比较研究》,武汉大学2006年博士论文。
[27]高晓力：《海牙国际私法会议(选择法院协议公约>与对我国涉外民商事审判的影响》,载《人民司法》2006年第3期。
[28]乔仕彤、张一弛：《(海牙选择协议法院公约)评述》,载《人民法院报》2006/03/27。
[29]房沫：《法院选择协议对临时措施管辖权之影响》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2006年卷,北京大学出版社2007年版。
[30]王吉文：《损害赔偿判决承认与执行的一种新机制——2005年海牙(选择法院协议公约)第11条评析》,载《安徽大学法律评论》2008年第1期。
[1]Adam E. Kerns, The Hague Convention and Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements:An Imperfect Match,20 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J.509 (2006).
[2]Andrea Schulz, The Accession of the European Community to the Hague Conference on Private International Law,56 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.939 (2007).
[3]Andrea Schulz, The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements,8 EUR. J.L. REFORM 77 (2006).
[4]Andrea Schulz, The Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements,12 ILSA J INT'L & COMP L 433 (2006).
[5]Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Thoughts about a Multinational Judgments:A Reaction to the von Mehren Report,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.289 (1994).
[6]Anna Gardella & Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, Civil Law, Common Law and Market Integration:The EC Approach to Conflicts of Jurisdiction,51 AM. J. COMP. L.661 (2003).
[7]Arthur T. von Mehren & Donald T. Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:A Suggested Analysis,79 HARV. L. REV.1121 (1966).
[8]Arthur T. von Mehren & Donald T. Trautman, Recognition of Foreign Adjudications:A Survey and a Suggested Approach,81 HARV. L. REV.1601 (1968).
[9]Arthur T. von Mehren, Drafting a Convention on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-Wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 AM. J. COMP. L.191 (2001).
[10]Arthur T. von Mehren, Enforcing Judgments Abroad:Reflections on the Design of Recognition Conventions,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.17 (1998).
[11]Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271 (1994).
[12]Bernard Audit, Observations sur la convention de la Haye du 30 juin 2005 relative aux accords d'election de for, VERS DE NOUVEAUX EQUILIBRES ENTRE ORDRES JURIDIQUES, (Helene Gaudemet-Tallon ed, Dalloz 2008).
[13]Christopher Tate, American Forum Non Conveniens in Light of the Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements,69 U. PITT. L. REV.165 (2007).
[14]Dana Stringer, Choice of Law and Choice of Forum in Brazilian International Commercial Contracts:Party Autonomy, International Jurisdiction, and the Emerging Third Way,44 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.959 (2006).
[15]Daniel Tan, Damages for Breach of Forum Selection Clauses, Principled Remedies, and Control of International Civil Litigation,40 TEX. INT'L L.J.623 (2005).
[16]David H. Taylor, The Forum Selection Clause:A Tale of Two Concepts,66 TEMP. L. REV. 785 (1993).
[17]David Luther Woodward, Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community,8 N.C.J. INT'L L. & COM. REG. 299 (1983).
[18]Emilio Gonzalez de Castilla del Valle, The Hague Convention on Choice Of Court Agreements of June 30,2005:A Mexican View,13 Sw. J.L.& TRADE AM.37 (2006).
[19]Erin Ann O'Hara, The Jurisprudence and Politics of Forum-Selection Clauses,3 CHI. J. INT'L L.301 (2002).
[20]Friedrich K. Juenger, A Hague Judgments Convention?,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 111 (1998).
[21]Friedrich K. Juenger, A Shoe Unfit for Globetrotting,28 U. C. Davis L. Rev.1027,1027 (1995).
[22]Friedrich K. Juenger, American Jurisdiction:A Story of Comparative Neglect,65 U. COLO. L. REV.1 (1993).
[23]Friedrich K. Juenger, Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States and in the European Communities a Comparison,82 MICH. L. REV.1195 (1984).
[24]Friedrich K. Juenger, The American Law of General Jurisdiction,2001 U. CHI. LEGAL F.141 (2001).
[25]Friedrich K. Juenger, The Lex Mercatoria and Private International Law,60 LA. L. REV. 1133 (2000).
[26]Friedrich K. Juenger, The Recognition of Money Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 36 AM. J.COMP.L.1(1988).
[27]Gilles Cuniberti, Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention,54 INT'L & COMP. L. Q. 973 (2005).
[28]Guangjian Tu, The Hague Choice of Court Convention-A Chinese Perspective,55 AM. J. COMP. L.347 (2007).
[29]Hannah L. Buxbaum, Forum Selection in International Contract Litigation:The Role of Judicial Discretion,12 WILLAMTTE J. INT'L L.& DISPUTE RES.185 (2004).
[30]Harvard Law Review Association, Hague Conference Approves Uniform Rules of Enforcement for International Forum Selection Clauses-Convention on Choice of Court Agreements,119 HARV. L. REV.931 (2006).
[31]James Zimerman, Restrictions on Forum Selection Clauses in Franchise Agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act:Is State Law Preempted?,51 VAND. L. REV.759 (1998).
[32]Jason Webb Yackee, Choice of Law Considerations in the Validity & Enforcement of International Forum Selection Agreements:Whose Law Applies?,9 UCLA J. INT'L L.& FOR. AFF.43 (2004).
[33]Jeffrey Talpis & Nick Krnjevic, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of June 30,2005:The Elephant that Gave Birth to a Mouse,13 Sw. J.L.& TRADE AM.1 (2006).
[34]Jonathan H. Pittman, The Public Policy Exception to the Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 22 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.969 (1989).
[35]Keri Bruce, The Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements:Is the Public Policy Exception Helping Click-Away the Security of Non-Negotiated Agreements,32 BROOK. J. INT'L L.1103(2007).
[36]Kevin M. Clermont, A Global Law of Jurisdiction and Judgments:Views from the United States and Japan,37 CORNELL INT'L L.J.1 (2004).
[37]Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty,85 CORNELL L. REV.89 (1999).
[38]Kurt H. Nadelmann, Choice-of-Court Clauses in the United States:The Road to Zapata,21 AM. J. COMP. L.124 (1973).
[39]Kurt H. Nadelmann, The Hague Conference on Private International Law and The Validity of Forum Selecting Clauses,13 AM. J. COMP. L.157 (1964).
[40]Lawrence Collins, Choice of Forum and the Exercise of Judicial Discretion:The Resolution of an Anglo-American Conflict,22 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.332 (1973).
[41]Louise Ellen Teitz, Both Sides of the Coin:A Decade of Parallel Proceedings and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Litigation,10 ROGER WILLIAMS U. L.1 (2004).
[42]Louise Ellen Teitz, The Hague Choice of Court Convention:Validating Party Autonomy and Providing an Alternative to Arbitration,53 AM. J. COMP. L.543 (2005).
[43]Louise Merrett, The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements Within The Brussels Regime,55 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.315 (2006).
[44]Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements:The United States Joins the Judgment Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L L.& BUS.1 (2006).
[45]Michael E. Solimine, Forum-Selection Clauses and the Privitization of Procedure,25 CORNELL INT'L L. J.51 (1992).
[46]Michael Mousa Karayanni, The Public Policy Exception to the Enforcement of Forum Selection,34 DUQ. L. REV.1009 (1996).
[47]Michael Pryles, Comparative Aspects of Prorogation and Arbitration Agreements,25 INT'L & COMP. L.Q.543 (1976).
[48]Otta Kahn-Freund, Jurisdiction Agreements:Some Reflections,26 INT'L & COMP. L.Q.825 (1977).
[49]P.Vlas, M. Zilinsky & F. Ibili, Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Europe,48 NETH. INT'L L. REV.109 (2005).
[50]Patrick J.Borchers, Forum Selection Agreements in the Federal Courts after Carnival Cruise: A Proposal for Congressional Reform,67 WASH. L. REV.55 (1992).
[51]Paul R. Beaumont, A United Kingdom Perspective on the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.75 (1998).
[52]Peter H. Pfund, The Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to Prepare a Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition/Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.7 (1998).
[53]Peter Hay & Robert J. Walker, The Proposed Recognition-of-Judgments Convention between the United States and the United Kingdom,11 TEX. INT'L L. J.421 (1976).
[54]Peter M. North, The Draft U.K./U.S. Judgments Conventions:A British Viewpoint,1 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.219(1979).
[55]Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Meeting of the American Foreign Law Association, The Validity of Forum Selecting Clauses,13 AM. J. COMP. L.157 (1964).
[56]Richard Fentiman, Jurisdiction-When Non-Exclusive Means Exclusive,51 CAMBRIDGE L.J. 234 (1992).
[57]Robert A. de By, Forum Selection Clauses:Substantive or Procedural for "Erie" Purposes,89 COLUM. L. REV.1068 (1989).
[58]Ronald A. Brand, A Global Convention on Choice of Court Agreements,10 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L.345 (2004).
[59]Ronald A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J.L.& COM.191 (2002).
[60]Ronald A. Brand, Enforcement of Foreign Money-Judgments in the United States:in Search of Uniformity and International Acceptance,67 NOTRE DAME L. REV.253 (1991).
[61]Ronald A. Brand, Enforcement of Judgments in the United States and Europe,13 J.L.& COM. 193 (1994).
[62]Ronald A. Brand, Punitive Damages and the Recognition of Judgments,43 NETH. INT'L L. REV.145 (1996).
[63]Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:End of the Century or Beginning of the Millennium?,7 TUL. J. INT'L COMP. L. 111 (1999).
[64]T. T. Arvind, The Draft Hague Judgments Convention:Some Perspectives from Arbitration, 51 NETH. INT'L L. REV.337 (2004).
[65]Thalia Kruger, The 20th Session Of The Hague Conference:A New Choice Of Court Convention and the Issue of EC Membership,55 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.447 (2006).
[66]Trevor C. Hartley, The Hague Choice-of-Court Convention,31(3) E. L. REV.414 (2006).
[67]Ved P. Nanda, International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law Changing Law for Changing Times,13th Biennial Meeting:The Landmark 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements,42 TEX. INT'L L.J.773 (2007).
[68]Volker Behr, Enforcement of United States Money Judgments in Germany,13 J.L.& COM. 211 (1994).
[69]William Heye, Forum Selection for International Dispute Resolution in China-Chinese vs. CIETAC,27 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV.535 (2004).
[70]William J. Jr. Woodward, Saving the Hague Choice of Court Convention,29 U. PA. J. INT'L L. 657 (2008).
[71]William M. Richman, Carnival Cruise Lines:Forum Selection Clauses in Adhesion Contracts, 40 AM. J. COMP. L.977 (1992).
[72]William W. Park, Bridging the Gap in Forum Selection:Harmonizing Arbitration and Court Selection,8 TRANSNAT'L L.& CONTEMP. PROBS.19 (1998).
[73]William W. Park, Illusion and Reality in International Forum Selection,30 TEX. INT'L L. J. (1995).
[74]Wills L. M. Reese, The Contractual Forum:Situation in the United States,13 AM. J. COMP. L. 187 (1964).
2 Ronald A. Brand, The New Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006)
13 参见胡斌、田妮：《十字路口的海牙管辖权公约》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2002年卷,法律出版社2002年版,第542页。
4 Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000-Report on the preliminary draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (visited March 1,2006)
5 The Permanent Bureau and the Co-reporters, Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission Ⅱ of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference (6-20 June 2001)-Interim Text (visited May 1,2006)
6 Draft on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006)
7 Masato Dogauchi & Trevor C. Hartley, Preliminary Document No 25 of March 2004-Draft Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, (visited May 1,2006)
8 Draft on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006),
9 Masato Dogauchi & Trevor C. Hartley, Preliminary Document No 26 of December 2004-Draft Report of Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements (visited May 1,2006)
10 Trevor Hartley & Masato Dogauchi, Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention, (visited April 13,2009)
11 参见孙劲：《海牙(选择法院协议公约>评介》,2005年中国国际私法年会论文。
12 参见香港律政司国际法律科：《关于选择专审法院协议的海牙公约初稿的最新进展》,(visited May 12,2006)
13 See HCCH, European Community Signs Hague Choice of Court Convention (visited April 13,2009)
14 徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙(选择法院协议公约)述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第16页。
15 See David Luther Woodward, Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community,8 N.C.J. INT'L L.& COM. REG.299,310 (1983).
16 See Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: The United States Joins the Judgments Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L L.& BUS.1,3-4 (2006).
17 Hilton v. Guyot,159 U.S.113,202-203 (1895).
18 See Friedrich K. Juenger, A Hague Judgments Convention?,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 111,114 (1998).
19 Id. at 115.
20 See Russell J. Weintraub, How Substantial is Our Need for a Judgments-Recognition Convention and What Should We Bargain Away to Get It?,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.167,172-173 (1998).
21 参见孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第279-293页。
22 See Peter M. North, The Draft U.K./U.S. Judgments Conventions:A British Viewpoint,1 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus. 219,223,238 (1979); See also, Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Sister-state Judgments: Reflections on General Theory and Current Practice in the European Economic Community and the United States, 81 COLUM. L. REV.1044,1060 (1981).
23 See Linda Silberman, Symposium:Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:Eighth Annua Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy Article:Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?,52 DEPAUL L. REV. 319,319-320 (2002).
24 Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271,274 (1994).
25 仅塞浦路斯、荷兰和葡萄牙三国签署,公约从技术上讲有效,但因前述三国未缔结双边协定而未产生实际效果。
26 当时欧共体六国为比利时、法国、联邦德国、意大利、卢森堡和荷兰。
27 1978年丹麦、爱尔兰和英国加入公约,1982年希腊加入,1989年西班牙和葡萄牙加入。
28 这些双边条约的清单,可见于1988年《卢迦洛公约》。
29 当然,《卢迦洛公约》并没有就欧共体成员国之间的内部关系问题取代《布鲁塞尔公约》,《卢迦洛公约》适用于欧共体国家和欧洲自由贸易联盟国家之间的关系,以及欧洲自由贸易联盟内部国家之间的关系。并且,对这两个公约的解释和适用有时是不一致的,因为根据《卢迦洛公约》,欧共体以外的各国法院不受欧洲法院对《布鲁塞尔公约》解释的约束。
30 丹麦未加入《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》。由于《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》是对《布鲁塞尔公约》的继承,下文为行文方便,未特别说明时《布鲁塞尔公约》是对两者的通称。
31 Strengthening cooperation with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland:the Lugano Convention (2007), (visited April 13,2009)
32 See KEVIN M. CLERMONT, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION, in A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS:LESSONS FROM THE HZGUE 3,3-4 (J. J. Barcelo & K. M. Clermont eds.,2002).
33 参见贺晓翊：《英国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,法律出版社2008年版,第182-191页。
34 Arthur Taylor von Mehren, the Story Professor of Law Emeritus, born on August 10,1922 in Albert Lea, Minn., died on January 16 at the age of 83.
35 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271,271-287 (1994).
36 Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 16.
37 See P. PFUND, CONTRIBUTING TO PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:THE INTERNATIONAL PROCESS AND THE UNITED STATES APPROACH,249 Recueil des Cours 13 (1994), at 83; Ronald A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A view from the United States,21 J. L. & COM.191,192 (2002).
38 Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271,272 (1994).
39 The Permanent Bureau of Hague Conference on Private International Law, Annotated Checklist of Issues to be Discussed at the Meeting of the Special Commission on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments, Prel. Doc. No 1. at 1.
40 See Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters adopted by the Special Commission, Hague Conference, Prel. Doc. No 11, at 26.
41 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Dafting a Convention on Internatoinal Jurisdictin and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 AM. J. COMP. L.191, 196-197 (2001).
42 Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J. L.& COM.191,197 (2002).
43 R. Dreyfuss, An Alert to the Intellectual Property Bar:The Hague Judgments Convention,2001 U. ILL. L. REV. 421 (2001).
44 The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, Informational Note on the Work of the Informal Meetings Held since October 1999 to Consider and Develop Drafts on Outstanding Items, Prel. Doc.15.
45 The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Report of the Eexperts Meeting on the Intellectual Property Aspects of the Future Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Geneva,1 February 2001, Prel. Doc.13.
46 The Permanent Bureau and the Co-reporters, Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission II of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference (6-20 June 2001)-Interim Text.
47 美国国务院国际私法方面的助理司法顾问Jeffrey Kovar的声明,即Internet and Federal Court:Issues and Obstacles:Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Courts and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong.53, (2000); Sean D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law,95 Am. J. INT'L. L.387,420 (2001).
48 See Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: The United States Joins the Judgment Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L.& Bus.1,7 (2006).
49 See Ronald A. Brand, Due Process, Jurisdiction and a Hague Judgment convention,60 U. PTTT. L. REV.661, 689-701 (1999).
50 See Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Thoughts About a Multinational Judgments:A reaction to the von Mehren Report, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. (No.3) 289,296 (1994)但有些美国学者希望删除海牙公约中的这一依据SeeKevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty,85 CORNELL L. REV.89,114-115 (1999); Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:End of the Century or Beginning of the Millennium?,7 TUL. J. INT'LCOMP. L. 111,119 (1999).
51 值得一提的是,《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行当事人协议管辖的民商事案件判决的安排》采取的就是单一模式,未明确规定直接管辖权问题。尽管大陆与香港两法域之间的经济关系密切,但是由于大陆与香港之间法律传统上的差异,历史上的政治隔绝加之司法互信的缺乏,采取单一模式显然只是现实和谨慎的政策选择。但这种保守性的安排,无疑是权宜之计,是否能有效地促进两地之间的经济发展和法律合作,仍有待观察。
52 See Arthur von Mehren, Enforcing Judgments Abroad:Reflections on the Design of Recognition Convention,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.23,25 (1998).
53 See Linda Silberman, Symposium:Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:Eighth Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy Article:Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?,52 DEPAULLL. REV.319,349 (2002).
54 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Dafting a Convention on Internatoinal Jurisdictin and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 Am. J. Comp. L.191,199 (2001).
55 FINAL ACT OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION, I PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION, MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS 29, at 63 (The Hague:SDU Publishers 1999).
56 第17条规定,依第4.5.7.8和12条,公约不禁止缔约国适用其国内法上的管辖权规则,只要不被公约第18条禁止。
57 See Arthur T. von Mehren, Dafting a Convention on Internatoinal Jurisdictin and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 AM. J. COMP. L.191,199 (2001).
58 Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J. L.& COM.191,196-197 (2002).
59 Case C-364/93 Marinari v. Lloyd's Bank plc and Zubaidi Trading Co [19951 E.C.R.2719,2739.
60 See Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21J. L.& Com.191,199-203 (2002).
61 See Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: The United States Joins the Judgments Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.1,17 (2006).
62 See Linda Silberman, Symposium:Export/Import:American Civil Justice in a Global Context:Eighth Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy Article:Comparative Jurisdiction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?,52 DEPAULL. REV.319,330-331 (2002).
63 See Brand A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J. L.& COM.191,205 (2002).
64 See Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:End of the Century or Beginning of the Millennium?,7 TUL. J. Int'L & COMP. L. 111,123 (1999).
65 See Friedrich K. Juenger, A Shoe Unfit for Globetrotting,28 U. C. Davis L. Rev.1027,1027 (1995).
66 Zivilpressordnung [ZPO] art.23 (F.R.G.).
67 C. Civ. Art 14 (Fr.)
68 大陆法系律师反感经济活动管辖或最低联系管辖依据,因为他们觉得该依据含糊而不可预见,因为原告可能以被告的实际到场、财产所有权或在法院从事商业为由,任意性地提起诉讼。由于从事经济活动管辖权规则在美国有很长的历史,美国代表认为至少应该将其列入灰色管辖区域,因为如果不允许实施这样的管辖依据,势必招致美国律师界的严厉批评。
69 See Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty,85 CORNELL L. REV.89,112 (1999).
70 1987年《美国对外关系第三次重述》第321条cmt.e认为过境管辖权依据一般不被国际法接受。后来美国最高法院在Burnham v. Super. Ct案(495 U.S.604,607-608(1990))认为只在美国公民之间实施此管辖依据,而不适用于国际案件。
钉参见韩德培主编：《国际私法专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第296-297页。
72 See Ronard A. Brand, Comparative Forum Non Convenies and the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments,37 Tex. INT'L L. J.467,493 (2002).
73 三次会议的报告分别为Prel. Docs No 20,21,22.
74 2003年草案及由T. C. Hartley和M. D. Dogauchi所作的解释报告,见Prel. Doc. No 25.
75 2004年草案及由T. C. Hartley和M. D. Dogauchi所作的解释报告,见Prel. Doc. No 26.
76 根据海牙国际私法会议章程,海牙会议每四年召开一次外交会议(章程第3条),至少批准一个公约。
77 特别委员会曾在某种程度上考虑是否安排像欧洲法院那样的机构,参见Castherine Kessedjian, Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of March 1998 on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Prel. Doc. No.9 (July 1998), at 45, no.118.
78 BERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 322 (4e ed., Economica 2003).
79 See Recent Case Notes, Contracts-Illegality-Ousting Court's Jurisdiction,28 YALE L. J.190,191 (1918).
80 粟烟涛：《冲突法上的法律规避》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第32页。
BERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 323 (4° ed., Economica 2003).
82 国际条约如1965年海牙《协议选择法院公约》、1968年《布鲁塞尔公约》、1988年《卢迦洛公约》和2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》。
83 See Continental Bank v. Aeakos Compania Naviera [1994] 1 WLR 588; [1994] 1 Lloyd's Rep.505 (Court of Appeal, England).
84 See DAVID JOSEPH Q.C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT 104 (1st ed, London Sweet & Maxwell 2005)多项公约接受仲裁协议的独立性原则,如《联合国国际商事仲裁示范法》第16条第(1)款规定：“仲裁庭可以对它自己的管辖权包括对仲裁协议的存在或效力的任何异议,作成裁定。为此目的,构成合同一部分的仲裁条款应视为独立与其他合同条款以外的一项协议。仲裁庭作出关于合同无效的决定,不应在法律上导致仲裁条款的无效。”1965年《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》第41条第1款及1961年《欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第5条均有相关规定。
85 Case C-269/95, Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl, [1997] E.C.R.I-3767 at 29. 86 T.G.I. Paris, July 10,1991, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 54 (1993), note Gaudemet-Tallon (Consorts Paoletti v. Privat Kredit Bank).
87 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967)可参见丁颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究——以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第33页。
88 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 (1974).
89 粟烟涛：《冲突法上的法律规避》,北京大学出版社2008年版,第32页。
90 M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.,407 U.S.1, (1972); 92 S.Ct.1907.
91 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., v. Shute,499 U.S.585 (1991).
92 See BURKHARD HESS, The Draft Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, External Competencies of the European Union and Recent Case Law of the European Court of Justice, in INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN EUROPE AND RELATIONS WITH THIRD STATES 263,271-272 (Arnaud Nuyts & Nadine Watte eds., Bruylant 2005).
93 ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE, POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF COMMON- AND CIVIL-LAW SYSTEMS, 295 RECUEIL Des COURS 257 (2002).
94 1975年改革法案将第331条修改为,如果该规则不适用于第29条第2款关于法院管辖权的当事人主张,法院必须依职权确定其是否有管辖权。
95 ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, THEORY ANE PRACTICE OF ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE, PILICIES AND PRACTICES OF COMMON- AND CICIL-LAW SYSTEMS, 295 RECUEIL DES COURS 262 (2002).
96 TREVOR C. HARTLEY, THE MODERN APPROACH TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND TTRANSACTIONS FROM A COMMON-LAW PERSPECTIVE. GENERAL COURSE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW,319 Recueil Des Cours (2006), at 113.
97 参见[德]马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》(1950年英文第2版),李浩培、汤宗舜译,北京大学出版社2009年第2版,第81页。
98 [1958] 1 WLR 159; [1958] 1 ALL ER 333; [1957] Lloyd's Rep.551 (Court of Appeal, England). See also, P. R. H. Webb, The Fehmarn,7 Int'L& COMP. L.Q.599 (1958).
99 [1970] P.94; [1969] 2 WLR 1073; [1969] 2 ALL ER 641; [1969] 1 Lloyd's Pep.237(England).
100 [1979] 1 WLR 1228; [1979] 3 ALL ER 280; [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep.172 (CA, England).
101 [1983] AC 565; [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep.1 (House of Lords).
102 See ANDREW BELL, VENUE BY CONSENSUS-THE ROLE OF JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS, in FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE IN TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION 275,297 (Oxford University Press 2003).
103 The Restatement (first) of Conflict of Laws, Comment a to (?) 617 (1934).
104 The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (?) 80 (1969).
105 报告中的注解援引Bremen案来支持举证责任。
106 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,13 U.L.A.261 (1986).
107 E. SCOLES. P. HAY, P. BORCHERS & S. SYMEONIDES, CONFLICT OF LAWS 335 (3rd ed.,St. Paul, Minn.& West Group 2000).
108 M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,407 U.S.1 (1972); 92 S.Ct.1907.
109 Willis L. M. Reese, The Contractual Forum:Situation in the United States,13 AM. J. COMP. L.187,189 (1964).
110 Nute v. Hamilton Mutual Ins. Co.,72 Mass. (6 Gray) 174 (1856).
111 参见高凤仙：《美国国际私法之发展趋势》,台湾商务印书馆1990年版,第146页。
112 Unterweser Reederei Gm.b.H. v. Zapata Offshore Company (The Chaparral) 2 Lloyd's Rep 158 (1968).
113 Id. at 161.
114 Carbon Black Export, Inc. v. The SS Monsosa 254 F.2d 297 (5th Cir.1958).
115 Wisdom, J.,428 F.2d 888 at 896 (CA 5 1970).
116 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., v. Shute,499 U.S.585 (1991).
117 See M. Solimine, Forum-Selection Clauses and the Privatization of Procedure,25 CORNELL INT'L. L. J 51,101 (1992).
118 See A. Haines, The Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project:Thoughts for the Future, Permanent Bureau of the Conference, General Affairs, Prel. Doc., No.17,4-21 (February 2002).
119 Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer,515 U.S.528 (1995).
120 US Constitution, Article Ⅲ § 2; 28 USC (?) §1333.
121 Indussa Corp. v. S. S. Ranborg,377 F.2d 200 (1967).
122 对于纯美国的州际案件,是有美国联邦最高法院判决的。See Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corporation 487 US 22; 108 S. Ct.2239; 101 L. Ed.2d 22 (US Supreme Court 1988).
123 在多元管辖案件(diversity case)中,如果在联邦法院提起诉讼,联邦法院通常以选择法院协议的效力是程序问题为由而直接适用联邦法,从而承认协议的效力。
124 1968年《布鲁塞尔公约》中无此规定。在适用《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》前,非排他性选择法院协议引起了不少争议。因为《布鲁塞尔公约》第17条仅规定形式有效的选择法院协议给予被选的法院或几个法院排他性的管辖权。该规定忽略了协议明确声明条款是非排他性的这种情形,欧洲学者对此提出了不同的意见,SeeRichard Fentiman, Jurisdiction-When Non-Exclusive Means Exclusive,51 CAMBRIDGE L.J.234 (1992).
125 Case 24/76, Salotti v. RUWA [1976] E.C.R.1831.
126 Case 25/76, Segoura v. Bonakdarian [1976] E.C.R.1851.
127 Case 221/84, Berghoefer v. ASA, [1985] E.C.R.2699.
128 Case C-106/95, MSG v. Gravieres Rhenanes [1997] E.C.R.I-911.
129 欧洲法院的习惯用语in particular指句中接下来的事项不是穷竭性,而是例举,本文译为“在某种情况下”。
130 Case C-159/97, Trasporti Castelletti v. Hugo Trumpy [1999] E.C.R.1-1597.
131 Case 56/79, Siegfried Zelger v. Sebastiano Salinitri, [1980] E.C.R.89.
132 Case C-106/95, MSG v. Gravieres Rhenanes [19971 E.C.R.1-911.
133 Case C-214/89, Powell Duffryn v. Petereit [1992] E.C.R.1-1745.
134 Case C-150/80, Elefanten Schuh v. Jacqmain [1981] E.C.R.1671.
135 欧洲法院最后允许比利时法院审理案件,因为德国被告直到案件的实质审理阶段才对管辖权进行抗辩。比利时法院实际以《布鲁塞尔公约》的第18条取得管辖权(现《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》第24条)。
136 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPEe (3ed, L.G.D.J,2002), at 110.
137 Case C-387/98, Coreck Maritime v. Handelsveem [2000] E.C.R.1-9337.
138 见2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》第5条第1款,第6条(a)和第9条(a)。
139 Case 71/83, [1984] E.C.R.2417; [1984] 3 CMLR 499; [1985] 3 WLR 179.
140 [1983] AC 565; [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep.1 (House of Lords).
141 Case C-116/02 Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT [2003] E.C.R.I-14693.
142 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 21.
143 See Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002, at 4-5 (visited May 1,2006)
144 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (March 2004), at 7.
145 本文中关于2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》的案例假设,为行文方便,除非特别说明,所涉国家都假定为公约的缔约国。
146 Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Document No 11-Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, at 30-31.
147 International Road Transport Union (IRU), Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements Infringement of CMR Convention, CVR Convention and Vienna Convention, at 26-30 (visited Mar.1, 2006)
148 Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Prel. Doc. No 18 of February 2002, at 8.
149 See Richard Garnett, Enforcing International Arbitration Agreements in Australia,2 COMMERCIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION JOURNAL 88,94-96 (1995).
150 Case C-453/99 Courage Ltd v. Crehan [20011 E.C.R.1-6297.
151 Dogauchi/Harley Report (Dec.2006), at 11.
152 Harley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 33.
153 参见孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版,第93页。
154 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 63也可参见徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙《选择法院协议公约》述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第9页。
155 李浩培：《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年版,第165-168页。
156 孙劲：《海牙<协议选择法院公约>评介》,载《中国国际私法学会2005年年会论文集》。
157 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 21.
158 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 18.
159 例如在Estasis Salotti and Colzani v. RUWA案中,如果当事人在契约纸张的一面签名,除非他在写有选择法院协议的另一面签字作为明示,欧洲法院将认为当事人并未同意反面的选择法院协议,本案中裁决依据欧共体法而不是缔约国法律。See Case 24/76, Estasis Salotti and Colzani v. RUWA, [19761 E.C.R.1831.
160 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 38.
161 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40-41
162 该规定的措词受1996年《联合国贸易法委员会电子商务示范法》(UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996)第6条第1款的启发。Id.at 41.
163 Id.at 41.
164 参见本公约第5条第3款(b)。
165 根据本公约,一项声明A仅可以在巴黎商事法院起诉B,而B仅可以在里昂商事法院起诉A的协议也是排他生的选择法院协议。如果指定的两法院不在同一缔约国,则另当别论。
166 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40.
167 Hartley/Dogauchi Report,at 39.
168 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 20.
169 Id. at21.
170 See JAMES J. FAWCETT, GENERAL REPORT,in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1,10-26 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995).
171 Yu Lap Man v. Good First Investment Ltd. (1998) HKLRD (Yrbk) 104; T & K Electronics Ltd. v. Tai Ping Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 1HKLRD 172.
172 See PAUL BEAUMONT, GREAT BRITAIN:FORUM NON CONVENIENS, in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 207,207-221 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995).
173 Civil Code of Quebec (?) 3135.
174 See JAMES J. FAWCETT, GENERAL REPORT,in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1,10-21 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995).
175 See Andrew Clark, A Toast from Wall Street:Examines London's Pre-eminence in Bank Litigation, FINANCIAL TIMES, Dec.19,1995, at 9.
176 See JAMES J. FAWCETT, GENERAL REPORT,in DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1,18-19 (James J. Fawcett ed., Clarendon Press Oxford 1995)
177 See PHILIS S. THORSEN ET AL., FORUM SELECTION AGREEMENTS UNDER DANISH CIVIL LAW, in INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN CIVIL MATTERS 77,78 (Suzanne Rodriguez & Bertrand Prell eds.,1999).
178 值得一提的是,只有在争议一方当事人在卢迦诺公约成员国拥有住所,瑞士法院作为被选法院时才依卢迦诺公约必须接受管辖权。因此,如果日本公司和美国公司协议选择瑞士法院作为他们的管辖法院,卢迦诺公约将不适用,瑞士法院将适用瑞士法处理此选择法院条款的可执行性。
179 陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》,法律出版社1998年版,第36页。
180 ANDREA BUCHER, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE SUISSE 71 (Helbing & Lichtenhahan SA, Bale 1998).
181 Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Permanent Bureau Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002, at 5.
182 Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-Bohler,578 F.2d 953 (3rd Cir.1978).
183 V. Cass. com.19 dec.1978, Clunet 1979.366, n. Gaudemet-Tallon, Rev. Crit.1979.617, n. Huet.
184 Paris 10 oct.1990, R. C.605 (1991).
185 Avril D. Haines, Choice of Court Agreements in International Litigation:Their Use and Legal Problems to Which They Give Rise in the Context of the Interim Text, Permanent Bureau Preliminary Document No 18 of February 2002.
186 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGENTS EN EUROPE, REGLEMENT N°44/2001 CONVENTIONS DE BRUXELLES ET DE LUGANO 110 (3e edition, Paris:L.GD.J 2002).
187 NY Bus. Cor. Law (?) 1314 (b)(1)-(5) and NY Banking Law (?) 200(b).
188 NY Gen. Oblig. Law (?) 5-1402.
189 Vanier v. Ponsoldt,251 Kan.88,833 P.2d 949, Kan.(1992).
190 McRae v. J.D./M.D,511 So.2d 540 (Fla. Sup. Crt 1987).该案中,尽管争议中的当事人来自美国不同州,但相同的理由适用于外国被告。澳大利亚也有相似的判决,See Mondial Trading Pty Ltd v. Interocean Marine Transport Inc.60 ALJR 277,65 ALR 155 (1985) (Dawson J, High Court of Australia).
191 WILLIAM W. PARK, INTERNATIONAL FORUM SELECTION 13-14 (Kluwer Law International 1995).
192 Peter Nygh and Fausto Pocar, The Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by Preliminary Document No.11 of August 2000, at 43.
193 GEORGES A. L. DROZ, PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE CONVENTION ON JURISDICTION AND FOREIGN JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS:PROVISIONS OF JURISDICTION, in A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS:LESSONS FROM THE HAGUE 15-36 (J. J. Barcelo & K. M. Clermont eds., Kluwer Law International 2002).
194 Andrea Schulz, Report on the First Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-October 22-25,2002, Preliminary Document No 20 of November 2002 for the attention of the meeting of the Informal Working Group of January, at 8.
195 Elefanten Schuh v. Jacqmain, Case 150/80 [1981] E.C.R.1671.
156 所谓功能对等方法,即运用现代信息通讯和存储方式实际上于以纸张为基础的概念如“书面”“签署”“原件”的功能对等。See UNCITRAL's Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996):Introduction to the Model Law, E. The "functional-equivalent" approach (visited April 13,2009)
197 See Robert Kossick, The Internet in Latin America:New Opportunities, Developments, and Challenges 13 FLA. J.INT'L L.263,269(2001).
198 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40-41.
199 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo v. RUWA Polsteimaschinen GmbH, Case 24/76 [1976] E.C.R.1831, at 7.
200 See e.g., Cass.com., Feb.27,1996, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 1996,734, note Gaudemet-Tallon.
201 Cass.2e civ., Feb.30,1980, Gaz. Pal.1980,2,494, note Dupichot.
202 Cass. le civ., June 30,1992, D.1994,169, note Guez.
203 CA Paris, June 29,1993, D.1993 inf. rap.,248.
204 Cass. Com., Dec.8,1998, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive,536, note Gaudemet-Tallon (1999).
205 CAAix-en-provence, Jan.22,1992,26,29 note Beignier.
206 HELENE GAUDEMET-TSLLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE n° 147, at 108 (3edtion, L.GD.J.2002).
207 See Transporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v. Hugo Trumpy SpA, Case 159/97 [1999] E.C.R. I-1597, at 30.
208 Id. at 36.
209 Evolution Online Sys. Inc. v. Koninklijke Nederland N.V., KPN,145 F.3d 505,509 (2d Cir.1998).
210 W.G Nichols, Inc. v. Kmart Corp.,2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24131 at 4 (E.D. Pa.2001)
211 Paper Express, Ltd. v. Pfankuch Maschinen GmbH,972 F.2d 753,757-758 (7th Cir.1992).
212 Paul R. Beaumont, A United Kingdom Perspective on the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.75,107 (1998).
213 Monsanto Co. v. McFarling,302 F.3d 1291,1294-1295. (Fed. Cir.2002).
214 CA Paris, Dec.18,1987 somm.343.
215 M/S Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.,407 U.S.1,12,15 (1972).
216 See Restatement (Second) of Contracts (?) 208 (1981)显示公平理论一般不在商事案件中使用,法院假设商人有能力保护其利益,而B2B合同一般是表面有效的。美国州法院曾用显示公平理论使仲裁协议无效,见James Zimerman, Restrictions on Forum Selection Clauses in Franchise Agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act:Is State Law Preempted? 51 VAND. L. REV.759,767-768 (1998).
217 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE, nd° 152, at 110 (2002).
218 See DACID JOSEPH Q.C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT 104 (1st ed, London Sweet & Maxwell 2005).
219 Case C-269/95, Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl.,1997 E.C.R.I-3767 p29.
220 T.GI. Paris, July 10,1991, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 54 (1993), note Gaudemet-Tallon (Consorts Paoletti v. Privat Kredit Bank).
221 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967)可参见丁颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究—以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第33页。
222 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 n.14 (1974).
223 See, e.g., Farmland Indus., Inc. v. Frazier-Parrott commodities, Inc.,806 F.2d 848,851 (8th Cir.1986).
224 中华人民共和国最高人民法院(2001)民四终字第1号。
225 Hull 753 Corp. v. Elbe Flugzeugwerke GmbH,58. F. Supp.2d 928 (N.D.I11.1999)
226 Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT,293, F.3d 270 (5th Cir.2002); Terra It'l, Inc. v. Mississippi Chem. Corp., 119 F. d 688 (8tn Cir.1997).
227 See STEPHEN O'MALLEY & ALEXANDER LAYTON, EUROPEAN CIVIL PRACTICE 568 (Sweet & Maxwell 1989)
228 判决公约的计划并不意图处理法律选择问题,只包括管辖权和判决承认与执行,但是2001年6月外交大会期间讨论选择法院协议中的法律选择问题,因此使之纳入公约成为可能。
229 Peter Nygh & Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000 for the attention of the Nineteenth Session of June 2001, at 42.
230 Andrea Schulz, Reflection Paper to Assist in The Preparation of a Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Preliminary Document No 19 of August 2002. at 7.
231 Id. at 8-9.
232 Andrea Schulz, Reflection Paper to Assist in The Preparation of a Convention on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Preliminary Document No 19 of August 2002. at 11.
233 Andrea Schulz, Report on the Second Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-January 6-9,2003, Preliminary Document No 21 of January 2003, at 11.
234 See Article 5(2), Alternatives 2-4 (first sentence) in the draft annexed to Preliminary Document No 21 of January 2003在建议公约不决定当事人的能力的法律适用之外,代表们提供了5条选项供讨论。选项1：公约不决定选择法院协议的效力。选项2：当事人可以决定选择法院协议应适用的法律,包括选择法院协议的效力问题。当事人未选择法律时,受案地法(包括其国际私法)应决定选择法院协议的效力。选项3：当事人可以决定选择法院协议应适用的法律,包括选择法院协议的效力问题。当事人未选择法律时,被选法院的内国法应该决定选择法院协议的效力。选项4：当事人可以决定选择法院协议应适用的法律,包括选择法院协议的效力问题。当事人未选择法律时,受案地法应该决定该选择法院协议是否有效、不可执行或不能履行。选项5：受案地法应决定该协议是否有效、不可执行或不能履行。以上选项中,第2.3.4条规定当事人对于选择法院协议的实质效力可以选择法律。在5个选项中,在当事人未选择法律时,只有第3项将效力交由被选法院的内国法,第2.4.5条这三个选项则交由受案地法。第4或第5选项参照了1958年《纽约公约》第2条第3款,而第2条则采用海牙公约的一般术语。
235 Dogauchi/Hartley Report (April 2004), at 23.
236 Andrea Schulz, Report on the First Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-October 22-25,2002, Preliminary Document No 20 of November 2002 for the attention of the meeting of the Informal Working Group of January, at 7.
237 Id. at 8.
238 Inter-American Convention on Jurisdiction in the International Sphere for the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments of 24 May 1984 (the La Paz Convention).
239 Andrea Schulz, Report on the Second Meeting of the Informal Working Group on the Judgments Project-January 6-9,2003, Preliminary Document No 21 of January 2003, at 10.
240 Harley/Dogauchi Report (2007) at 48.
241 [1979] 1 WLR 1228; [1979] 3 ALL ER 280; [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep.172 (CA, England).
499 US 585; 111 S. Ct.1522; 113 L. Ed.2d 622 (US Supreme court,1991).
243 ANDREAS F. LOWENFELD, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE QUEST FOR REASONABLENESS 136 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1996).
244 但是会议认为缔约国没有义务执行其国内法律制度不存在的非金钱救济判决。不过,缔约国应依其国内法尽可能地给予外国判决最大程度的效力。See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 15.
245 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 36.
246 Id. at 35.
247 Id. at 35.
248 Id. at 37.
249 Id.at 31.
250 Id.at 31.
251 Id.at 31.
252 Supreme Court of Japan, judgment of 11 July 1997,51 Minshu 2578 (English translation in the Japanese Annual of International Law, No 41, at 104).
253 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 32.
254 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 32-33.
255 Id. at 33.
256 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 33.
257 对于先决问题,民法法系和普通法系采用不同的术语和基本概念,容易引起误解。例如普通法学者不称“先决问题”(incidental questions),而称其为“争点”(issues).
258 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 37.
259 请求排除与争点排除的区别,参见孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社,2003年,第93-95页。
260 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 33.
261 徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙(选择法院协议公约)述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第15页。
262 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 45.
263 Id. at.46.
264 See Nygh/Pocar Report (August.2000), at 109-110.
265 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004). at 41-42.
266 Id. at 41-42.
267 See Nygh/Pocar Report (August.2000), at 116.
268 See Andrea Schulz, Report on the Meeting of the Drafting Committee of 18-20 April 2005 in Preparation of the Twentieth Session of June 2005, at 4.
269 公约第19条允许缔约国作出限制管辖权的声明,如果被选法院所在国与当事人或争议之间并无联系,缔约国法院可以拒绝裁决该排他性选择法院协议所提交的争议。因该声明条款仅涉及管辖权问题,与第20条的内容相比不要求当事人的居所问题。
270 参见刘仁山主编：《国际私法》,中国法制出版社2007年版,第328页。
271 如Council Directive 93/13,1993 O.J. (L95) 29 (EC),指示欧盟全部成员国制定标准格式合同方面的规则；The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation,1994, S.I.1994/3159 (U.K.),英国依1993年13号欧盟指定制定消费者保护方面的规则；John Adams, Digital Age Standard Form Contracts under Australian Law: "Wrap" Agreements, Exclusive Jurisdiction, and Binding Arbitration Clauses,13 Pac. PIM L.& PoL'Y J.528(2004),讨论布鲁塞尔规则和卢迦洛公约中的相关规定.See also EUGENE F. SCOLES ET AL., CONFLICT OF LAWS (?) 11.2, at 481 n.12 (4th ed.2004)欧盟为保护弱方当事人而限制合同自由,对保险和消费者合同制定特别规则。
272 Guangjian Tu, The Hague Choice of Court Convention-A Chinese Perspective,55 Am. J. COMP. L.347 (2007).
273 王吉文：《2005年海牙<选择法院协议公约>研究》,东南大学出版社2008年版,第240-255页。
274 陈隆修：《2005年海牙法院选择公约评析》,台北五南图书出版公约2009年版,第142-153页。
275 See Recent International Agreement,119 HARV. L. REV.931,937 (2006).
276[德]拉德布鲁赫：《法学导论》(1929年第7/8版),米健、朱林译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第22页。
277 参见宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第348-356页。
278 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 17 (T.M.C. Asser Press 2004).
279 卢松：《关于涉外民事管辖权的几项原则》,载黄进、刘卫翔等编：《当代国际私法问题——庆祝韩德培教授八十五华诞论文集》,武汉大学出版社1995年版,第311-315页。
280 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CICIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE. at 116.
281 FRIEDRECH K. JUENGER, CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE, at 214.
282 陈隆修著：《2005年海牙法院选择公约评析》,台北五南图书出版公司2009年版,第150页。
283 C-295/95 Farrell v. Long [1997] E.C.R.I-1683,19.
284 Jenard Report. OJ 1979 C 59, at 18.
285 值得注意的是,2005年海牙《协议选择法院公约》不影响已生效的其他有关管辖权的国际公约的效力。如《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》,若案件可能适用两公约时,则优先适用《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》。在这种情况下,海牙公约的协议管辖权没有优先力。
286 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, at 124.
287 Case 201/82 Gerling v. Tesoro [1983] E.C.R.2503,17.
288 参见罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第139页。
289 See Harley/Dogauchi Report (2007) at 31,63.
290 参见罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第148页。
291 C-269/95 Benincasa v. Dentalkit 17 [1997] E.C.R.1-3767.
292 这两个案例可参见罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,第120-121页。
293 JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, at 125-126.
294 C-159/97 Castelletti v. Trumpy 19 [1999] E.C.R.I-1597 (re Mainschiffahrts 17); C-106/95 Mainschiffahrts v. Les Cravieres Rhenances 15 [1997] E.C.R.I-911 (re 24/76 Salotti 7; 25/76 Segoura 6),17; and C-116/02 Gasser v. MISAT 50 [2003] E.C.R.I-14693.
295 Case 24/76, Salotti v. RUWA 7 [19761 E.C.R.1831.
296 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 40-41.
297 499 US 585; 111 S. Ct.1522; 113 L. Ed.2d 622 (US Supreme court,1991).
298 Case 22/85 Anterist v. Credit Lyonnais [1986] E.C.R.1951,14; and compare C-387/98 Coreck v. Handelsveem [2000] E.C.R.1-9337,14 (re 23/78 Meeth v. Glacetal 5).
299 Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh v. Jacqmain [1981] E.C.R.1671,24-26; C-269/95 Benincasa v. Dentalkit [1997] E.C.R.1-3767,28 (re Mainschiffahrts 34),29.
300 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 43.
301 Id.at 47.
302 Id. at 54.
303 JANNER A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CICIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTER, at 161.
304 李双元、谢石松著：《国际民事诉讼法概论》,武汉大学出版2001年第2版,第175页。
305 See Jenard Report OJ 1979 C 59 at 35.
306 Case 73/77 Sanders v. Van der Putte 11 [1977] E.C.R.2383.
307 参见肖永平主编：《欧盟统一国际私法研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版,第278页。
308 Case C-116/02, Erich Gasser GmbH v. MISAT [2003] E.C.R.1-14693.
309 李先波：《论国际民事案件管辖权协调的基本原则》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(第3卷),法律出版社2000年版,第575页。
310 Case 125/79 Denilauler v. Couchet Freres [1980] E.C.R.1553,13.
311 JANNER A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGINTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERICAL MMTTERS, at 45-47.
FRIDERECH K. JUEMGER, CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE 214 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).
313 See Nygh/Pocar Report (August 2000), at 99.
314 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 41.
315 《布鲁塞尔规则Ⅰ》第60条第1款规定,公司、其他法人、自然人或法人之组织的住所为：法定所在地(本座)、中心管理地或主要营业地。第2款规定,对于英国和爱尔兰,法定所在地指官方注册地,没有官方注册地时为成立地,没有成立地时为所依成立的法律所属地。
316 公约以分割方法协议的实质效力区分为当事人的能力与其他问题,前者依法院地法,后者依被选法院地法。
317 58. F. Supp.2d 928 (N.D.I11.1999).
318 See DAVID JOSEPH Q.C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT 104 (1st ed, London Sweet & Maxwell 2005)多项公约接受仲裁协议的独立性原则,如《联合国国际商事仲裁示范法》第16条第(1)款规定：“仲裁庭可以对它自己的管辖权包括对仲裁协议的存在或效力的任何异议,作成裁定。为此目的,构成合同一部分的仲裁条款应视为独立与其他合同条款以外的一项协议。仲裁庭作出关于合同无效的决定,不应在法律上导致仲裁条款的无效。”1965年《解决国家与他国国民间投资争端公约》第41条第1款及《欧洲国际商事仲裁公约》第5条均有相关规定。
319 Case C-269/95, Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl, [1997] E.C.R.I-3767,29.
320 T.G.I. Paris, July 10,1991, Rev. Critique Droit Int'l Prive 54 (1993), note Gaudemet-Tallon (Consorts Paoletti v. Privat Kredit Bank).
321 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967)可参见丁颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究—以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第33页。
322 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 n.14 (1974).
323 刘卫国：《论国际民商事司法管辖条款的独立性》,载《法商研究》2002年第6期。
324 BURKHARD HESS, THE DRAFT HAFUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS, EXTERNAL COMPETENCIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RECENT CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE, in INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN EUROPE AND RELATIONS WITH THIRD STATES 272 (ARNaud Nuyts & Nadine Watte eds., Bruylant 2005).
325 参见李国清：《美国证券法域外管辖权问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2003年版,第135-154页。
326 Intermetals Corp. v. Hanover Int'l AG fur Industrieversicherungen,188 F. Supp.2d 454,458 (D.N.J.2001).
327 See Jason Webb Yackee, Choice of Law Considerations in the Validity & Enforcement of International Forum Selection Agreements:Whose Law Applies!,9 UCLA J. INT'L L.& FOREIGN AFF.43,70-73 (2004).
328 HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE, at 110.
329 Paris 10 oct.1990, R.C.1991,605在该案中,列支敦士登公司与毛里求斯岛公司之间的合同中指定由巴黎商事法院管辖,巴黎上诉法院承认了该选择法院协议的效力。
330 Cass. Civ. 1re,3 dec.1991, R.C.1992,340.
331 PIERRE. MAYER & VINCENT HEUZE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE, n° 301-302 (7e ed., Paris:Montchrestien 2001).
332 Max Planck Institute for Foreign Private and Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission's Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernization,68 RABELS ZEITSCRHIFT 24 (2004).
333 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 43.
335 Id. at 54.
334 Id. at 47.
336 BERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE, n° 394, at 302 (4e ed., Economica 2006).
337 C-260/97 Unibank v. Christensen [1999] E.C.R.I-3715,14.
338 JANET A. PONTER & EDWIGE BURGE, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCLAL MATTERS, at 28.
339 在外交会议上,代表们认为缔约国法院没有义务执行其司法制度中不存在的非金钱判决。当然,被请求法院应该给予外国判决在其内国法所可能的最大效力。See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), note 201.
340 See Hartley/Dogauchi Report (2007), at 50.
341 Id. at 50.
342 See JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS, ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE. at 32-33.
343 Id. at 44.
344 徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙<选择法院协议公约>述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期,第16页。
345 关于外国当事人对中国涉外司法制度的担心,可参见Roy F. Drow, Resolving Commercial Dispute in China: Foreign Firms and the Role of Contract Law,14 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.161,182 (1993). Stanley B. Lubman, Bird in a Cage:Chinese Law Reform After Twenty Years,20 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.383,420 (2000). James Hugo Friend, The Rocky Road Towards Rule of Law in China,20 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.369,379-80 (2000). Randall Peerenboom, The X-files:Past and Present Protrayals of China's Alien "Legal System ",2 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV.37,60 (2003). William Heye, Forum Selection for International Dispute Resolution in China-Chinese vs. CIETAC,27 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV.535 (2004).
346 See Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo v. RUWA Polsteimaschinen GmbH, Case 24/76 [1976] E.C.R.1831, at 7.
347 See Transporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v. Hugo Trumpy SpA, Case 159/97 [1999] E.C.R. 1-1597. at 30.
348 CA Paris, Dec.18,1987 somm.343.
349 The Bremen v. Zapata Offshore Co.,407 U.S.1,12,15 (1972).
350 See Restatement (Second) of Contracts 208 (1981).
351 Prima Paint corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.,388 U.S.399,403-404 (1967).
352 Scherk v. Alerto-Culver Co.,417 U.S.506,519 n.14 (1974).
353 Case 71/83, [1984] E.C.R.2417; [1984] 3 CMLR 499; [1985] 3 WLR 179.
354 参见韩德培主编：《国际私法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版,第310页。
355 See Dogauchi/Hartley Report (Dec.2004), at 32.
[1]中国国际私法学会：《中华人民共和国国际私法示范法》,法律出版社2000年版。
[2]韩德培主编：《国际私法》,高等教育出版社、北京大学出版社2000年版。
[3]韩德培主编：《国际私法问题专论》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
[4]韩德培：《韩德培文集》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[5]韩德培、韩健：《美国国际私法(冲突法)导论》,法律出版社1994年版。
[6]李浩培：《国际民事程序法概论》,法律出版社1996年版。
[7]李浩培：《李浩培文选》,法律出版社2000年版。
[8]李浩培：《条约法概论》,法律出版社2003年第2版。
[9]李双元、谢石松：《国际民事诉讼法概论》,武汉大学出版社2001年第2版。
[10]张仲伯主编：《国际私法学》,中国政法大学出版社2007年版。
[11]黄进、刘卫翔等编：《当代国际私法问题——庆祝韩德培教授八十五华诞论文集》,武汉大学出版社1995年版。
[12]黄进主编：《国际私法》,法律出版社2005年第2版。
[13]肖永平：《肖永平论冲突法》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[14]肖永平：《国际私法原理》,法律出版社2007年第2版。
[15]肖永平主编：《欧盟统一国际私法研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[16]刘仁山主编：《国际私法》,中国法制出版社2007年版。
[17]刘仁山主编：《国际民商事程序法通论》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
[18]刘仁山：《加拿大国际私法研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
[19]陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》,法律出版社1998年版。
[20]张茂：《美国国际民事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
[21]徐宏：《国际民事司法协助》,武汉大学出版社2006年第2版。
[22]袁泉：《荷兰国际私法研究》,法律出版社2000年版。
[23]刘卫翔：《欧洲联盟国际私法》,法律出版社2001年版。
[24]徐卉：《涉外民商事诉讼管辖权冲突研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
[25]徐伟功：《不方便法院原则研究》,吉林人民出版社2002年版。
[26]李旺：《涉外民商事案件管辖权制度研究》,知识产权出版社2004年版。
[27]罗剑雯：《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社2003年版。
[28]孙劲：《美国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2003年版。
[29]刘力：《国际民事诉讼管辖权》,法律出版社2004年版。
[30]何其生：《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社2004年版。
[31]宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
[32]屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民商事诉讼程序导论》,人民法院出版社2004年版。
[33]杜涛：《国际经济贸易中的国际私法问题》,武汉大学出版社2005年版。
[34]欧福永：《英国民商事管辖权制度研究》,法律出版社2005年版。
[35]杜焕芳：《国际民商事司法与行政合作研究》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[36]孙建：《国际关系视角下的国际私法问题》,人民出版社2007年版。
[37]邹国勇：《德国国际私法的欧盟化》,法律出版社2007年版。
[38]王保莳：《国际私法中的先决问题研究》,法律出版社2007年版。
[39]李颖：《美国商事仲裁制度研究——以仲裁协议和仲裁裁决为中心》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[40]粟烟涛：《冲突法上的法律规避》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
[41]贺晓翊：《英国的外国法院判决承认与执行制度研究》,法律出版社2008年版。
[42]李广辉：《<民商事管辖权及外国判决公约>研究》,中国法制出版社2008年版。
[43]李国清：《美国证券法域外管辖权问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2008年版。
[44]钱锋：《外国法院民商事判决承认与执行研究》,中国民主法制出版社2008年版。
[45]高晓力：《国际私法上公共政策的运用》,中国民主法制出版社2008年版。
[46]李晶：《国际民事诉讼中的挑选法院》,北京大学出版社2008年版。
[47]王吉文：《2005年海牙<选择法院协议公约>研究》,东南大学出版社2008年版。
[48]陈隆修：《2005年海牙法院选择公约评析》,五南图书出版公司2009年版。
[49]高凤仙：《美国国际私法之发展趋势》,台湾商务印书馆1990年版。
[50][德]拉德布鲁赫：《法学导论》(1929年德文第7/8版),米健、朱林译,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版。
[51][德]马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》(1950年英文第2版),李浩培、汤宗舜译,北京大学出版社2009年第2版。
[52][英]J.H.C.莫里斯主编：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(1980年英文第10版),李双元、胡振杰、杨国华、张茂译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
[53][英]施米托夫：《国际贸易法文选》(1988年英文版),赵文秀选译,中国大百科全书出版社1993年版。
[1]ANDREAS BUCHER, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE SUISSE (Bale et Francfort-sur-le-Main: Helbing & Lichtenhahn 1998).
[2]ANDREAS F. LOWENFELD, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE QUEST FOR REASONABLENESS (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1996).
[3]ANDREW BELL, FORUM SHOPPING AND VENUE IN TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION (Oxford University Press 2003).
[4]ARNAUD NUYTS & NADINE WATTE, INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION IN EUROPE AND RELATIONS WITH THIRD STATES (ed., Bruxelles:Bruylant,2005).
[5]ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DOCTRINE, PILICIES AND PRACTICES OF COMMON- AND CIVIL-LAW SYSTEMS:GENERAL COURSE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (1996),296 Recueil des Cours (2002).
[6]AUDIT BERNARD, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE (4e ed, Paris:Economica 2006).
[7]BERTRAND ANCEL & YVES LEOUETTE, LES GRANDS ARRETS DE LA JURISPRUDENCE FRANQAISE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE (5e ed, Paris:Dalloz 2006).
[8]DAVID JOSEPH Q. C., JURISDICTION AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT (ed., London:Sweet & Maxwell 2005).
[9]E. SCOLES, P. HAY, P. BORCHERS & S. SYMEONIDES, CONFLICT OF LAWS (3rd ed., St. Paul, Minn.& West Group 2000).
[10]ECKART GOTTSCHALK, RALF MICHAELS, GIESELA RUHL & JAN VON HEIN, CONFLICT OF LAWS IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD (Cambridge University Press 2007).
[11]FAWCETT, J.J., DECLINING JURISDICTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:REPORTS TO THE XIVTH CONGRESS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF COMPARATIVE LAW (Clarendon Press 1995).
[12]FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER, CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993).
[13]GARY B. BORN, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND FORUM SELECTION AGREEMENTS: DRAFTING AND ENFORCING (2nd ed., Kluwer Law International 2006).
[14]GENE R. SHREVE, A CONFLICT-OF-LAWS ANTHOLOGY (ed., Cincinnati, Ohio:Anderson Pub. Co.1997).
[15]HELENE GAUDEMET-TALLON, COMPETENCE ET EXECUTION DES JUGEMENTS EN EUROPE, REGLEMENT N°44/2001, CONVENTIONS DE BRUXLLES ET DE Lugano (3e ed, L.G.D.J.2002).
[16]JACK L. GOLSMITH, INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION:THE REGULATION OF FURUM SELECTION (ed., New York:Transnational Publishers, Inc.1997).
[17]JAMES FAWCETT, REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF SIR PETER NORTH (ed., Oxford University Press 2002).
[18]JANNET A. PONTIER & EDWIGE BURG, EU PRINCIPLES ON JURISDICTION AND RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS:ACCORDING TO THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (T.M.C. Asser Press 2004).
[19]JOHN J. BARCELO Ⅲ & KEVIN M. CLERMONT, A GLOBAL LAW OF JURISDICTION AND JUDGMENTS:LESSONS FROM THE HAGUE (ed., Kluwer Law International 2002).
[20]LAWRENCE COLLINS, ESSAY IN INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1996).
[21]NATHALIE COIPEL-CORDONNIER, LES CONVENTIONS D'ARBITRAGE ET D'ELECTION DE FOR EN DROIT INTERNATIONALPRIVE (L.G.D.J.1999).
[22]P. PFUND, CONTRIBUTING TO PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE INTERNATIONAL PROCESS AND THE UNITED STATES APPROACH,249 Recueil des Cours (1994).
[23]PETER NORTH & J.J. FAWCETT, CHESHIRE & NORTH'S PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (13th ed., London:Butterworths 1999).
[24]PETER NORTH, ESSAYS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (Oxford:Clarendon Press 1993).
[25]PETER NYGH & MARTIN DAIES, CONFLICT OF LAWS IN AUSTRALIA (7th ed., LexisNexis Butterworths 2002).
[26]PIERRE. MAYER & VINCENT HEUZE, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE (7E ed., Paris: Montchrestien 2001).
[27]RONALD A. BRAND & PAUL HERRUP, THE 2005 HAGUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS:COMMENTARY AND DOCUMENTS (Cambridge University Press 2008).
[28]RONALD A. BRAND & SCOTT R. JABLONSKI, FORUM NON CONVENIENS:HISTORY, GLOBAL PRACTICE, AND FUTURE UNDER THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENTS (Oxford:University Press 2007).
[29]TREVOR C. HARTLEY, THE MODERN APPROACH TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND TRANSACTIONS FROM A COMMON-LAW PERSPECTIVT,319 Recueil des Cours (2006).
[1]徐宏、郭晓梅：《海牙国际私法会议关于民商事管辖权和判决承认与执行问题特委会会议情况》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》创刊号,法律出版社1998年版。
[2]赵健、孙晓虹、张茂：《国际民事诉讼法统一化运动评述》,载《法学评论》1998年第3期。
[3]胡斌、孙昂：《海牙“国际民商事管辖权和判决的承认与执行”特委会1998年会议情况》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》1999年卷,法律出版社1999年版。
[4]孙南申：《论国际私法中协议管辖的法律效力》,载《政治与法律》1999年第2期。
[5]汉斯·范·鲁：《迈向一个关于民商事件国际管辖权及外国判决效力的世界性公约》,粟烟涛译,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2000年卷,法律出版社2000年版。
[6]田妮：《面向21世纪的海牙国际私法会议》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社2001年版。
[7]沈涓：《存异以求同他石可攻玉——海牙(民商事管辖权和外国判决公约)(草案)与中国相关法律之比较研究》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社,2001年。
[8]肖永平、何其生：《对海牙<民商事管辖权和外国判决公约>(草案)的分析》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社2001年版。
[9]张兰兰：《国际协议管辖合意要件立法的比较分析——兼评我国<民事诉讼法>第244条》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2001年卷,法律出版社2001年版。
[10]郭玉军、向在胜：《欧盟(民商事管辖权及判决承认与执行条例>介评》,载《法学评论》2002年第2期。
[11]胡斌、田妮：《十字路口的海牙管辖权公约》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2002年卷,法律出版社2002年版。
[12]奚晓明：《论我国涉外民商事诉讼中协议管辖条款的认定》,载《法律适用》2002年第3期和第4期。
[13]吕晓莉：《欧盟国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖制度》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2002年卷,法律出版社2002年版。
[14]刘卫国：《论国际民商事司法管辖条款的独立性》,载《法商研究》,2002年第6期。
[15]邓杰：《论国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖制度》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年11月第6期。
[16]孙劲：《迈向关于外国判决承认与执行的新公约——海牙民商事管辖和外国判决公约草案的新发展》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2003年卷,法律出版社2003年版。
[17]章尚锦：《国际民事诉讼管辖权制度研究》,载《北京政法职业学院学报》2004年第1期。
[18]朱志晟：《国际民事诉讼中的协议管辖原则比较研究》,载《时代法学》2004年第5期。
[19]宋连斌译：《协议选择法院公约》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2005年卷,法律出版社2006年版。
[20]何其生：《(海牙排他性法院选择协议公约(草案))有关知识产权问题的建议》,载《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005年第1期。
[21]李广辉：《外国惩罚性损害赔偿判决的承认与执行研究》,载《比较法研究》2005年第2期。
[22]杨弘磊、范晓华：《涉外民事诉讼协议管辖条款的性质及法律适用》,载《人民司法》2005年03期。
[23]徐国建：《建立国际统一的管辖权和判决承认与执行制度——海牙(选择法院协议公约)述评》,载《时代法学》2005年第5期。
[24]孙劲：《海牙(选择法院协议公约)评介》,2005年中国国际私法年会论文。
[25]贺晓翊：《论我国关于承认与执行外国法院判决制度的立法改革与完善》,载《法律适用》2005年第7期.
[26]蒋剑伟：《国际民商事合同管辖权条款适用规则比较研究》,武汉大学2006年博士论文。
[27]高晓力：《海牙国际私法会议(选择法院协议公约>与对我国涉外民商事审判的影响》,载《人民司法》2006年第3期。
[28]乔仕彤、张一弛：《(海牙选择协议法院公约)评述》,载《人民法院报》2006/03/27。
[29]房沫：《法院选择协议对临时措施管辖权之影响》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》2006年卷,北京大学出版社2007年版。
[30]王吉文：《损害赔偿判决承认与执行的一种新机制——2005年海牙(选择法院协议公约)第11条评析》,载《安徽大学法律评论》2008年第1期。
[1]Adam E. Kerns, The Hague Convention and Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements:An Imperfect Match,20 TEMP. INT'L & COMP. L.J.509 (2006).
[2]Andrea Schulz, The Accession of the European Community to the Hague Conference on Private International Law,56 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.939 (2007).
[3]Andrea Schulz, The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements,8 EUR. J.L. REFORM 77 (2006).
[4]Andrea Schulz, The Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements,12 ILSA J INT'L & COMP L 433 (2006).
[5]Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Thoughts about a Multinational Judgments:A Reaction to the von Mehren Report,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.289 (1994).
[6]Anna Gardella & Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, Civil Law, Common Law and Market Integration:The EC Approach to Conflicts of Jurisdiction,51 AM. J. COMP. L.661 (2003).
[7]Arthur T. von Mehren & Donald T. Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:A Suggested Analysis,79 HARV. L. REV.1121 (1966).
[8]Arthur T. von Mehren & Donald T. Trautman, Recognition of Foreign Adjudications:A Survey and a Suggested Approach,81 HARV. L. REV.1601 (1968).
[9]Arthur T. von Mehren, Drafting a Convention on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments Acceptable World-Wide:Can the Hague Conference Project Succeed?,49 AM. J. COMP. L.191 (2001).
[10]Arthur T. von Mehren, Enforcing Judgments Abroad:Reflections on the Design of Recognition Conventions,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.17 (1998).
[11]Arthur T. von Mehren, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments:A New Approach for the Hague Conference?,57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS.271 (1994).
[12]Bernard Audit, Observations sur la convention de la Haye du 30 juin 2005 relative aux accords d'election de for, VERS DE NOUVEAUX EQUILIBRES ENTRE ORDRES JURIDIQUES, (Helene Gaudemet-Tallon ed, Dalloz 2008).
[13]Christopher Tate, American Forum Non Conveniens in Light of the Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements,69 U. PITT. L. REV.165 (2007).
[14]Dana Stringer, Choice of Law and Choice of Forum in Brazilian International Commercial Contracts:Party Autonomy, International Jurisdiction, and the Emerging Third Way,44 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT'L L.959 (2006).
[15]Daniel Tan, Damages for Breach of Forum Selection Clauses, Principled Remedies, and Control of International Civil Litigation,40 TEX. INT'L L.J.623 (2005).
[16]David H. Taylor, The Forum Selection Clause:A Tale of Two Concepts,66 TEMP. L. REV. 785 (1993).
[17]David Luther Woodward, Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community,8 N.C.J. INT'L L. & COM. REG. 299 (1983).
[18]Emilio Gonzalez de Castilla del Valle, The Hague Convention on Choice Of Court Agreements of June 30,2005:A Mexican View,13 Sw. J.L.& TRADE AM.37 (2006).
[19]Erin Ann O'Hara, The Jurisprudence and Politics of Forum-Selection Clauses,3 CHI. J. INT'L L.301 (2002).
[20]Friedrich K. Juenger, A Hague Judgments Convention?,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L. 111 (1998).
[21]Friedrich K. Juenger, A Shoe Unfit for Globetrotting,28 U. C. Davis L. Rev.1027,1027 (1995).
[22]Friedrich K. Juenger, American Jurisdiction:A Story of Comparative Neglect,65 U. COLO. L. REV.1 (1993).
[23]Friedrich K. Juenger, Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States and in the European Communities a Comparison,82 MICH. L. REV.1195 (1984).
[24]Friedrich K. Juenger, The American Law of General Jurisdiction,2001 U. CHI. LEGAL F.141 (2001).
[25]Friedrich K. Juenger, The Lex Mercatoria and Private International Law,60 LA. L. REV. 1133 (2000).
[26]Friedrich K. Juenger, The Recognition of Money Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 36 AM. J.COMP.L.1(1988).
[27]Gilles Cuniberti, Forum non conveniens and the Brussels Convention,54 INT'L & COMP. L. Q. 973 (2005).
[28]Guangjian Tu, The Hague Choice of Court Convention-A Chinese Perspective,55 AM. J. COMP. L.347 (2007).
[29]Hannah L. Buxbaum, Forum Selection in International Contract Litigation:The Role of Judicial Discretion,12 WILLAMTTE J. INT'L L.& DISPUTE RES.185 (2004).
[30]Harvard Law Review Association, Hague Conference Approves Uniform Rules of Enforcement for International Forum Selection Clauses-Convention on Choice of Court Agreements,119 HARV. L. REV.931 (2006).
[31]James Zimerman, Restrictions on Forum Selection Clauses in Franchise Agreements and the Federal Arbitration Act:Is State Law Preempted?,51 VAND. L. REV.759 (1998).
[32]Jason Webb Yackee, Choice of Law Considerations in the Validity & Enforcement of International Forum Selection Agreements:Whose Law Applies?,9 UCLA J. INT'L L.& FOR. AFF.43 (2004).
[33]Jeffrey Talpis & Nick Krnjevic, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of June 30,2005:The Elephant that Gave Birth to a Mouse,13 Sw. J.L.& TRADE AM.1 (2006).
[34]Jonathan H. Pittman, The Public Policy Exception to the Recognition of Foreign Judgments, 22 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L.969 (1989).
[35]Keri Bruce, The Hague Convention on Choice-of-Court Agreements:Is the Public Policy Exception Helping Click-Away the Security of Non-Negotiated Agreements,32 BROOK. J. INT'L L.1103(2007).
[36]Kevin M. Clermont, A Global Law of Jurisdiction and Judgments:Views from the United States and Japan,37 CORNELL INT'L L.J.1 (2004).
[37]Kevin M. Clermont, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty,85 CORNELL L. REV.89 (1999).
[38]Kurt H. Nadelmann, Choice-of-Court Clauses in the United States:The Road to Zapata,21 AM. J. COMP. L.124 (1973).
[39]Kurt H. Nadelmann, The Hague Conference on Private International Law and The Validity of Forum Selecting Clauses,13 AM. J. COMP. L.157 (1964).
[40]Lawrence Collins, Choice of Forum and the Exercise of Judicial Discretion:The Resolution of an Anglo-American Conflict,22 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.332 (1973).
[41]Louise Ellen Teitz, Both Sides of the Coin:A Decade of Parallel Proceedings and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Transnational Litigation,10 ROGER WILLIAMS U. L.1 (2004).
[42]Louise Ellen Teitz, The Hague Choice of Court Convention:Validating Party Autonomy and Providing an Alternative to Arbitration,53 AM. J. COMP. L.543 (2005).
[43]Louise Merrett, The Enforcement of Jurisdiction Agreements Within The Brussels Regime,55 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.315 (2006).
[44]Matthew H. Adler & Michele Crimaldi Zarychta, The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements:The United States Joins the Judgment Enforcement Band,27 Nw. J. INT'L L.& BUS.1 (2006).
[45]Michael E. Solimine, Forum-Selection Clauses and the Privitization of Procedure,25 CORNELL INT'L L. J.51 (1992).
[46]Michael Mousa Karayanni, The Public Policy Exception to the Enforcement of Forum Selection,34 DUQ. L. REV.1009 (1996).
[47]Michael Pryles, Comparative Aspects of Prorogation and Arbitration Agreements,25 INT'L & COMP. L.Q.543 (1976).
[48]Otta Kahn-Freund, Jurisdiction Agreements:Some Reflections,26 INT'L & COMP. L.Q.825 (1977).
[49]P.Vlas, M. Zilinsky & F. Ibili, Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Europe,48 NETH. INT'L L. REV.109 (2005).
[50]Patrick J.Borchers, Forum Selection Agreements in the Federal Courts after Carnival Cruise: A Proposal for Congressional Reform,67 WASH. L. REV.55 (1992).
[51]Paul R. Beaumont, A United Kingdom Perspective on the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.75 (1998).
[52]Peter H. Pfund, The Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to Prepare a Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition/Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,24 BROOK. J. INT'L L.7 (1998).
[53]Peter Hay & Robert J. Walker, The Proposed Recognition-of-Judgments Convention between the United States and the United Kingdom,11 TEX. INT'L L. J.421 (1976).
[54]Peter M. North, The Draft U.K./U.S. Judgments Conventions:A British Viewpoint,1 Nw. J. INT'L L.& Bus.219(1979).
[55]Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Meeting of the American Foreign Law Association, The Validity of Forum Selecting Clauses,13 AM. J. COMP. L.157 (1964).
[56]Richard Fentiman, Jurisdiction-When Non-Exclusive Means Exclusive,51 CAMBRIDGE L.J. 234 (1992).
[57]Robert A. de By, Forum Selection Clauses:Substantive or Procedural for "Erie" Purposes,89 COLUM. L. REV.1068 (1989).
[58]Ronald A. Brand, A Global Convention on Choice of Court Agreements,10 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L.345 (2004).
[59]Ronald A. Brand, Community Competence for Matters of Judicial Cooperation at the Hague Conference on Private International Law:A View from the United States,21 J.L.& COM.191 (2002).
[60]Ronald A. Brand, Enforcement of Foreign Money-Judgments in the United States:in Search of Uniformity and International Acceptance,67 NOTRE DAME L. REV.253 (1991).
[61]Ronald A. Brand, Enforcement of Judgments in the United States and Europe,13 J.L.& COM. 193 (1994).
[62]Ronald A. Brand, Punitive Damages and the Recognition of Judgments,43 NETH. INT'L L. REV.145 (1996).
[63]Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate:End of the Century or Beginning of the Millennium?,7 TUL. J. INT'L COMP. L. 111 (1999).
[64]T. T. Arvind, The Draft Hague Judgments Convention:Some Perspectives from Arbitration, 51 NETH. INT'L L. REV.337 (2004).
[65]Thalia Kruger, The 20th Session Of The Hague Conference:A New Choice Of Court Convention and the Issue of EC Membership,55 INT'L & COMP. L. Q.447 (2006).
[66]Trevor C. Hartley, The Hague Choice-of-Court Convention,31(3) E. L. REV.414 (2006).
[67]Ved P. Nanda, International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law Changing Law for Changing Times,13th Biennial Meeting:The Landmark 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements,42 TEX. INT'L L.J.773 (2007).
[68]Volker Behr, Enforcement of United States Money Judgments in Germany,13 J.L.& COM. 211 (1994).
[69]William Heye, Forum Selection for International Dispute Resolution in China-Chinese vs. CIETAC,27 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV.535 (2004).
[70]William J. Jr. Woodward, Saving the Hague Choice of Court Convention,29 U. PA. J. INT'L L. 657 (2008).
[71]William M. Richman, Carnival Cruise Lines:Forum Selection Clauses in Adhesion Contracts, 40 AM. J. COMP. L.977 (1992).
[72]William W. Park, Bridging the Gap in Forum Selection:Harmonizing Arbitration and Court Selection,8 TRANSNAT'L L.& CONTEMP. PROBS.19 (1998).
[73]William W. Park, Illusion and Reality in International Forum Selection,30 TEX. INT'L L. J. (1995).
[74]Wills L. M. Reese, The Contractual Forum:Situation in the United States,13 AM. J. COMP. L. 187 (1964).