1、 跨国环境侵权诉讼论文：跨国环境侵权诉讼中的不方便法院原则研究【中文摘要】在当前的一些跨国环境侵权诉讼中,受害人对管辖法院的选择常常会遭遇不方便法院原则的冲击和否定。不方便法院原则最初是为防止原告出于压迫、烦扰被告之而选择在对被告及司法极为不方便的法院进行诉讼之用；但现实的情形是,该原则已成为一些跨国公司逃避责任的挡箭牌：在印度博帕尔毒气泄漏、各国种植园工人诉陶氏化学和壳牌石油等公司、厄瓜多尔土著居民诉美国德克萨克石油公司等一系列案件中,尽管原告选择了“被告住所地”这一最为普遍同时也被认为最为合理的管辖根据,但在大多数诉讼中,法院最终还是以不方便法院为由附条件地驳回了原告的诉讼。法院拒绝管辖的
2、理由通常都是：由于存在一个更为适当的可替代的外国法院,且通过对证人出庭的费用、出庭方便与否、证据的可取得性、外国原告对法院的选择等各种私人利益因素,以及受案法院的案件积压状况、所要适用的准据法为外国法等公共利益因素的衡量,诉讼在该外国法院进行更为方便、合理。这类以不方便法院原则为由被拒绝管辖的跨国环境侵权诉讼,通常都是由跨国公司在海外(主要是发展中国家)从事对环境有危险或有害活动而导致的损害后果严重的环境侵权事件引起的,受害人原本希望利用发达国家较为完善的司法制度寻求适当的救济,但受案法院对不方便法院原则过于灵活的运用无疑否定了原告寻求赔偿的可能,并在很大程度上纵容被告继续从事对环境和人类有害
3、的活动。诚然,不方便法院在缓解管辖冲突、避免原告过度挑选法院方面的作用应该得到肯定,但其对跨国环境侵权诉讼本身以及跨国公司全球环境义务的承担所带来的消极影响,同样不容忽视。基于不方便法院原则在跨国环境侵权诉讼中的扩张适用所带来的不合理及其适用中所存在的问题,如外国原告对法院的选择未得到应有的尊重、受案法院未考虑在替代法院进行诉讼的实践障碍等,对该原则进行重新评估进而限制其在跨国环境侵权诉讼中的适用已成为必要。【英文摘要】In some current international environment tort suits, the victims often suffer shock and
4、 deny of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the choice of Court. The initial purpose of the doctrine is to prevent that the plaintiff choose the extremely inconvenient court, which leads to vexatious or oppressive to the accused in the litigations. But the reality is that the principle has beco
5、me the responsibility of transnational corporations shield:In India Bhopal gas leak case and other international environment tort suits, despite the plaintiffs choose “ the domicile of the accused “, which is the most general and reasonable basis of jurisdiction, the courts still dismiss the litigat
6、ions of the plaintiffs with Forum Non Conveniens in most litigation. The reasons of refusal of jurisdiction of the Court usually include the private interests factors and the public interests factors. The private interests factors usually include the witnessescosts and their convenience, and the fea
7、sibility of the received evidence. The public interests factors include the backlog of cases of the accepting court and the applicable law of foreign country.These international environmental tort suits are refused jurisdiction by accepted courts with grounds of forum non conveniens. These suits are
8、 usually caused to serious environmental tort accidents by multinational companies in their dangerous or harmful overseas (mainly developing countries) activities to the environment. Victims hope to seek appropriate remedies through the use of better judicial system in developed countries. Unfortuna
9、tely, the accepted Courts refuse the plaintiffs compensational request with the application of the principle of forum non convenience, which it condons the defendant to continue to engage in harmful activities to the environment and humans. Although the doctrine of forum non convenience should be af
10、firmed in alleviating conflicts of jurisdiction and avoiding excessively shopping forum, the negative impact of the doctrine also should not be ignored in the international environmental tort suits and the global environmental obligations of multinational corporations. Because of the adverse consequ
11、ences resulted from the problems existing in the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, it is necessary to limit their application of the doctrine in the international environmental tort suits.【关键词】跨国环境侵权诉讼 不方便法院原则【英文关键词】international environmental tort suits the doctrine of forum non
12、conveniens【目录】跨国环境侵权诉讼中的不方便法院原则研究 摘要 3-4 ABSTRACT 4 第 1 章 概述 8-22 1.1 不方便法院原则在不同国家的适用情况 9-15 1.1.1英国 9-11 1.1.2 澳大利亚 11 1.1.3 美国 11-15 1.2 关于普通法系国家适用不方便法院原则的总结 15-18 1.2.1 相同之处 15 1.2.2 不同之处 15-16 1.2.3 普通法系国家适用不方便法院原则的发展趋势 16-18 1.3 海牙国际民商事诉讼管辖以及判决执行的公约草案与不方便法院原则 18-22 第 2 章 不方便法院原则在跨国环境侵权诉讼中的具体运用
13、22-34 2.1 博帕尔毒气泄漏案 22-25 2.1.1 印度法院是否为适当的替代法院 23-24 2.1.2 私人利益因素的衡量 24-25 2.1.3 公共利益因素的衡量 25 2.2 哥斯达黎加等国种植园工人诉陶氏化学、壳牌石油等公司系列案 25-31 2.2.1 Sibajia v.Dow Chem.Co.案 26-27 2.2.2 Dow Chem.Co.v.Castro Alfaro 案 27-29 2.2.3 Delgado v.Shell Oil Co.案 29-31 2.3 厄瓜多尔热带雨林土著居民诉德克萨克石油公司系列案 31-34 2.3.1 Sequihua v.T
14、exaco Inc.案 31-32 2.3.2 Aguinda v.Texaco Inc.案 32-34 第 3 章 援用不方便法院原则的不合理性 34-41 3.1 否定原告寻求赔偿的可能性 34-35 3.2 成为被告逃避责任的保护伞 35-37 3.3 导致案件审理的不正当拖延 37 3.4 法院司法裁量权的滥用倾向 37-41 3.4.1 内外国原告对法院的选择被区分对待 38 3.4.2 法院确定是否存在适当的替代法院时未考虑许多实践障碍 38-39 3.4.3 不方便法院原则被法院当作缓解案件压力的工具 39-40 3.4.4 法院利用不方便法院原则”挑选案件” 40-41 第 4 章 对不方便法院原则的重新评估 41-47 4.1 外国原告对法院的选择应受到同样的尊重 41-42 4.2 真实评价替代法院的适当性 42-44 4.2.1 附条件的驳回诉讼说明替代法院不适当 43 4.2.2 法院应考虑替代法院的所能提供的救济的适当性 43-44 4.3 客观衡量私人利益因素 44-45 4.4 将国家利益作为重要的衡量因素 45-47 第 5 章 结论 47-48 参考文献 48-53 致谢 53-54 攻读学位期间的研究成果 54
