海牙“判决项目”中的诽谤问题:界限内外
|
摘要
判决的承认与执行是国际难题,而诽谤判决由于关涉言论自由和名誉保护,其承认和执行更为复杂。在海牙国际私法会议"判决项目"中,诽谤最初隶属于海牙判决公约调整事项,后被明示排除于现行海牙判决公约草案之外。这种变化,是多种因素共同作用的结果。"诽谤择地行诉"频繁发生,且引发诽谤判决流通难题,为此种变化的现实原因;掌握国际社会一定话语权的国家,在国内立法中对诽谤判决关闭承认之门,并将该国内法精神渗透到海牙判决公约谈判中,为外部原因;原属"判决项目"调整事项的管辖权问题落至"判决项目"调整范围之外,诽谤判决国际流通失却内部体系保障,为内部原因。我国法院面临外国诽谤判决承认问题时,即便国际条约依据缺失,法院依然可依据国内法中现行外国判决承认与执行的一般规定灵活应对。
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is a worldwide problem, and the recognition and enforcement of defamation judgments is more complicated as it relates to freedom of speech and the protection of reputation. In the HCCH Judgment Project, defamation was initially subject to the adjustment of the Convention, but it is then excluded from the scope of the latest HCCH Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. This change is a result of a variety of reasons.Firstly, libel tourism occurs frequently and causes the circulation problem of libel judgments. It is the real cause of such change. Secondly, the international community refuses to recognise libel judgments in their domestic legislation,and correspondingly infiltrate the spirit of their domestic law into the negotiation of the Convention. It is the external cause. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of the adjustment of the Judgment Project has been excluded, and thus result in lack of internal system to guarantee the international circulation of libel judgments.It is the internal cause. When a Chinese court is asked to recognize and enforce a foreign defamation judgment, the present general provisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Civil Procedural Law can be invoked flexibly to support a certain decision under the circumstances that there are no special provisions on recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in domestic legislation and international conventions to which China is a contracting party.
The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is a worldwide problem, and the recognition and enforcement of defamation judgments is more complicated as it relates to freedom of speech and the protection of reputation. In the HCCH Judgment Project, defamation was initially subject to the adjustment of the Convention, but it is then excluded from the scope of the latest HCCH Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. This change is a result of a variety of reasons.Firstly, libel tourism occurs frequently and causes the circulation problem of libel judgments. It is the real cause of such change. Secondly, the international community refuses to recognise libel judgments in their domestic legislation,and correspondingly infiltrate the spirit of their domestic law into the negotiation of the Convention. It is the external cause. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of the adjustment of the Judgment Project has been excluded, and thus result in lack of internal system to guarantee the international circulation of libel judgments.It is the internal cause. When a Chinese court is asked to recognize and enforce a foreign defamation judgment, the present general provisions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Civil Procedural Law can be invoked flexibly to support a certain decision under the circumstances that there are no special provisions on recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in domestic legislation and international conventions to which China is a contracting party.
引文
(1)2018年5月《判决公约草案》第2条第1款规定:本公约不适用以下事项:(1)自然人的身份和法律能力;(2)扶养义务;(3)包括婚姻财产领域和婚外或类似关系引起的权利义务等家庭法问题;(4)遗嘱和继承;(5)金融机构的破产、和解、决议等类似问题;(6)旅客和货物的运输;(7)海洋污染、海事请求限制、一般海损、紧急拖船和海难救助;(8)核损害责任;(9)法人或自然人和法人合作组织的有效性、无效性或解散,以及这些组织机构决定的有效性;(10)公共登记簿记载事项的有效性;(11)诽谤;(12)隐私(当事人间因违约提起的诉讼除外);(13)知识产权;(14)武装部队的行为,包括其人员履行职责的行为;(15)法律执行行为,包括执法人员履行其职责的行为;(16)反垄断(或反竞争)行为。
(1)See HCCH,Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Issues Drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/e402cc72-19ed-4095-b004-ac47742dbc41.pdf, p.9, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Fourth Meeting of the Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 24-29 May 2018, p.13,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/7cd8bc44-e2e5-46c2-8865-a151ce55e1b2.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)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》,《时代法学》2005年第5期,第16页。
(1)这四个版本的草案分别是“判决项目”特委会在2016年6月1-9日召开的第一次特委会会议上达成的“2016年初始公约草案”;在2017年2月16-24日召开的第二次特委会会议上达成的“2017年2月草案”;在2017年11月13-17日召开的第三次特委会会议上达成的“2017年11月公约草案”以及2018年5月24-29日召开的第四次也是最后一次特委会会议上达成的“2018年草案”。
(2)这里的“特别委员会”和海牙国际私法会议一般事务和政策理事会2016年设立的拟定《公约》特别委员会不同,为示区分,可以认为这里的特别委员为早期特别委员会,而后者为“判决项目”特别委员会。
(3)See HCCH,International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Report Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/76852ce3-a967-42e4-94f5-24be4289d1e5.pdf, p.26, visited on 23 September 2018.
(4)See HCCH,International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Report Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/76852ce3-a967-42e4-94f5-24be4289d1e5.pdf, pp.36-37, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH,Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of June 1997 on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/ecc45930-f5a1-4bd1-b94 c-420c44a05954.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of June 1997 on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/ecc45930-f5a1-4bd1-b94 c-420c44a05954.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH, Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of March 1998on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/3385edb5-6f63-4624 -934c-4d4245fdcef6.pdf, p.34, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH,Preliminary Draft Outline to Assist in the Preparation of a Convention on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Prepared by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/bce612db-6448-4052-aec7-7abc88ac548f.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Special Commission on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Proposal by the Drafting Committee,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/1be05729-3132-43be-89c3-82be3fdb2224.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH,Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Adopted by the Special Commission and Report by Peter Nygh and Fausto Pocar, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/638883f3-0c0a-46c6-b646-7a099d9bd95e.pdf, p.4, visited on 23 September 2018.
(4)See HCCH,Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission II of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference 6-20 June 2001 Interim Text, Prepared by the Permanent Bureau and the Co-reporters, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/e172ab52-e2de-4e40-9051-11aee7c7be67.pdf, visited on 21 September 2018.
(1)这些事项是自然人的身份与法律能力;扶养义务;其他家庭法事项,包括婚姻财产制度以及由婚姻或者类似关系产生的其他权利义务;遗嘱与继承;破产、重组及类似事项;旅客和货物的运输;海上污染、海事责任限制、共同海损、紧急拖船和基金救助;反托拉斯(竞争)事项;核损害责任;自然人或其代理人提起的人身伤害诉讼;和合同关系无关的对有形财产的损害请求;不动产物权及租赁;法人的合法性、无效和解散及法人机关决定的效力;著作权和及其邻接权以外的知识产权的有效性;除版权和邻接权以外的知识产权侵权,因违约而引起或可能会违约而提起的知识产权侵权诉讼除外;公共登记的有效性。
(2)See HCCH,Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreement:Explanatory Report Drawn up by Masato Dogauchi&Trevor C. Hartley, https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgm_pd26e.pdf, p.45,visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH,Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention Drawn up by Trevor Hartley&Masato Dogauchi, https://assets.hcch.net/upload/expl37final.pdf, p.43, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH, Annotated Checklist of Issues to be Discussed by the Working Group on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Prepared by the Permanent Bureau,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/23710baf-121a-42e9-a824-89c2396f9688.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on the Judgments Project(3-6 February 2015)and Preliminary Draft Text Resulting from the Meeting,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/01fbccec-88e2-460a-9276-a3aa795c605b.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH, Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Working Group on the Judgments Project(26-31 October 2015)and Proposed Draft Text Resulting from the Meeting,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/06811e9c-dddf-4619-81af-71e8836c8d3e.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Outstanding Issues Drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/cc05a8af-38e0-41d3-9801-3a4c8a2017e3.zip, p.9, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH,Report of the International Bar Association(IBA)on the 2016 Preliminary Draft Convention, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/cc05a8af-38e0-41d3-9801-3a4c8a2017e3.zip, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH,Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments(16-24 February 2017), https://assets.hcch.net/docs/d6f58225-0427-4a65-8f8b-180e79cafdbb.pdf, visited on 26 September 2018.
(2)See Judgments Convention:Preliminary Explanatory Report, Third Meeting of the Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 13-17 November 2017, p.12.
(3)See HCCH,November 2017 Draft Convention, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/2f0e08f1-c498-4d15-9dd4-b902ec3902fc.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See Thomas I. Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72The Yale Law Journal 879(1963).
(2)See Heather Maly, Publish at Your Own Risk or Don’t Publish at All:Forum Shopping Trends in Libel Litigation Leave the First Amendment Un-Guaranteed, 14 Journal of Law and Policy 889(2006).
(3)See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254(1964)
(4)See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 281(1964).
(5)See Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Free Speech Today, 33 Polish Yearbook of International Law 135(2013).
(6)[英]约翰·密尔:《论自由》,许宝骙译,商务印书馆1959年版,第18页。
(7)See Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation 13-32(Thomson West 2007).
(8)See Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation:Libel, Slander and Related Problems15-62(Practising Law Institute 2010).
(1)See Richard N. Winfield, Globalization Comes to Media Law, 1 Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law 110(2006-2007).
(2)See Robert L. McFarland, Please Do not Publish this Article in England:A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism, 79 Mississippi Law Journal 619(2009).
(3)See Tara Sturtevant, Can the United States Talk the Talk&Walk the Walk When it Comes to Libel Tourism:How the Freedom to Sue Abroad Can Kill the Freedom of Speech at Home, 22 Pace International Law Review 280(2010); John R. Crook,Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 104 American Journal of International Law 682(2010).
(4)See Gary B. Born&Peter B. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 1013(Aspen Publishers 2007).
(5)See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113(1895).
(1)See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 228(1895).
(2)这32个州是阿拉斯加、加利福尼亚、科罗拉多、康涅狄格、特拉华、佛罗里达、佐治亚、夏威夷、爱达荷、伊利诺伊、爱荷华、缅因、马里兰、马萨诸塞、密歇根、密苏里、明尼苏达、密西西比、蒙大拿、内华达、新泽西、新墨西哥、纽约、北卡罗莱纳、北达科他、俄亥俄、俄克拉荷马、俄勒冈、宾夕法尼亚、得克萨斯、弗吉尼亚、华盛顿。另外,哥伦比亚特区和维京群岛也采纳了该法,http://www.uniformlaws.org/LegislativeFactSheet.aspx?title=Foreign%20Money%20Judgments%20Recognition%20Act, 2018年9月3日访问。
(3)Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561, 702 A.2d 230(1997).在该案中,一个美国居民在伦敦的《每日电报》上公布了一封信,公开指控一个英国居民以“血统标准”支持种族主义,该英国居民在英国法院提起诽谤之诉并获得胜诉判决。后来,该英国居民在美国马里兰州法院申请承认与执行该英国判决,马里兰州法院重新回顾了美国联邦宪法以及马里兰权利宣言中的新闻自由,并且和英国的相关规定作了比较,最终认为:其一,英国法没有认识到原告须证明一般报导“失实”以及涉及公众人物案件“实际恶意”的必要性;其二,英国法要求被告承担证明报导真实性的义务;其三,在证明报导是否属于受保护的评论或意见时,英国法并没有准许被告证明他的报导语境,而所有这些都和美国以及马里兰州自由言论的规定相悖。因此,法院最终以“该英国判决违背了1962年《统一承认法》所规定的公共政策”为由拒绝承认和执行该判决。
(4)See Bachchan v. India Abroad Publications, Inc, 585 N.Y.S.2d 661(1992).在该案中,一家纽约通讯社刊载了一篇文章,指责印度的一个公众人物为一家军火公司保管资金。该公众人物在英国法院对该通讯社提起诽谤之诉并获得胜诉判决,但在向纽约州最高法院申请承认和执行时,却并没有成功。纽约州法院拒绝承认的理由是,该英国判决与法院地即美国的表达自由相悖,承认与执行该判决与这一公共政策相抵触。
(1)2005年,统一州法委员会对1962年《统一承认法》进行修改,出台了2005年《外国金钱判决承认统一法》(Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act,UFCMJRA,以下简称2005年《统一承认法》),旧法中的公共政策这一拒绝承认与执行外国判决理由依然在该法中得以保留。
(2)美国的言论发布者可通过向法院寻求宣告性救济,而使法院宣判该外国诽谤判决是无效判决。该种判决能阻止外国判决在美国的承认与执行。See Raymond W. Beauchamp, England’s Chilling Forecast:The Case for Granting Declaratory Relief to Prevent English Defamation Actions from Chilling American Speech, 74 Fordham Law Review3133-3135(2006).
(1)28 U.S.C.§4102(b)(1).
(2)28 U.S.C.§4102(b)(2).
(3)28U.S.C.§4102(a)-(b).
(4)See Justin S. Hemlepp, Recent Development:“Rachel’s Law” Wraps New York’s Long-Arm around Libel Tourists, 17 Journal of Transnational Law&Policy 391(2008).
(1)See HCCH,Continuation of the Judgments Project Drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/cd5f79f4-d710-44a1-a266-af0e73a6ffb4.pdf, visited on 21September 2018.
(2)参见乔雄兵:《论外国法院判决承认与执行中的终局性问题》,《武大国际法评论》2017年第1期,第86页。
(1)参见徐国建:《建立法院判决全球流通的国际法律制度——〈海牙外国判决承认与执行公约草案〉立法资料、观点和述评》,《武大国际法评论》2017年第5期,第106页。
(1)See HCCH,Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Issues Drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/e402cc72-19ed-4095-b004-ac47742dbc41.pdf, p.9, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Fourth Meeting of the Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 24-29 May 2018, p.13,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/7cd8bc44-e2e5-46c2-8865-a151ce55e1b2.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)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》,《时代法学》2005年第5期,第16页。
(1)这四个版本的草案分别是“判决项目”特委会在2016年6月1-9日召开的第一次特委会会议上达成的“2016年初始公约草案”;在2017年2月16-24日召开的第二次特委会会议上达成的“2017年2月草案”;在2017年11月13-17日召开的第三次特委会会议上达成的“2017年11月公约草案”以及2018年5月24-29日召开的第四次也是最后一次特委会会议上达成的“2018年草案”。
(2)这里的“特别委员会”和海牙国际私法会议一般事务和政策理事会2016年设立的拟定《公约》特别委员会不同,为示区分,可以认为这里的特别委员为早期特别委员会,而后者为“判决项目”特别委员会。
(3)See HCCH,International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Report Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/76852ce3-a967-42e4-94f5-24be4289d1e5.pdf, p.26, visited on 23 September 2018.
(4)See HCCH,International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Report Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/76852ce3-a967-42e4-94f5-24be4289d1e5.pdf, pp.36-37, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH,Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of June 1997 on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/ecc45930-f5a1-4bd1-b94 c-420c44a05954.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of June 1997 on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/ecc45930-f5a1-4bd1-b94 c-420c44a05954.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH, Synthesis of the Work of the Special Commission of March 1998on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Drawn up by Catherine Kessedjian, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/3385edb5-6f63-4624 -934c-4d4245fdcef6.pdf, p.34, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH,Preliminary Draft Outline to Assist in the Preparation of a Convention on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Prepared by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/bce612db-6448-4052-aec7-7abc88ac548f.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Special Commission on International Jurisdiction and the Effects of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Proposal by the Drafting Committee,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/1be05729-3132-43be-89c3-82be3fdb2224.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH,Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Adopted by the Special Commission and Report by Peter Nygh and Fausto Pocar, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/638883f3-0c0a-46c6-b646-7a099d9bd95e.pdf, p.4, visited on 23 September 2018.
(4)See HCCH,Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission II of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference 6-20 June 2001 Interim Text, Prepared by the Permanent Bureau and the Co-reporters, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/e172ab52-e2de-4e40-9051-11aee7c7be67.pdf, visited on 21 September 2018.
(1)这些事项是自然人的身份与法律能力;扶养义务;其他家庭法事项,包括婚姻财产制度以及由婚姻或者类似关系产生的其他权利义务;遗嘱与继承;破产、重组及类似事项;旅客和货物的运输;海上污染、海事责任限制、共同海损、紧急拖船和基金救助;反托拉斯(竞争)事项;核损害责任;自然人或其代理人提起的人身伤害诉讼;和合同关系无关的对有形财产的损害请求;不动产物权及租赁;法人的合法性、无效和解散及法人机关决定的效力;著作权和及其邻接权以外的知识产权的有效性;除版权和邻接权以外的知识产权侵权,因违约而引起或可能会违约而提起的知识产权侵权诉讼除外;公共登记的有效性。
(2)See HCCH,Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreement:Explanatory Report Drawn up by Masato Dogauchi&Trevor C. Hartley, https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgm_pd26e.pdf, p.45,visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH,Explanatory Report on the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention Drawn up by Trevor Hartley&Masato Dogauchi, https://assets.hcch.net/upload/expl37final.pdf, p.43, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH, Annotated Checklist of Issues to be Discussed by the Working Group on Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Prepared by the Permanent Bureau,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/23710baf-121a-42e9-a824-89c2396f9688.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Working Group on the Judgments Project(3-6 February 2015)and Preliminary Draft Text Resulting from the Meeting,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/01fbccec-88e2-460a-9276-a3aa795c605b.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH, Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Working Group on the Judgments Project(26-31 October 2015)and Proposed Draft Text Resulting from the Meeting,https://assets.hcch.net/docs/06811e9c-dddf-4619-81af-71e8836c8d3e.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(2)See HCCH,Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Outstanding Issues Drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/cc05a8af-38e0-41d3-9801-3a4c8a2017e3.zip, p.9, visited on 23 September 2018.
(3)See HCCH,Report of the International Bar Association(IBA)on the 2016 Preliminary Draft Convention, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/cc05a8af-38e0-41d3-9801-3a4c8a2017e3.zip, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See HCCH,Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments(16-24 February 2017), https://assets.hcch.net/docs/d6f58225-0427-4a65-8f8b-180e79cafdbb.pdf, visited on 26 September 2018.
(2)See Judgments Convention:Preliminary Explanatory Report, Third Meeting of the Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 13-17 November 2017, p.12.
(3)See HCCH,November 2017 Draft Convention, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/2f0e08f1-c498-4d15-9dd4-b902ec3902fc.pdf, visited on 23 September 2018.
(1)See Thomas I. Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment, 72The Yale Law Journal 879(1963).
(2)See Heather Maly, Publish at Your Own Risk or Don’t Publish at All:Forum Shopping Trends in Libel Litigation Leave the First Amendment Un-Guaranteed, 14 Journal of Law and Policy 889(2006).
(3)See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254(1964)
(4)See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 281(1964).
(5)See Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Free Speech Today, 33 Polish Yearbook of International Law 135(2013).
(6)[英]约翰·密尔:《论自由》,许宝骙译,商务印书馆1959年版,第18页。
(7)See Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation 13-32(Thomson West 2007).
(8)See Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation:Libel, Slander and Related Problems15-62(Practising Law Institute 2010).
(1)See Richard N. Winfield, Globalization Comes to Media Law, 1 Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law 110(2006-2007).
(2)See Robert L. McFarland, Please Do not Publish this Article in England:A Jurisdictional Response to Libel Tourism, 79 Mississippi Law Journal 619(2009).
(3)See Tara Sturtevant, Can the United States Talk the Talk&Walk the Walk When it Comes to Libel Tourism:How the Freedom to Sue Abroad Can Kill the Freedom of Speech at Home, 22 Pace International Law Review 280(2010); John R. Crook,Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 104 American Journal of International Law 682(2010).
(4)See Gary B. Born&Peter B. Rutledge, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 1013(Aspen Publishers 2007).
(5)See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113(1895).
(1)See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 228(1895).
(2)这32个州是阿拉斯加、加利福尼亚、科罗拉多、康涅狄格、特拉华、佛罗里达、佐治亚、夏威夷、爱达荷、伊利诺伊、爱荷华、缅因、马里兰、马萨诸塞、密歇根、密苏里、明尼苏达、密西西比、蒙大拿、内华达、新泽西、新墨西哥、纽约、北卡罗莱纳、北达科他、俄亥俄、俄克拉荷马、俄勒冈、宾夕法尼亚、得克萨斯、弗吉尼亚、华盛顿。另外,哥伦比亚特区和维京群岛也采纳了该法,http://www.uniformlaws.org/LegislativeFactSheet.aspx?title=Foreign%20Money%20Judgments%20Recognition%20Act, 2018年9月3日访问。
(3)Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561, 702 A.2d 230(1997).在该案中,一个美国居民在伦敦的《每日电报》上公布了一封信,公开指控一个英国居民以“血统标准”支持种族主义,该英国居民在英国法院提起诽谤之诉并获得胜诉判决。后来,该英国居民在美国马里兰州法院申请承认与执行该英国判决,马里兰州法院重新回顾了美国联邦宪法以及马里兰权利宣言中的新闻自由,并且和英国的相关规定作了比较,最终认为:其一,英国法没有认识到原告须证明一般报导“失实”以及涉及公众人物案件“实际恶意”的必要性;其二,英国法要求被告承担证明报导真实性的义务;其三,在证明报导是否属于受保护的评论或意见时,英国法并没有准许被告证明他的报导语境,而所有这些都和美国以及马里兰州自由言论的规定相悖。因此,法院最终以“该英国判决违背了1962年《统一承认法》所规定的公共政策”为由拒绝承认和执行该判决。
(4)See Bachchan v. India Abroad Publications, Inc, 585 N.Y.S.2d 661(1992).在该案中,一家纽约通讯社刊载了一篇文章,指责印度的一个公众人物为一家军火公司保管资金。该公众人物在英国法院对该通讯社提起诽谤之诉并获得胜诉判决,但在向纽约州最高法院申请承认和执行时,却并没有成功。纽约州法院拒绝承认的理由是,该英国判决与法院地即美国的表达自由相悖,承认与执行该判决与这一公共政策相抵触。
(1)2005年,统一州法委员会对1962年《统一承认法》进行修改,出台了2005年《外国金钱判决承认统一法》(Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act,UFCMJRA,以下简称2005年《统一承认法》),旧法中的公共政策这一拒绝承认与执行外国判决理由依然在该法中得以保留。
(2)美国的言论发布者可通过向法院寻求宣告性救济,而使法院宣判该外国诽谤判决是无效判决。该种判决能阻止外国判决在美国的承认与执行。See Raymond W. Beauchamp, England’s Chilling Forecast:The Case for Granting Declaratory Relief to Prevent English Defamation Actions from Chilling American Speech, 74 Fordham Law Review3133-3135(2006).
(1)28 U.S.C.§4102(b)(1).
(2)28 U.S.C.§4102(b)(2).
(3)28U.S.C.§4102(a)-(b).
(4)See Justin S. Hemlepp, Recent Development:“Rachel’s Law” Wraps New York’s Long-Arm around Libel Tourists, 17 Journal of Transnational Law&Policy 391(2008).
(1)See HCCH,Continuation of the Judgments Project Drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/cd5f79f4-d710-44a1-a266-af0e73a6ffb4.pdf, visited on 21September 2018.
(2)参见乔雄兵:《论外国法院判决承认与执行中的终局性问题》,《武大国际法评论》2017年第1期,第86页。
(1)参见徐国建:《建立法院判决全球流通的国际法律制度——〈海牙外国判决承认与执行公约草案〉立法资料、观点和述评》,《武大国际法评论》2017年第5期,第106页。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |