互联网上消费者合同管辖权问题研究
摘要
在互联网蓬勃发展的今天,电子商务日益成为重要的交易方式。但是,由于互联网具有高效性、虚拟性与无国界性等特征,传统的法律规则在互联网这一新环境中较难适用,从而,引发了许多法律上亟待解决的新问题,互联网上消费者合同的管辖权问题即是其中之一。规则的欠缺或不完善导致了法律的不确定性,极大地影响着电子商务的进一步发展。因此,研讨互联网上消费者合同的管辖权问题,树立相应规则,具有十分重要的意义。这篇文章的研究对象是互联网上消费者合同的管辖权问题。
“互联网上消费者合同”指消费者为了购买商品或接受服务而与商家在互联网上达成的合同,合同的一方是消费者,另一方是商品或服务提供商,而互联网是合同成立的媒介。对此有几点说明:第一,国际互联网是“互联网上消费者合同”缔结的平台。此类合同应包括缔结、履行均在线上(on-line)的合同,以及线上缔结但线下(off-line)履行的合同。
第二,它讨论的是B2C(business to consumer)电子商务而不包括其他类型的电子商务。第三,关于互联网的其他消费者合同,不符合以上条件的,不属于该文研究范围。
“管辖权”在此是指国际私法领域的管辖权,即国际民事管辖权。首先,它是一种“国际管辖权”,其次,它是一种“司法管辖权”。这篇文章对国际民事管辖权的研究立足于国际视角而非国内视角。这不仅因为所研究的是“国际管辖权”,也因为有关互联网的法律规则包括国际民事管辖权规则在内特别需要进行国际协调。因而,在确立互联网国际民事管辖权时,必须立足国际。具体地,此文中将介绍美国和欧盟的规则,同时也会重点介绍海牙国际私法会议的研究成果。
总之,此文的目的在于,通过分析现有理论与实践,找寻到合适的互联网上消费者合同的管辖权规则,并为我国解决互联网上消费者合同管辖权问题提供相应立法建议。
除“前言”部分外,这篇文章包括四大部分。
第一部分为“互联网上消费者合同对传统管辖权规则的挑战”。它包括“传统消费者合同的管辖权规则”、“互联网上消费者合同的特点”、“互联网上消费者合同对传统管辖权规则的冲击”三部分内容。首先,文章中对“消费者合同”进行界定,并对传统消费者合同的四种管辖权规则——一般管辖权、特别管辖权、保护性管辖权、协议管辖进行简要介绍。然后,文章提出,互联网上消费者合同与传统消费者合同相比具有若干特殊性。最后,文章中列举三大问题,以表明这种特殊的消费者合同对传统管辖权规则确实形成了挑战。
第二部分为“关于互联网上消费者合同管辖权的理论探析”。它主要包括“互联网上消费者合同管辖权的价值取向”及“确定互联网上消费者合同管辖权的方法”两部分内容。在讨论价值取向时,文章不但介绍了关于国际民商事管辖权价值取向的各种不同理论,还基于互联网的特点和电子商务的需要进行了分析,并认为公平、合理、便捷、确定都是互联网上消费者合同管辖权所应追求的价值,在产生价值冲突时,要以下位服从上位或根据具体情况做取舍。在讨论确定互联网上消费者合同管辖权的方法时,文章介绍了“来源国”(商家所在地管辖)与“目的国”(消费者所在地管辖)这两种主要方法,以及国际上各国、国际组织之间关于哪种方法更好所持的不同见解。通过对两种方法的理论前提及运用后果的分析比较,文章认为,要想恰当地解决问题,只能采取折衷办法,即当以“目的国”——消费者原地管辖为主,以“来源国”管辖为辅。换言之,应坚持消费者原地管辖原则,但绝不能滥用,“来源国”管辖可以作为有益补充。
第三部分为“互联网上消费者合同管辖权的具体规则”。它包括“互联网管辖权一般规则的发展情况”、“消费者原地管辖规则的新发展”、“协议管辖规则在新环境下的运用”三部分内容。文章对互联网管辖权一般规则的发展趋势进行了总结:从一味地追求保护本国和本国人利益的管辖权标准——只要网站与法院管辖区域有最低限度联系即“在本地可进入”便行使管辖权,逐渐向更多地考虑到国际协调的管辖权规则——符合互联网环境下管辖权的价值取向的、促进电子商务的进一步发展的、更有可能被广泛接受的标准发展。文章对专门用以解决互联网管辖权问题的“网址论”进行分析后认为:它并没有从根本上解决问题。文章对消费者原地管辖规则的新发展进行了以下方面的阐述:欧盟的消费者原地管辖规则,海牙国际私法会议讨论的消费者原地管辖规则,消费者原地管辖的积极作用、消极后果及对其应采取的态度,消费者原地管辖的适用标准,消费者原地管辖的发展前景。最后,关于协议管辖在互联网上消费者合同中的运用,文章通过分析欧盟条约中的规定、《海牙公约》草案条文及美国的实践,得出结论:协议管辖的效用是有限的,它只适合用来作为消费者原地管辖的补充。文章在对协议管辖具体规则的选取提出意见时,是基于以下考虑:在拥有“精良”的消费者原地管辖规则的基础上,对协议管辖不妨采取限制适用的态度。
第四部分为“立法建议”,即我国为解决互联网上消费者合同管辖权问题所应采取的对策。首先,文章介绍了我国现有的立法与实践及其存在的问题,包括“立法现状”、“司法实践现状”、“我国行使网络管辖的倾向及问题”等内容。在其后的具体立法建议中,文章则从政策取向、立法模式、规则内容、条文设计几个方面进行了阐述。
全文的结论如下:
一、处理互联网上消费者合同管辖权问题时,可对传统的消费者合同管辖权规则进行改良,使之适用于互联网环境。
二、应坚持有限的消费者原地管辖规则,并适当运用协议管辖。
三、规则的具体内容为:
1.适用范围
消费者原地管辖规则适用于消费者合同:消费者是基于非商业或职业目的而购买商品或接受服务的自然人,也即主要为个人、家庭或者家务目的行为的自然人;消费者合同是消费者与为商业或专业目的行为的商家(商品经营者或服务提供者)之间缔结的合同。
2.适用条件
此规则的适用必须同时具备两项条件:(1)商家在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国进行了商业或专业行为,或者行为指向该国;(2)与诉讼有关的合同,或者合同的促成或协商是由以上行为引起。解析:仅凭网站在某国可进入这一事实,并不满足以上条件,还要看网站的具体特征、其行为与交易是否有必要联系。
3.适用例外
(1)商家已采取措施避免与住所地(或惯常居所地)在特定国家的消费者缔结合同,则此时可避免消费者原地管辖。说明:此措施必须足以阻隔网站与该特定国家的联系。
(2)消费者在其住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的其他国家为缔结合同采取了必要步骤,并且货物或服务是提供给正处在这一其他国家的消费者,此时,该消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的国家具有管辖权。原因:该国是最密切联系地。
4.消费者原地管辖的内容——两个方面
(1)消费者可选择在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国或商家所在地国起诉商家。
(2)商家针对消费者的诉讼只能在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国提起。
5.变通——协议管辖
(1)消费者与商家在争议发生后达成的管辖权协议有效,且具有改变消费者原地管辖的排他效力。
(2)如消费者与商家在争议发生前达成了管辖权协议,协议中允许消费者在消费者原地管辖规定以外的其他国家起诉商家的部分有效,但不具有排除消费者原地管辖的效力。
四、我国在处理具体问题时,可借鉴国外的有益经验,并依托国内已有法律法规予以解决。但从长远来看,我国需要在立法中补充关于消费者合同管辖权的条文。对此条文的初步设计为:
“第条【自然人消费】对于为非商业或职业目的而购买商品或接受服务的自然人消费者与商家(商品经营者或服务提供者)之间缔结的合同,如果商家在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国进行了商业或专业行为,或者行为指向该国,并且与诉讼有关的合同或者合同的促成或协商是由以上行为引起,则:
(1)消费者可选择在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国或商家所在地国起诉商家;
(2)商家针对消费者的诉讼只能在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国提起。
如商家已采取措施避免与住所地(或惯常居所地)在特定国家的消费者缔结合同,此时可避免该消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国管辖。
如消费者在其住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的国家为缔结合同采取了必要步骤,并且货物或服务是提供给正处在这一国家的消费者,此时,该消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的国家具有管辖权。
消费者与商家在争议发生后达成的管辖权协议有效,且具有排他效力。如消费者与商家在争议发生前达成了管辖权协议,则仅协议中允许消费者在第一款规定以外的国家起诉商家的部分有效,且不具有排除第一款规定的效力。”
The rapid development of the electronic commerce is paid universally attention by international society in recent years. But because of its different characteristics from other forms of commerce, how to regulate electronic commerce has become the subject of people’s common concern. This dissertation discusses the problem of international civil jurisdiction, which court to decide, arising out of international electronic consumer contracts.
The object of this dissertation is issue of international civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet.“Consumer contracts concluded through Internet”is referring to the contracts that consumers conclude with the goods or service providers, using Internet as the mediums.
This kind of contracts include on-line performing contracts and off-line performing contracts. Thus this dissertation discusses B2C(business to consumer) e-commerce excluding e-commerce of other types.“Jurisdiction”refers to the jurisdiction of the private international law field, namely international civil jurisdiction here. First of all, it is a kind of“international jurisdiction”. Secondly, it is a kind of“judicial jurisdiction”. The regulations about Internet, including rules of international civil jurisdiction, especially need to coordinate in the world. Therefore, while establishing international civil jurisdiction of Internet, we must think about other countries and international organizations. This dissertation introduces the rules of U.S. and European Union, as well as the outcome of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
In a word, the purpose of this dissertation is, through analyzing existing theories and practice, to find the suitable jurisdiction rule of consumer contracts concluded through Internet, and provide the advice for the corresponding legislation.
Besides the“preface”, this dissertation consists of four parts. The first part is“challenges consumer contracts concluded through Internet causing to traditional jurisdiction rules”. Its contents include“the jurisdiction rules of the traditional consumer contracts”,“characteristics of consumer contracts concluded through Internet”and“impacts that consumer contracts concluded through Internet giving to traditional jurisdiction rules”. It defines meaning of consumer contracts concluded through Internet, then summarizes four main regulations of jurisdiction: general jurisdiction, special jurisdiction, jurisdiction to protect consumer, choice of court. It proposes several particularities by comparing the consumer contracts concluded through Internet with the traditional consumer contracts. It enumerates three big problems, in order to indicate that such special consumer contracts really give challenges to traditional jurisdiction rules.
The second part is“theoretic analysis of the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet”. Its contents include“merit orientation of the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet”and“the approaches to decide which court has jurisdiction”. While discussing the merit orientation, it not only introduces different kinds of theories about merit orientation of civil jurisdiction, but also makes some analyses based on the characteristics of Internet and needs of e-commerce. Fairness, reasonableness, convenience and certainty are all the merits that the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet should pursue. If there are conflicts among the merits, the lower should be subject to the higher, or it should be decided according to the concrete conditions. While discussing the approaches to decide which court has civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet, the dissertation introduces two main approaches: the“country of origin”approach and the“country of destination”approach. Different countries or international organizations hold different opinions about which approach is better. This dissertation holds that both the two approaches are limited, and they must be used corporately.
The third part is“concrete rules of the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet”. Its contents include“the general rules of Internet jurisdiction”,“consumer home jurisdiction”and“choice of court”. The dissertation summarizes development trends of general rules of Internet jurisdiction: from pursuing the jurisdiction standard protecting native interests simply, gradually to considering coordination between different countries and international organizations about the rules of Internet jurisdiction. The latter rules are more according with merit orientation of jurisdiction, further promoting e-commerce development, much more probably accepted by the international society. The dissertation proposes that“website method”that is specially used to solve Internet jurisdiction problem has not solved the problem fundamentally, after analyzing the limitation of“website method”.
“Consumer home jurisdiction”and“choice of court”are two important rules to solve the problem of civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet. This dissertation discusses these aspects:
consumer home jurisdiction in Europe Union, consumer home jurisdiction under the discussion in the Hague Conference of Private International Law, the positive role of the consumer home jurisdiction, the drawbacks of consumer home jurisdiction, how to use the consumer home jurisdiction appropriately, the prospect of consumer home jurisdiction. Finally, this part analyses the choice of court agreements in consumer contracts concluded through Internet. The conclusion is: the utility of choice of court agreements is limited, and the choice of court is only suitable for used as supplement to consumer home jurisdiction.
The fourth part is“the proposal to legislation”. First of all, the dissertation introduces existing legislation and practice in our country, and analyses its problems. Its content includes“current legislation”,“current practice by administration of justice”,“inclination in our country about jurisdiction and the present questions”. Then the dissertation gives some advice of legislation on such respects: policy orientation, regulative mode, contents of regulation, proposed clause for legislation.
The conclusion of the full text is as follows:
Firstly, rules of jurisdiction over traditional consumer contracts can be improved to be useful in an Internet environment.
Secondly, when solving the problem of jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet, the consumer home jurisdiction can make main contribution, and the choice of court rule may make subsidiary contribution.
Thirdly, the content of the appropriate regulation is:
1. Scope of the contracts to which the rules may apply:
Consumer contract is a contract concluded between a natural person acting primarily for personal, family or household, the consumer, and another party who acts for the purposes of its trade or profession, the goods or service provider.
2. Conditions to apply the rules are-
(1) the other party has conducted activities in the country where the consumer is (habitually) resident or directed such activities to that country; and-
(2) the contract to which the claim is related arises out of these activities, including promotion or negotiation of contracts, and so on. Analysis: the only accessibility of a website in a country is not adequate, and whether the rule can apply depends on the character of the website.
3. Exceptions:
(1) Activity shall not be regarded as being directed to a certain country if the other party has taken reasonable steps to avoid concluding contracts with consumer (habitually) resident in that country.
(2) If the consumer took the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in another country, and the goods or services were supplied to the consumer while he was present in that country, courts of that country has jurisdiction.
Reason: that country has the most significant relationship.
4. The consumer home jurisdiction- two aspects:
(1) The consumer may bring an action in the courts of the country in which he is (habitually) resident, or in the courts of the country where the defendant is (habitually) resident.
(2) The other party to the contract may bring proceedings against a consumer only in the courts of the country in which the consumer is (habitually) resident.
5. Agreements of choice of court:
(1) The agreement the consumer and the other party reach after the dispute is valid, and is exclusive.
(2) If the consumer and the other party have reached an agreement before the dispute, it is valid only to the extent that it allows the consumer to bring an action in an other country. Whatever the agreement is not exclusive.
“互联网上消费者合同”指消费者为了购买商品或接受服务而与商家在互联网上达成的合同,合同的一方是消费者,另一方是商品或服务提供商,而互联网是合同成立的媒介。对此有几点说明:第一,国际互联网是“互联网上消费者合同”缔结的平台。此类合同应包括缔结、履行均在线上(on-line)的合同,以及线上缔结但线下(off-line)履行的合同。
第二,它讨论的是B2C(business to consumer)电子商务而不包括其他类型的电子商务。第三,关于互联网的其他消费者合同,不符合以上条件的,不属于该文研究范围。
“管辖权”在此是指国际私法领域的管辖权,即国际民事管辖权。首先,它是一种“国际管辖权”,其次,它是一种“司法管辖权”。这篇文章对国际民事管辖权的研究立足于国际视角而非国内视角。这不仅因为所研究的是“国际管辖权”,也因为有关互联网的法律规则包括国际民事管辖权规则在内特别需要进行国际协调。因而,在确立互联网国际民事管辖权时,必须立足国际。具体地,此文中将介绍美国和欧盟的规则,同时也会重点介绍海牙国际私法会议的研究成果。
总之,此文的目的在于,通过分析现有理论与实践,找寻到合适的互联网上消费者合同的管辖权规则,并为我国解决互联网上消费者合同管辖权问题提供相应立法建议。
除“前言”部分外,这篇文章包括四大部分。
第一部分为“互联网上消费者合同对传统管辖权规则的挑战”。它包括“传统消费者合同的管辖权规则”、“互联网上消费者合同的特点”、“互联网上消费者合同对传统管辖权规则的冲击”三部分内容。首先,文章中对“消费者合同”进行界定,并对传统消费者合同的四种管辖权规则——一般管辖权、特别管辖权、保护性管辖权、协议管辖进行简要介绍。然后,文章提出,互联网上消费者合同与传统消费者合同相比具有若干特殊性。最后,文章中列举三大问题,以表明这种特殊的消费者合同对传统管辖权规则确实形成了挑战。
第二部分为“关于互联网上消费者合同管辖权的理论探析”。它主要包括“互联网上消费者合同管辖权的价值取向”及“确定互联网上消费者合同管辖权的方法”两部分内容。在讨论价值取向时,文章不但介绍了关于国际民商事管辖权价值取向的各种不同理论,还基于互联网的特点和电子商务的需要进行了分析,并认为公平、合理、便捷、确定都是互联网上消费者合同管辖权所应追求的价值,在产生价值冲突时,要以下位服从上位或根据具体情况做取舍。在讨论确定互联网上消费者合同管辖权的方法时,文章介绍了“来源国”(商家所在地管辖)与“目的国”(消费者所在地管辖)这两种主要方法,以及国际上各国、国际组织之间关于哪种方法更好所持的不同见解。通过对两种方法的理论前提及运用后果的分析比较,文章认为,要想恰当地解决问题,只能采取折衷办法,即当以“目的国”——消费者原地管辖为主,以“来源国”管辖为辅。换言之,应坚持消费者原地管辖原则,但绝不能滥用,“来源国”管辖可以作为有益补充。
第三部分为“互联网上消费者合同管辖权的具体规则”。它包括“互联网管辖权一般规则的发展情况”、“消费者原地管辖规则的新发展”、“协议管辖规则在新环境下的运用”三部分内容。文章对互联网管辖权一般规则的发展趋势进行了总结:从一味地追求保护本国和本国人利益的管辖权标准——只要网站与法院管辖区域有最低限度联系即“在本地可进入”便行使管辖权,逐渐向更多地考虑到国际协调的管辖权规则——符合互联网环境下管辖权的价值取向的、促进电子商务的进一步发展的、更有可能被广泛接受的标准发展。文章对专门用以解决互联网管辖权问题的“网址论”进行分析后认为:它并没有从根本上解决问题。文章对消费者原地管辖规则的新发展进行了以下方面的阐述:欧盟的消费者原地管辖规则,海牙国际私法会议讨论的消费者原地管辖规则,消费者原地管辖的积极作用、消极后果及对其应采取的态度,消费者原地管辖的适用标准,消费者原地管辖的发展前景。最后,关于协议管辖在互联网上消费者合同中的运用,文章通过分析欧盟条约中的规定、《海牙公约》草案条文及美国的实践,得出结论:协议管辖的效用是有限的,它只适合用来作为消费者原地管辖的补充。文章在对协议管辖具体规则的选取提出意见时,是基于以下考虑:在拥有“精良”的消费者原地管辖规则的基础上,对协议管辖不妨采取限制适用的态度。
第四部分为“立法建议”,即我国为解决互联网上消费者合同管辖权问题所应采取的对策。首先,文章介绍了我国现有的立法与实践及其存在的问题,包括“立法现状”、“司法实践现状”、“我国行使网络管辖的倾向及问题”等内容。在其后的具体立法建议中,文章则从政策取向、立法模式、规则内容、条文设计几个方面进行了阐述。
全文的结论如下:
一、处理互联网上消费者合同管辖权问题时,可对传统的消费者合同管辖权规则进行改良,使之适用于互联网环境。
二、应坚持有限的消费者原地管辖规则,并适当运用协议管辖。
三、规则的具体内容为:
1.适用范围
消费者原地管辖规则适用于消费者合同:消费者是基于非商业或职业目的而购买商品或接受服务的自然人,也即主要为个人、家庭或者家务目的行为的自然人;消费者合同是消费者与为商业或专业目的行为的商家(商品经营者或服务提供者)之间缔结的合同。
2.适用条件
此规则的适用必须同时具备两项条件:(1)商家在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国进行了商业或专业行为,或者行为指向该国;(2)与诉讼有关的合同,或者合同的促成或协商是由以上行为引起。解析:仅凭网站在某国可进入这一事实,并不满足以上条件,还要看网站的具体特征、其行为与交易是否有必要联系。
3.适用例外
(1)商家已采取措施避免与住所地(或惯常居所地)在特定国家的消费者缔结合同,则此时可避免消费者原地管辖。说明:此措施必须足以阻隔网站与该特定国家的联系。
(2)消费者在其住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的其他国家为缔结合同采取了必要步骤,并且货物或服务是提供给正处在这一其他国家的消费者,此时,该消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的国家具有管辖权。原因:该国是最密切联系地。
4.消费者原地管辖的内容——两个方面
(1)消费者可选择在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国或商家所在地国起诉商家。
(2)商家针对消费者的诉讼只能在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国提起。
5.变通——协议管辖
(1)消费者与商家在争议发生后达成的管辖权协议有效,且具有改变消费者原地管辖的排他效力。
(2)如消费者与商家在争议发生前达成了管辖权协议,协议中允许消费者在消费者原地管辖规定以外的其他国家起诉商家的部分有效,但不具有排除消费者原地管辖的效力。
四、我国在处理具体问题时,可借鉴国外的有益经验,并依托国内已有法律法规予以解决。但从长远来看,我国需要在立法中补充关于消费者合同管辖权的条文。对此条文的初步设计为:
“第条【自然人消费】对于为非商业或职业目的而购买商品或接受服务的自然人消费者与商家(商品经营者或服务提供者)之间缔结的合同,如果商家在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国进行了商业或专业行为,或者行为指向该国,并且与诉讼有关的合同或者合同的促成或协商是由以上行为引起,则:
(1)消费者可选择在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国或商家所在地国起诉商家;
(2)商家针对消费者的诉讼只能在消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国提起。
如商家已采取措施避免与住所地(或惯常居所地)在特定国家的消费者缔结合同,此时可避免该消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国管辖。
如消费者在其住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的国家为缔结合同采取了必要步骤,并且货物或服务是提供给正处在这一国家的消费者,此时,该消费者住所地(或惯常居所地)国以外的国家具有管辖权。
消费者与商家在争议发生后达成的管辖权协议有效,且具有排他效力。如消费者与商家在争议发生前达成了管辖权协议,则仅协议中允许消费者在第一款规定以外的国家起诉商家的部分有效,且不具有排除第一款规定的效力。”
The rapid development of the electronic commerce is paid universally attention by international society in recent years. But because of its different characteristics from other forms of commerce, how to regulate electronic commerce has become the subject of people’s common concern. This dissertation discusses the problem of international civil jurisdiction, which court to decide, arising out of international electronic consumer contracts.
The object of this dissertation is issue of international civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet.“Consumer contracts concluded through Internet”is referring to the contracts that consumers conclude with the goods or service providers, using Internet as the mediums.
This kind of contracts include on-line performing contracts and off-line performing contracts. Thus this dissertation discusses B2C(business to consumer) e-commerce excluding e-commerce of other types.“Jurisdiction”refers to the jurisdiction of the private international law field, namely international civil jurisdiction here. First of all, it is a kind of“international jurisdiction”. Secondly, it is a kind of“judicial jurisdiction”. The regulations about Internet, including rules of international civil jurisdiction, especially need to coordinate in the world. Therefore, while establishing international civil jurisdiction of Internet, we must think about other countries and international organizations. This dissertation introduces the rules of U.S. and European Union, as well as the outcome of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
In a word, the purpose of this dissertation is, through analyzing existing theories and practice, to find the suitable jurisdiction rule of consumer contracts concluded through Internet, and provide the advice for the corresponding legislation.
Besides the“preface”, this dissertation consists of four parts. The first part is“challenges consumer contracts concluded through Internet causing to traditional jurisdiction rules”. Its contents include“the jurisdiction rules of the traditional consumer contracts”,“characteristics of consumer contracts concluded through Internet”and“impacts that consumer contracts concluded through Internet giving to traditional jurisdiction rules”. It defines meaning of consumer contracts concluded through Internet, then summarizes four main regulations of jurisdiction: general jurisdiction, special jurisdiction, jurisdiction to protect consumer, choice of court. It proposes several particularities by comparing the consumer contracts concluded through Internet with the traditional consumer contracts. It enumerates three big problems, in order to indicate that such special consumer contracts really give challenges to traditional jurisdiction rules.
The second part is“theoretic analysis of the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet”. Its contents include“merit orientation of the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet”and“the approaches to decide which court has jurisdiction”. While discussing the merit orientation, it not only introduces different kinds of theories about merit orientation of civil jurisdiction, but also makes some analyses based on the characteristics of Internet and needs of e-commerce. Fairness, reasonableness, convenience and certainty are all the merits that the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet should pursue. If there are conflicts among the merits, the lower should be subject to the higher, or it should be decided according to the concrete conditions. While discussing the approaches to decide which court has civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet, the dissertation introduces two main approaches: the“country of origin”approach and the“country of destination”approach. Different countries or international organizations hold different opinions about which approach is better. This dissertation holds that both the two approaches are limited, and they must be used corporately.
The third part is“concrete rules of the civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet”. Its contents include“the general rules of Internet jurisdiction”,“consumer home jurisdiction”and“choice of court”. The dissertation summarizes development trends of general rules of Internet jurisdiction: from pursuing the jurisdiction standard protecting native interests simply, gradually to considering coordination between different countries and international organizations about the rules of Internet jurisdiction. The latter rules are more according with merit orientation of jurisdiction, further promoting e-commerce development, much more probably accepted by the international society. The dissertation proposes that“website method”that is specially used to solve Internet jurisdiction problem has not solved the problem fundamentally, after analyzing the limitation of“website method”.
“Consumer home jurisdiction”and“choice of court”are two important rules to solve the problem of civil jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet. This dissertation discusses these aspects:
consumer home jurisdiction in Europe Union, consumer home jurisdiction under the discussion in the Hague Conference of Private International Law, the positive role of the consumer home jurisdiction, the drawbacks of consumer home jurisdiction, how to use the consumer home jurisdiction appropriately, the prospect of consumer home jurisdiction. Finally, this part analyses the choice of court agreements in consumer contracts concluded through Internet. The conclusion is: the utility of choice of court agreements is limited, and the choice of court is only suitable for used as supplement to consumer home jurisdiction.
The fourth part is“the proposal to legislation”. First of all, the dissertation introduces existing legislation and practice in our country, and analyses its problems. Its content includes“current legislation”,“current practice by administration of justice”,“inclination in our country about jurisdiction and the present questions”. Then the dissertation gives some advice of legislation on such respects: policy orientation, regulative mode, contents of regulation, proposed clause for legislation.
The conclusion of the full text is as follows:
Firstly, rules of jurisdiction over traditional consumer contracts can be improved to be useful in an Internet environment.
Secondly, when solving the problem of jurisdiction over consumer contracts concluded through Internet, the consumer home jurisdiction can make main contribution, and the choice of court rule may make subsidiary contribution.
Thirdly, the content of the appropriate regulation is:
1. Scope of the contracts to which the rules may apply:
Consumer contract is a contract concluded between a natural person acting primarily for personal, family or household, the consumer, and another party who acts for the purposes of its trade or profession, the goods or service provider.
2. Conditions to apply the rules are-
(1) the other party has conducted activities in the country where the consumer is (habitually) resident or directed such activities to that country; and-
(2) the contract to which the claim is related arises out of these activities, including promotion or negotiation of contracts, and so on. Analysis: the only accessibility of a website in a country is not adequate, and whether the rule can apply depends on the character of the website.
3. Exceptions:
(1) Activity shall not be regarded as being directed to a certain country if the other party has taken reasonable steps to avoid concluding contracts with consumer (habitually) resident in that country.
(2) If the consumer took the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in another country, and the goods or services were supplied to the consumer while he was present in that country, courts of that country has jurisdiction.
Reason: that country has the most significant relationship.
4. The consumer home jurisdiction- two aspects:
(1) The consumer may bring an action in the courts of the country in which he is (habitually) resident, or in the courts of the country where the defendant is (habitually) resident.
(2) The other party to the contract may bring proceedings against a consumer only in the courts of the country in which the consumer is (habitually) resident.
5. Agreements of choice of court:
(1) The agreement the consumer and the other party reach after the dispute is valid, and is exclusive.
(2) If the consumer and the other party have reached an agreement before the dispute, it is valid only to the extent that it allows the consumer to bring an action in an other country. Whatever the agreement is not exclusive.
引文
① 廖晓淇:《推动电子商务 促进经济发展——在“APEC 电子商务博览会高层论坛暨首届 APEC 电子商务工商联盟论坛”的致辞》,(2005 年 5 月 8 日访问)。
② 如美国,详细情况可参见肖永平、郭明磊:《网址的法律地位探析》,载《法学杂志》2000 年第 3 期。
③ 参见张润彤主编:《电子商务概论》,电子工业出版社,2003 年 1 月第 1 版,第 3页。
① Benjamin Wright, Jane K. Winn, “The Law of Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 1998, Chapter 2. 转引自张楚:《电子商务法初论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年 4 月第 1 版,第 11 页。
② 张楚:《电子商务法初论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年 4 月第 1 版,第 13 页。
③ See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, Published May 1, 2002,.
④ 参见聂元铭、王生卫编著:《网络经济·电子商务必读书》,地震出版社,2000 年5 月第 1 版,第 10-11 页。
⑤ See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, Published May 1, 2002,.
① 韩德培主编:《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社,1997 年 9 月第 1 版,第 617 页。
② 李玉泉主编:《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》,武汉大学出版社,1994 年 4 月第1 版,第 70 页。
③ 李玉泉主编:《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》,武汉大学出版社,1994 年 4 月第1 版,第 71 页。
④ See Michael Geist, “Is there a there there? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction”,, 2003-10-16.
⑤ 参见夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
②参见罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第 142 页。
① 参见罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第 143 页。
② Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, adopted on 30 October 1999, available at:.
③ 参见罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第 233-234 页。
④ Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission Ⅱ of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference 6-20 June 2001”, Commission Ⅱ-Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nineteenth Session, available at:.
⑤ 见《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第 2 条。
⑥ 参见《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第 2 条。
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters” and “Report of the Special Commission”, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000, available at:.
① 参见罗伯特·L.霍格、克里斯托夫·P.博姆:《因特网与其管辖权——国际原则已经出现但对抗也隐约可见》,何乃刚译,黄列校,载《环球法律评论》2001 年第 1期。
① 参见刘德良:《论网络消费者合同法律适用》,载《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002 年 1 月第 1 期。
② See “Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts”, available at:, Article 2.
① 参见何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第12 页。
② 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第 12-13 页。
① 参见何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第10 页。
② 万以娴:《电子商务之法律问题——以网络交易为中心》,法律出版社,2001 年版,第 13 页。
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:.
② 夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
③ See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Geneva Round Table on Electronic Commerce and Private International Law”, available at:.
④ Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internetand Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:.
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:.
② 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第 126页。
① 参见[日]北胁敏一:《国际私法——国际关系法Ⅱ》,姚梅镇译,法律出版社,1989年版,第 200 页。
② 本段论述参见汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 4 卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版,第 4-5 页。
③ 见汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 4 卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版,第 5 页。
① 见孙尚鸿:《确立国际民商事诉讼管辖权的基本理论问题研究》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(2002 年)第 5 卷,法律出版社,2002 年 10 月第 1 版。
② 参见夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
① Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act(ACPA), see Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8, P43. [美]罗纳德?J?曼、简?K?温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1 版,第 43 页。
② See Emily Lanza, “Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Contacts”, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Winter, 2000, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 125,.
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
② See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Geneva Round Table on Electronic Commerce and Private International Law”, available at:.
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
② See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:.
③ Comments of the Software & Information Industry Association (SILA) submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on January 12, 2001. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
① International Chamber of Commerce, “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Electronic Commerce” (June 6, 2001), available at:. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at: .
② See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
③ See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
① “1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (consolidated version)”, Official Journal C 027 of 26/01/98 (498Y0126(03)), also available at:
.
① See David Byren, “European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection”, on the occasion of the Annual Conference of the Kangaroo Group of MEP’s 18th September 2000,
, see Denis T. Rice, “A Cyberspace Odyssey Through U.S. and E.U. Jurisdiction Over E-Commerce”, PLI’s Fifth Annual Internet Law Institute, New York?San Francisco, July, 2001, P43.
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
② 肖永平、郭明磊:《网址的法律地位探析》,载《法学杂志》,2000 年第 3 期。
① 汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第4 卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版。
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:.
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:.
② Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:.
① 劳伦斯·凯治:《司法管辖权与电子商务纠纷》,朱宏、何乃刚译,载《国外社会科学文摘》,2000 年第 11 期。
② See “Civil Jurisdiction in International Business to Consumer (B-C) Electronic Commerce Contracts: Comparative Study between European Union and Thai Provisions”, available at:.
① 见刘现民:《浅议对网络侵权案件的管辖》,(2003 年 8 月 5 日访问)。
② Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction, Ottawa, 28 February to 1 March 2000”, Preliminary Document No 12 of August 2000, available at:.
① Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:.
② Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction, Ottawa, 28 February to 1 March 2000”, Preliminary Document
No 12 of August 2000, available at:.
① See Michael Geist, “Is There A There There? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction”, (2001) available at:.
① See the Harvard Law Review Association, “No Bad Puns: A Different Approach to the Problem of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet”, Harvard Law Review, April, 2003, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1821,.
48
① 范锡琴:《Internet 与涉外民事案件的属人管辖权》,载丁伟、朱榄叶主编:《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集(国际私法卷)》,中国法制出版社,2002 年 8 月,见第 335 页。
② See European Union, “Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters”, April, 2002, available at:.
③ ABA, “Midwinter Report to the Section of Business Law Council (December, 2002)”, available at:, searching in June, 2003.
③ See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:.
① 即第②项。
② 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)第四卷,法律出版社,2001 年 12 月第 1 版,第 282-283 页。
① See.
② Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, §187. See Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1 版, 第 608-609 页。
③ Uniform Commercial Cold, §1-301. See Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003年 8 月第 1 版, 第 609-610 页。
④ Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, See Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn,“Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1 版, 第 610 页。
① American Bar Association, “Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet”, Business Lawyer, August, 2000, also available at:.
② American Bar Association, “Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet”, Business Lawyer, August, 2000, also available at:.
③ See Emily Lanza, “Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Contacts”, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Winter, 2000, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 125,.
① 参见李双元、王海浪:《电子商务法若干问题研究》,北京大学出版社,2003 年 12月第 1 版,第 385 页。
① 参见朱家贤、苏号朋:《e 法治网——网上纠纷?立法?司法》,中国经济出版社,2000 年 9 月第 1 版,第 354-355 页。
② 于志刚主编:《网络民事纠纷定性争议与学理分析》,吉林人民出版社,2001 年 9月第 1 版,第 477-478 页。
① 2000 年 11 月 22 日最高人民法院审判委员会第 1144 次会议通过,法释〔2000〕48 号。
② 2001 年 6 月 26 日最高人民法院审判委员会第 1182 次会议通过,法释〔2001〕24号。
① 参见魏宏:《B2C 电子商务现状及问题》,载《中国电子商务杂志》2003 年 9 月。
② 第 6 稿,见中国国际私法学会:《中华人民共和国国际私法示范法》,法律出版社,2000 年 8 月第 1 版。
① 蔡海宁:《地方电子商务立法中的立法构想、重点与难点评析》,,2003 年 5 月 17 日发布。
② 中华人民共和国电子商务法(示范法)课题组:《中华人民共和国电子商务法(示范法)》,载《法学评论》2004 年第 4 期。
③ 张燕清:《〈电子签名法〉能否保电子商务一路平安》,《通信信息报》,,2004 年 4 月 14 日发布。
④ 肖永平、何其生:《〈海牙管辖权公约〉草案所涉电子商务问题之建议》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 3 月第 2 期。
① 罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第272 页。
1. 韩德培主编:《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社,1997 年 9 月第 1 版。
2. 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版。
3. 李步云主编:《网络经济与法律论坛(第一卷)》,中国检察出版社,2002年 2 月第 1版。
4. 李双元、王海浪:《电子商务法若干问题研究》,北京大学出版社,2003 年12 月第 1 版。
5. 李双元、谢石松:《国际民事诉讼法概论(第二版)》,武汉大学出版社,2001 年 7 月第 2 版。
6. 李玉泉主编:《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》,武汉大学出版社,1994 年 4月第 1 版。
7. 罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1版。
8. 聂元铭、王生卫编著:《网络经济·电子商务必读书》,地震出版社,2000年 5 月第 1版。
9. 齐爱民、刘颖主编:《网络法研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
10. 孙晔、张楚编著:《美国电子商务法》,北京邮电大学出版社,2001 年 11 月第 1 版。
11. 万以娴:《电子商务之法律问题——以网络交易为中心》,法律出版社,2001年版。
12. 肖永平主编:《欧盟统一国际私法研究》,武汉大学出版社,2002 年 6 月第 1版。
13. 于志刚主编:《网络民事纠纷定性争议与学理分析》,吉林人民出版社,2001年 9 月第 1版。
14. 张楚主编:《网络法学》,高等教育出版社,2003 年 4 月出版。
15. 张楚:《电子商务法初论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年 4 月第 1 版。
16. 张茂:《美国国际民事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社,1999 年 8 月第 1 版。
17. 张平主编:《网络法律评论》第 4 卷,法律出版社,2004 年 4 月第 1 版。
18. 张润彤主编:《电子商务概论》,电子工业出版社,2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
19. 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 8 月第 1版。
20. 《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》,法律出版社,1998 年-2004 年。
21. 朱家贤、苏号朋:《e 法治网——网上纠纷?立法?司法》,中国经济出版社,2000 年 9 月第 1 版。
22. [美]考夫曼(Jane Kaufman Winn)、赖特(Benjamin Wright):《电子商务法》,张楚等译,北京邮电大学出版社,2002年 12 月第 1版。(“Law of Electronic Commerce”, 4th Edition)
23. 格拉德·佛里拉等:《网络法:课文和案例》,张楚、乔延春、孙晔等译,社会科学文献出版社,2004 年 5 月第 1版。(Gerald R. Ferrera, Stephen D. Lichtenstein, Margo E. K. Reder, Ray August, William T. Schiano, “Cyberlaw: Text and Cases”)
24. 约纳森·罗森诺:《网络法——关于因特网的法律》,张皋彤等译,中国政法大学出版社,2003 年 8月第 1 版。(Jonathan Rosenoer, “Cyber Law: The Law of The Internet”, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1997)
1. 蔡海宁:《地方电子商务立法中的立法构想、重点与难点评析》,,2003 年 5 月 17 日发布。
2. 范锡琴:《Internet 与涉外民事案件的属人管辖权》,载丁伟、朱榄叶主编:《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集(国际私法卷)》,中国法制出版社,2002 年 8 月出版。
3. 郭明磊、刘朝晖:《美国法院长臂管辖权在 Internet 案件中的扩张》,载《河北法学》2001 年第 1 期。
4. 郭玉军、向在胜:《欧盟电子消费合同管辖权问题研究》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年 5 月第 3期。
5. 郭玉军、向在胜:《美国网络案件管辖权研究》,载李双元主编:《国际法与比较法论丛(第三辑)》,中国方正出版社,2002年 6 月第 1 版。
6. 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,武汉大学博士学位论文,2002 年 4月。
7. 侯捷:《网络侵权案件管辖权探析》,载《当代法学》2002 年第 8 期。
8. 李国华:《网络传输行为对国际民事司法管辖权的冲击及其解决》,西北大学硕士学位论文,2003 年 6 月。
9. 刘德良:《论网络消费者合同法律适用》,载《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2002 年 1 月第 1期。
10. 刘德良、王欢:《网络消费者合同中的法律问题研究》,载《社会科学战线》,2002年第 3 期。
11. 刘满达:《网络商务案件管辖权的实证论析》,载《法学》2000 年第 2 期。
12. 刘仁山、夏晓红:《互联网消费者合同的管辖权问题——消费者原地管辖规则的新发展及其前景》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》,2004 年卷。
13. 刘现民:《浅议对网络侵权案件的管辖》,,2003 年 8 月 5 日访问。
14. 乔雄兵:《因特网与国际民事案件的管辖权——从个案到规则的嬗变》,载陈光中、江伟主编:《诉讼法论丛》第 8 卷,法律出版社,2003年 7 月第 1 版。
15. 任益倩:《电子商务合同诉讼管辖理论评介》,载《河北法学》2002 年 9 月第5 期。
16. 汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 4卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版。
17. 汪金兰:《电子商务管辖权规制的探讨》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年 1 月。
18. 魏宏:《B2C 电子商务现状及问题》,载《中国电子商务杂志》2003 年 9月。
19. 韦燕:《“最低限度联系”与网络管辖权——美国有关网络管辖权的判例及其发展》,载《河北法学》2001 年第 1 期。
20. 夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
21. 肖永平、郭明磊:《网址的法律地位探析》,载《法学杂志》2000 年第 3 期。
22. 肖永平、何其生:《〈海牙管辖权公约〉草案所涉电子商务问题之建议》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2001年 3 月第 2 期。
23. 肖永平、李臣:《国际私法在互联网环境下面临的挑战》,载《中国社会科学》2001 年第 1 期。
24. 杨静宜:《网络行为管辖权争议问题之初探》,99/06/15,。
25. 杨在文:《“.com”域名纠纷均可诉诸美国法院?——CNN v. cnnews.com 一案的管辖权问题》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 3 卷,法律出版社2003 年 7 月第 1 版。
26. 于飞:《Internet 环境下国际私法的价值取向》,载《兰州大学学报(社会科学版)》2002 年第 6 期。
27. 于颖:《电子商务案件的国际管辖权问题研究》,大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2003 年 3 月。
28. 袁泉:《从若干案例看网络发展对传统国际私法的挑战》,载《法商研究》2002 年第 2 期。
29. 张柏军:《构建我国电子商务管辖权制度(上)》,载《电子商务》2003 年10 月。
30. 张柏军:《构建我国电子商务管辖权制度(下)》,载《电子商务》2003 年11 月。
31. 张卓嘉:《网络空间国际民事管辖权的法律问题研究》,大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2002 年 2 月。
32. 周丹:《试析涉及因特网的非涉外民商事诉讼的管辖》,载浦增平、寿布主编:《软件网络案件代理与评析》,吉林人民出版社,2002 年 1 月第 1版。
33. 周忠海:《论电子商务中的管辖权》,载《国际经济法论丛(第七卷)》,法律出版社,2003年 8 月出版。
34. 朱军:《国际互联网络环境中知识产权侵权案件的国际私法问题》,载李步云主编:《网络经济与法律论坛(第一卷)》,中国检察出版社,2002年 2 月第1 版。
35. 朱萍:《虚拟空间管辖权的确定——美国和欧盟实践的启示》,载《法商研究》2002 年第 4 期。
36. 劳伦斯·凯治:《司法管辖权与电子商务纠纷》,朱宏、何乃刚译,载《国外社会科学文摘》2000 年第 11 期。
37. 罗伯特·L.霍格、克里斯托夫·P.博姆:《因特网与其管辖权——国际原则已经出现但对抗也隐约可见》,何乃刚译,黄列校,载《环球法律评论》2001年第 1 期。
1. Benjamin Wright, Jane K. Winn, “The Law of Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 1998.
2. Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1版。
1. Amanda Reid, “Operationalizing the Law of Jurisdiction: Where in the World Can I be Sued for Operating a World Wide Web Page?”, Communication Law and Policy, Spring, 2003, 8 Comm. L. & Pol'y 227,.
2. Benjamin C. Elacqua, “The Hague Runs into B2B: Why Restructuring the Hague Convention of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to Deal with B2B Contracts is Long Overdue”, 2004, Journal of High Technology Law, 3 J. High Tech. L. 95 (2004).
3. Beverley Earle & Gerald A. Madek, “International Cyberspace: From Borderless to Balkanized???”, The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Winter, 2003, 31 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 225,.
4. Cindy Chen, “United States and European Union Approaches to Internet Jurisdiction and Their Impact on E-Commerce”, Journal of International Economic Law, Spring, 2004, University of Pennsylvania, 25 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. 423,.
5. Daniel Steuer, “The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo”, Colorado Law Review, Winter, 2003, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 319,.
6. David L. Stott, “Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: The Constitutional Boundary of Minimum Contacts Limited to a Web Site”, The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, Summer, 1997, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 819,.
7. Denis T. Rice, “Problems in Running a Global Internet Business: Complying With Laws of Other Countries”, July, 2004, Practising Law Institute, Eighth Annual Internet Law Institute: How Corporate America is Harnessing the Internet, Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, PLI Order Number 2855,.
8. Denis T. Rice, “A Cyberspace Odyssey Through U.S. and E.U. Jurisdiction Over E-Commerce”, PLI’s Fifth Annual Internet Law Institute, New York·San Francisco, July, 2001.
9. Diedrich F, “A Law of the Internet?: Attempts to Regulate Electronic Commerce”, 2000 (3), The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), available at:.
10. Elena Bojinova, “Cyberlaw: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law”, New England International and Comparative Law Annual, 2001, Vol. 7 of the New Eng. Int’1 & Corp. L. Ann,.
11. Emily Lanza, “Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Contacts”, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Winter, 2000, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 125,.
12. Frank B. Arenas, “Cyberspace Jurisdiction and the Implications of Sealand”, Iowa Law Review, May, 2003, 88 Iowa L. Rev. 1165,.
13. Frederick H. Bicknese, “Websites and Personal Jurisdiction: When Should A Defendant’s Internet Selling Activities Subject It to Suit in a Plaintiff-buyer’s State?”, Temple Law Review, Summer, 2000, 73 Temple L. Rev. 829,.
14. Jagruti Chauhan, “Online Dispute Resolution Systems: Exploring E-Commerce and E-Securities”, Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues, March, 2003, 15 W.R.L.S.I. 99,.
15. James M. Westerlind, “The Magna Carta Meets the Twenty-first Century: Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet”, St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary, Winter, 2000,
15 St. John's J.L. Comm. 223,.
16. James A. Graha, “European Private International Law and E-commerce: Comments to the Draft Final ABA Report”, available at:.
17. John Adams, “Digital Age Standard form Contracts Under Australian Law: ‘Wrap’ Agreements, Exclusive Jurisdiction, and Binding Arbitration Clauses”, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, June, 2004, 13 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 503,.
18. Katherine C. Sheehan, “Predicting the Future: Personal Jurisdiction for the Twenty-first Century”, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Winter, 1998, 66 U. Cin. L. Rev. 385,.
19. Kendrick D. Nguyen, “Redefining the Threshold for Personal Jurisdiction: Contact and the Presumption of Fairness”, Boston University Law Review, February, 2003, 83 B.U.L. Rev. 253,.
20. Kimberly A. Moore & Francesco Parisi, “Symposium on Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts: Thinking Forum Shopping in Cyberspace”, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 2002, 77 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1325,.
21. Linda Silberman, “Comparative Jurisdction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review, Winter, 2002, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 319,.
22. Lindsley Armstrong, “No Sense of Cyberplace: Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Litigation”, available at:.
23. Lorna E Gillies, “A Review of the New Jurisdiction Rules for Electronic Consumer Contracts within the European Union”, 2001 (1), The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), available at:.
24. Mark C. Dearing, “Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Can the Traditional Principles and Landmark Cases Guide the Legal System into the 21st Century?”, available at: (1999), searching Nov. 26, 2003.
25. Mary Shannon Martin, “Keep It Online: The Hague Convention and the Need for Online Alternative Dispute Resolution in International Business-to-Consumer E-Commerce”, Boston University International Law Journal, Spring, 2002, 20 B.U. Int'l L.J. 125,.
26. Michael Geist, “Is there a there there? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction”, 2001, available at:, searching on October 16, 2003.
27. Morten Foss and Lee A. Bygrave, “International Consumer Purchases through the Internet:Jurisdictional Issues pursuant to European Law”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 8 No. 2, Oxford University Press 2000.
28. Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:.
29. Ray August, “International Cyber-Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis”, American Business Law Journal, Summer, 2002, 39 Am. Bus. L.J. 531,.
30. Roger Tassé & Kathleen Lemieux, “Consumer Protection Rights in Canada in the Context of Electronic Commerce”, March 1998, available at:.
31. Sanjay S. Mody, “National Cyberspace Regulation: Unbundling the Concept of Jurisdiction”, Stanford Journal of International Law, Summer, 2001, 37 Stan. J Int'l L. 365,.
32. Timothy P. Lester, “Globalized Automatic Choice of Forum: Where Do Internet Consumers Sue?: Proposed Article 7 of the Hague Convention on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and its Possible Effects on e-Commerce”, New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2003. 9, also available at:.
33. “Civil Jurisdiction in International Business to Consumer (B-C) Electronic Commerce Contracts: Comparative Study between European Union and Thai Provisions”, available at:.
34. The Harvard Law Review Association, “No Bad Puns: A Different Approach to the Problem of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet”, Harvard Law Review, April, 2003, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1821,.
1. American Bar Association(ABA), “Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet”, Business Lawyer, August, 2000, also available at:.
2. ABA, “Midwinter Report to the Section of Business Law Council (December, 2002)”, available at:, searching in June, 2003.
3. “Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts”, available at:.
4. “1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (consolidated version)”, Official Journal C 027 of 26/01/98 (498Y0126(01)), also available at:.
5. “Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, OJ L 12/1 2001 (the Brussels Ⅰ Regulation), Official Journal of the European Communities, 16.1.2001, available at:.
6. “Report on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters”, European Parliament, Session document, Final A5-0253/2000, 18 September 2000, , available at:.
7. European Union, “Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters”, April, 2002, available at:.
8. “1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (consolidated version)”, Official Journal C 027 of 26/01/98 (498Y0126(03)), also available at:.
9. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “The Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:.
10. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, adopted by the Special Commission on 30 October 1999, available at:.
11. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission Ⅱ of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference 6-20 June 2001”, Commission Ⅱ-Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nineteenth Session, available at:.
12. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Geneva Round Table on Electronic Commerce and Private International Law”, available at:.
13. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:.
14. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction, Ottawa, 28 February to 1 March 2000”, Preliminary Document No 12 of August 2000, available at:.
15. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, adopted by the Special Commission, “Report of the Special Commission”, drawn up by Peter Nygh and Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000, available at:.
16. International Chamber of Commerce(ICC), “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Electronic Commerce”, June 6, 2001, available at:.
17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), “Recommendation of the OECD Council concerning Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce”, “Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce”, available at:.
18. OECD, “Consumers in the Online Marketplace: The OECD Guidelines Three Years Later”, Reported by the Committee on Consumer Policy on the Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce, Feb. 3, 2003, DSTI/CP(2002)4/FINAL.
19. “Personal Jurisdiction”, U.S., available at:.
② 如美国,详细情况可参见肖永平、郭明磊:《网址的法律地位探析》,载《法学杂志》2000 年第 3 期。
③ 参见张润彤主编:《电子商务概论》,电子工业出版社,2003 年 1 月第 1 版,第 3页。
① Benjamin Wright, Jane K. Winn, “The Law of Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 1998, Chapter 2. 转引自张楚:《电子商务法初论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年 4 月第 1 版,第 11 页。
② 张楚:《电子商务法初论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年 4 月第 1 版,第 13 页。
③ See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, Published May 1, 2002,
④ 参见聂元铭、王生卫编著:《网络经济·电子商务必读书》,地震出版社,2000 年5 月第 1 版,第 10-11 页。
⑤ See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, Published May 1, 2002,
① 韩德培主编:《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社,1997 年 9 月第 1 版,第 617 页。
② 李玉泉主编:《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》,武汉大学出版社,1994 年 4 月第1 版,第 70 页。
③ 李玉泉主编:《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》,武汉大学出版社,1994 年 4 月第1 版,第 71 页。
④ See Michael Geist, “Is there a there there? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction”,
⑤ 参见夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
②参见罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第 142 页。
① 参见罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第 143 页。
② Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, adopted on 30 October 1999, available at:
③ 参见罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第 233-234 页。
④ Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission Ⅱ of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference 6-20 June 2001”, Commission Ⅱ-Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nineteenth Session, available at:
⑤ 见《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第 2 条。
⑥ 参见《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》第 2 条。
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters” and “Report of the Special Commission”, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000, available at:
① 参见罗伯特·L.霍格、克里斯托夫·P.博姆:《因特网与其管辖权——国际原则已经出现但对抗也隐约可见》,何乃刚译,黄列校,载《环球法律评论》2001 年第 1期。
① 参见刘德良:《论网络消费者合同法律适用》,载《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002 年 1 月第 1 期。
② See “Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts”, available at:
① 参见何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第12 页。
② 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第 12-13 页。
① 参见何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第10 页。
② 万以娴:《电子商务之法律问题——以网络交易为中心》,法律出版社,2001 年版,第 13 页。
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:
② 夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
③ See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Geneva Round Table on Electronic Commerce and Private International Law”, available at:
④ Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internetand Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:
② 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版,第 126页。
① 参见[日]北胁敏一:《国际私法——国际关系法Ⅱ》,姚梅镇译,法律出版社,1989年版,第 200 页。
② 本段论述参见汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 4 卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版,第 4-5 页。
③ 见汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 4 卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版,第 5 页。
① 见孙尚鸿:《确立国际民商事诉讼管辖权的基本理论问题研究》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(2002 年)第 5 卷,法律出版社,2002 年 10 月第 1 版。
② 参见夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
① Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act(ACPA), see Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8, P43. [美]罗纳德?J?曼、简?K?温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1 版,第 43 页。
② See Emily Lanza, “Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Contacts”, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Winter, 2000, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 125,
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
② See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Geneva Round Table on Electronic Commerce and Private International Law”, available at:
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
② See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:
③ Comments of the Software & Information Industry Association (SILA) submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on January 12, 2001. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
① International Chamber of Commerce, “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Electronic Commerce” (June 6, 2001), available at:
② See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
③ See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
① “1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (consolidated version)”, Official Journal C 027 of 26/01/98 (498Y0126(03)), also available at:
① See David Byren, “European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection”, on the occasion of the Annual Conference of the Kangaroo Group of MEP’s 18th September 2000,
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
① See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “the Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
② 肖永平、郭明磊:《网址的法律地位探析》,载《法学杂志》,2000 年第 3 期。
① 汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第4 卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版。
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:
① See Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:
② Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:
① 劳伦斯·凯治:《司法管辖权与电子商务纠纷》,朱宏、何乃刚译,载《国外社会科学文摘》,2000 年第 11 期。
② See “Civil Jurisdiction in International Business to Consumer (B-C) Electronic Commerce Contracts: Comparative Study between European Union and Thai Provisions”, available at:
① 见刘现民:《浅议对网络侵权案件的管辖》,
② Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction, Ottawa, 28 February to 1 March 2000”, Preliminary Document No 12 of August 2000, available at:
① Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:
② Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction, Ottawa, 28 February to 1 March 2000”, Preliminary Document
No 12 of August 2000, available at:
① See Michael Geist, “Is There A There There? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction”, (2001) available at:
① See the Harvard Law Review Association, “No Bad Puns: A Different Approach to the Problem of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet”, Harvard Law Review, April, 2003, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1821,
48
① 范锡琴:《Internet 与涉外民事案件的属人管辖权》,载丁伟、朱榄叶主编:《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集(国际私法卷)》,中国法制出版社,2002 年 8 月,见第 335 页。
② See European Union, “Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters”, April, 2002, available at:
③ ABA, “Midwinter Report to the Section of Business Law Council (December, 2002)”, available at:
③ See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:
① 即第②项。
② 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)第四卷,法律出版社,2001 年 12 月第 1 版,第 282-283 页。
① See
② Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, §187. See Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1 版, 第 608-609 页。
③ Uniform Commercial Cold, §1-301. See Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003年 8 月第 1 版, 第 609-610 页。
④ Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, See Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn,“Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温著:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1 版, 第 610 页。
① American Bar Association, “Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet”, Business Lawyer, August, 2000, also available at:
② American Bar Association, “Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet”, Business Lawyer, August, 2000, also available at:
③ See Emily Lanza, “Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Contacts”, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Winter, 2000, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 125,
① 参见李双元、王海浪:《电子商务法若干问题研究》,北京大学出版社,2003 年 12月第 1 版,第 385 页。
① 参见朱家贤、苏号朋:《e 法治网——网上纠纷?立法?司法》,中国经济出版社,2000 年 9 月第 1 版,第 354-355 页。
② 于志刚主编:《网络民事纠纷定性争议与学理分析》,吉林人民出版社,2001 年 9月第 1 版,第 477-478 页。
① 2000 年 11 月 22 日最高人民法院审判委员会第 1144 次会议通过,法释〔2000〕48 号。
② 2001 年 6 月 26 日最高人民法院审判委员会第 1182 次会议通过,法释〔2001〕24号。
① 参见魏宏:《B2C 电子商务现状及问题》,载《中国电子商务杂志》2003 年 9 月。
② 第 6 稿,见中国国际私法学会:《中华人民共和国国际私法示范法》,法律出版社,2000 年 8 月第 1 版。
① 蔡海宁:《地方电子商务立法中的立法构想、重点与难点评析》,
② 中华人民共和国电子商务法(示范法)课题组:《中华人民共和国电子商务法(示范法)》,载《法学评论》2004 年第 4 期。
③ 张燕清:《〈电子签名法〉能否保电子商务一路平安》,《通信信息报》,
④ 肖永平、何其生:《〈海牙管辖权公约〉草案所涉电子商务问题之建议》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2001 年 3 月第 2 期。
① 罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1 版,第272 页。
1. 韩德培主编:《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社,1997 年 9 月第 1 版。
2. 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,法律出版社,2004 年 1 月第 1 版。
3. 李步云主编:《网络经济与法律论坛(第一卷)》,中国检察出版社,2002年 2 月第 1版。
4. 李双元、王海浪:《电子商务法若干问题研究》,北京大学出版社,2003 年12 月第 1 版。
5. 李双元、谢石松:《国际民事诉讼法概论(第二版)》,武汉大学出版社,2001 年 7 月第 2 版。
6. 李玉泉主编:《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》,武汉大学出版社,1994 年 4月第 1 版。
7. 罗剑雯:《欧盟民商事管辖权比较研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 11 月第 1版。
8. 聂元铭、王生卫编著:《网络经济·电子商务必读书》,地震出版社,2000年 5 月第 1版。
9. 齐爱民、刘颖主编:《网络法研究》,法律出版社,2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
10. 孙晔、张楚编著:《美国电子商务法》,北京邮电大学出版社,2001 年 11 月第 1 版。
11. 万以娴:《电子商务之法律问题——以网络交易为中心》,法律出版社,2001年版。
12. 肖永平主编:《欧盟统一国际私法研究》,武汉大学出版社,2002 年 6 月第 1版。
13. 于志刚主编:《网络民事纠纷定性争议与学理分析》,吉林人民出版社,2001年 9 月第 1版。
14. 张楚主编:《网络法学》,高等教育出版社,2003 年 4 月出版。
15. 张楚:《电子商务法初论》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年 4 月第 1 版。
16. 张茂:《美国国际民事诉讼法》,中国政法大学出版社,1999 年 8 月第 1 版。
17. 张平主编:《网络法律评论》第 4 卷,法律出版社,2004 年 4 月第 1 版。
18. 张润彤主编:《电子商务概论》,电子工业出版社,2003 年 1 月第 1 版。
19. 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 8 月第 1版。
20. 《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》,法律出版社,1998 年-2004 年。
21. 朱家贤、苏号朋:《e 法治网——网上纠纷?立法?司法》,中国经济出版社,2000 年 9 月第 1 版。
22. [美]考夫曼(Jane Kaufman Winn)、赖特(Benjamin Wright):《电子商务法》,张楚等译,北京邮电大学出版社,2002年 12 月第 1版。(“Law of Electronic Commerce”, 4th Edition)
23. 格拉德·佛里拉等:《网络法:课文和案例》,张楚、乔延春、孙晔等译,社会科学文献出版社,2004 年 5 月第 1版。(Gerald R. Ferrera, Stephen D. Lichtenstein, Margo E. K. Reder, Ray August, William T. Schiano, “Cyberlaw: Text and Cases”)
24. 约纳森·罗森诺:《网络法——关于因特网的法律》,张皋彤等译,中国政法大学出版社,2003 年 8月第 1 版。(Jonathan Rosenoer, “Cyber Law: The Law of The Internet”, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 1997)
1. 蔡海宁:《地方电子商务立法中的立法构想、重点与难点评析》,
2. 范锡琴:《Internet 与涉外民事案件的属人管辖权》,载丁伟、朱榄叶主编:《当代国际法学理论与实践研究文集(国际私法卷)》,中国法制出版社,2002 年 8 月出版。
3. 郭明磊、刘朝晖:《美国法院长臂管辖权在 Internet 案件中的扩张》,载《河北法学》2001 年第 1 期。
4. 郭玉军、向在胜:《欧盟电子消费合同管辖权问题研究》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年 5 月第 3期。
5. 郭玉军、向在胜:《美国网络案件管辖权研究》,载李双元主编:《国际法与比较法论丛(第三辑)》,中国方正出版社,2002年 6 月第 1 版。
6. 何其生:《电子商务的国际私法问题》,武汉大学博士学位论文,2002 年 4月。
7. 侯捷:《网络侵权案件管辖权探析》,载《当代法学》2002 年第 8 期。
8. 李国华:《网络传输行为对国际民事司法管辖权的冲击及其解决》,西北大学硕士学位论文,2003 年 6 月。
9. 刘德良:《论网络消费者合同法律适用》,载《辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2002 年 1 月第 1期。
10. 刘德良、王欢:《网络消费者合同中的法律问题研究》,载《社会科学战线》,2002年第 3 期。
11. 刘满达:《网络商务案件管辖权的实证论析》,载《法学》2000 年第 2 期。
12. 刘仁山、夏晓红:《互联网消费者合同的管辖权问题——消费者原地管辖规则的新发展及其前景》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》,2004 年卷。
13. 刘现民:《浅议对网络侵权案件的管辖》,
14. 乔雄兵:《因特网与国际民事案件的管辖权——从个案到规则的嬗变》,载陈光中、江伟主编:《诉讼法论丛》第 8 卷,法律出版社,2003年 7 月第 1 版。
15. 任益倩:《电子商务合同诉讼管辖理论评介》,载《河北法学》2002 年 9 月第5 期。
16. 汤鹏:《网络世界中民事地域管辖的新选择》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 4卷,法律出版社 2004 年 4 月第 1 版。
17. 汪金兰:《电子商务管辖权规制的探讨》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2002年 1 月。
18. 魏宏:《B2C 电子商务现状及问题》,载《中国电子商务杂志》2003 年 9月。
19. 韦燕:《“最低限度联系”与网络管辖权——美国有关网络管辖权的判例及其发展》,载《河北法学》2001 年第 1 期。
20. 夏晓红:《国际民商事管辖权的新趋向——在互联网环境下的思索》,中国国际私法学会 2004 年年会论文。
21. 肖永平、郭明磊:《网址的法律地位探析》,载《法学杂志》2000 年第 3 期。
22. 肖永平、何其生:《〈海牙管辖权公约〉草案所涉电子商务问题之建议》,载《武汉大学学报(社会科学版)》2001年 3 月第 2 期。
23. 肖永平、李臣:《国际私法在互联网环境下面临的挑战》,载《中国社会科学》2001 年第 1 期。
24. 杨静宜:《网络行为管辖权争议问题之初探》,99/06/15,
25. 杨在文:《“.com”域名纠纷均可诉诸美国法院?——CNN v. cnnews.com 一案的管辖权问题》,载张平主编:《网络法律评论》,第 3 卷,法律出版社2003 年 7 月第 1 版。
26. 于飞:《Internet 环境下国际私法的价值取向》,载《兰州大学学报(社会科学版)》2002 年第 6 期。
27. 于颖:《电子商务案件的国际管辖权问题研究》,大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2003 年 3 月。
28. 袁泉:《从若干案例看网络发展对传统国际私法的挑战》,载《法商研究》2002 年第 2 期。
29. 张柏军:《构建我国电子商务管辖权制度(上)》,载《电子商务》2003 年10 月。
30. 张柏军:《构建我国电子商务管辖权制度(下)》,载《电子商务》2003 年11 月。
31. 张卓嘉:《网络空间国际民事管辖权的法律问题研究》,大连海事大学硕士学位论文,2002 年 2 月。
32. 周丹:《试析涉及因特网的非涉外民商事诉讼的管辖》,载浦增平、寿布主编:《软件网络案件代理与评析》,吉林人民出版社,2002 年 1 月第 1版。
33. 周忠海:《论电子商务中的管辖权》,载《国际经济法论丛(第七卷)》,法律出版社,2003年 8 月出版。
34. 朱军:《国际互联网络环境中知识产权侵权案件的国际私法问题》,载李步云主编:《网络经济与法律论坛(第一卷)》,中国检察出版社,2002年 2 月第1 版。
35. 朱萍:《虚拟空间管辖权的确定——美国和欧盟实践的启示》,载《法商研究》2002 年第 4 期。
36. 劳伦斯·凯治:《司法管辖权与电子商务纠纷》,朱宏、何乃刚译,载《国外社会科学文摘》2000 年第 11 期。
37. 罗伯特·L.霍格、克里斯托夫·P.博姆:《因特网与其管辖权——国际原则已经出现但对抗也隐约可见》,何乃刚译,黄列校,载《环球法律评论》2001年第 1 期。
1. Benjamin Wright, Jane K. Winn, “The Law of Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 1998.
2. Ronald J. Mann, Jane K. Winn, “Electronic Commerce”, Aspen Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 2002, City Publishing House, China, 2003.8. [美]罗纳德·J·曼、简·K·温:《电子商务法》,中信出版社,2003 年 8 月第 1版。
1. Amanda Reid, “Operationalizing the Law of Jurisdiction: Where in the World Can I be Sued for Operating a World Wide Web Page?”, Communication Law and Policy, Spring, 2003, 8 Comm. L. & Pol'y 227,
2. Benjamin C. Elacqua, “The Hague Runs into B2B: Why Restructuring the Hague Convention of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters to Deal with B2B Contracts is Long Overdue”, 2004, Journal of High Technology Law, 3 J. High Tech. L. 95 (2004).
3. Beverley Earle & Gerald A. Madek, “International Cyberspace: From Borderless to Balkanized???”, The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Winter, 2003, 31 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 225,
4. Cindy Chen, “United States and European Union Approaches to Internet Jurisdiction and Their Impact on E-Commerce”, Journal of International Economic Law, Spring, 2004, University of Pennsylvania, 25 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. 423,
5. Daniel Steuer, “The Shoe Fits and the Lighter is Out of Gas: The Continuing Utility of International Shoe and the Misuse and Ineffectiveness of Zippo”, Colorado Law Review, Winter, 2003, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 319,
6. David L. Stott, “Personal Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: The Constitutional Boundary of Minimum Contacts Limited to a Web Site”, The John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, Summer, 1997, 15 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 819,
7. Denis T. Rice, “Problems in Running a Global Internet Business: Complying With Laws of Other Countries”, July, 2004, Practising Law Institute, Eighth Annual Internet Law Institute: How Corporate America is Harnessing the Internet, Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, PLI Order Number 2855,
8. Denis T. Rice, “A Cyberspace Odyssey Through U.S. and E.U. Jurisdiction Over E-Commerce”, PLI’s Fifth Annual Internet Law Institute, New York·San Francisco, July, 2001.
9. Diedrich F, “A Law of the Internet?: Attempts to Regulate Electronic Commerce”, 2000 (3), The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), available at:
10. Elena Bojinova, “Cyberlaw: Jurisdiction and Choice of Law”, New England International and Comparative Law Annual, 2001, Vol. 7 of the New Eng. Int’1 & Corp. L. Ann,
11. Emily Lanza, “Personal Jurisdiction Based on Internet Contacts”, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Winter, 2000, 24 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 125,
12. Frank B. Arenas, “Cyberspace Jurisdiction and the Implications of Sealand”, Iowa Law Review, May, 2003, 88 Iowa L. Rev. 1165,
13. Frederick H. Bicknese, “Websites and Personal Jurisdiction: When Should A Defendant’s Internet Selling Activities Subject It to Suit in a Plaintiff-buyer’s State?”, Temple Law Review, Summer, 2000, 73 Temple L. Rev. 829,
14. Jagruti Chauhan, “Online Dispute Resolution Systems: Exploring E-Commerce and E-Securities”, Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues, March, 2003, 15 W.R.L.S.I. 99,
15. James M. Westerlind, “The Magna Carta Meets the Twenty-first Century: Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet”, St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary, Winter, 2000,
15 St. John's J.L. Comm. 223,
16. James A. Graha, “European Private International Law and E-commerce: Comments to the Draft Final ABA Report”, available at:
17. John Adams, “Digital Age Standard form Contracts Under Australian Law: ‘Wrap’ Agreements, Exclusive Jurisdiction, and Binding Arbitration Clauses”, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, June, 2004, 13 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 503,
18. Katherine C. Sheehan, “Predicting the Future: Personal Jurisdiction for the Twenty-first Century”, University of Cincinnati Law Review, Winter, 1998, 66 U. Cin. L. Rev. 385,
19. Kendrick D. Nguyen, “Redefining the Threshold for Personal Jurisdiction: Contact and the Presumption of Fairness”, Boston University Law Review, February, 2003, 83 B.U.L. Rev. 253,
20. Kimberly A. Moore & Francesco Parisi, “Symposium on Constructing International Intellectual Property Law: The Role of National Courts: Thinking Forum Shopping in Cyberspace”, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 2002, 77 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 1325,
21. Linda Silberman, “Comparative Jurisdction in the International Context: Will the Proposed Hague Judgments Convention be Stalled?”, DePaul Law Review, Winter, 2002, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 319,
22. Lindsley Armstrong, “No Sense of Cyberplace: Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Litigation”, available at:
23. Lorna E Gillies, “A Review of the New Jurisdiction Rules for Electronic Consumer Contracts within the European Union”, 2001 (1), The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), available at:
24. Mark C. Dearing, “Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet: Can the Traditional Principles and Landmark Cases Guide the Legal System into the 21st Century?”, available at:
25. Mary Shannon Martin, “Keep It Online: The Hague Convention and the Need for Online Alternative Dispute Resolution in International Business-to-Consumer E-Commerce”, Boston University International Law Journal, Spring, 2002, 20 B.U. Int'l L.J. 125,
26. Michael Geist, “Is there a there there? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction”, 2001, available at:
27. Morten Foss and Lee A. Bygrave, “International Consumer Purchases through the Internet:Jurisdictional Issues pursuant to European Law”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 8 No. 2, Oxford University Press 2000.
28. Norel Rosner, “International Jurisdiction in European Union E-Commerce Contracts”, published May 1,2002, available at:
29. Ray August, “International Cyber-Jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis”, American Business Law Journal, Summer, 2002, 39 Am. Bus. L.J. 531,
30. Roger Tassé & Kathleen Lemieux, “Consumer Protection Rights in Canada in the Context of Electronic Commerce”, March 1998, available at:
31. Sanjay S. Mody, “National Cyberspace Regulation: Unbundling the Concept of Jurisdiction”, Stanford Journal of International Law, Summer, 2001, 37 Stan. J Int'l L. 365,
32. Timothy P. Lester, “Globalized Automatic Choice of Forum: Where Do Internet Consumers Sue?: Proposed Article 7 of the Hague Convention on International Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and its Possible Effects on e-Commerce”, New England Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2003. 9, also available at:
33. “Civil Jurisdiction in International Business to Consumer (B-C) Electronic Commerce Contracts: Comparative Study between European Union and Thai Provisions”, available at:
34. The Harvard Law Review Association, “No Bad Puns: A Different Approach to the Problem of Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet”, Harvard Law Review, April, 2003, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1821,
1. American Bar Association(ABA), “Achieving Legal and Business Order in Cyberspace: A Report on Global Jurisdiction Issues Created by the Internet”, Business Lawyer, August, 2000, also available at:
2. ABA, “Midwinter Report to the Section of Business Law Council (December, 2002)”, available at:
3. “Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts”, available at:
4. “1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (consolidated version)”, Official Journal C 027 of 26/01/98 (498Y0126(01)), also available at:
5. “Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, OJ L 12/1 2001 (the Brussels Ⅰ Regulation), Official Journal of the European Communities, 16.1.2001, available at:
6. “Report on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters”, European Parliament, Session document, Final A5-0253/2000, 18 September 2000, , available at:
7. European Union, “Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters”, April, 2002, available at:
8. “1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (consolidated version)”, Official Journal C 027 of 26/01/98 (498Y0126(03)), also available at:
9. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “The Impact of the Internet on the Judgments Project: Thoughts for the Future”, Preliminary Document No 17 of February 2002, available at:
10. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, adopted by the Special Commission on 30 October 1999, available at:
11. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Summary of the Outcome of the Discussion in Commission Ⅱ of the First Part of the Diplomatic Conference 6-20 June 2001”, Commission Ⅱ-Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nineteenth Session, available at:
12. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Geneva Round Table on Electronic Commerce and Private International Law”, available at:
13. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Data Interchange, Internet and Electronic Commerce”, Preliminary Document No 7 of April 2000, available at:
14. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction, Ottawa, 28 February to 1 March 2000”, Preliminary Document No 12 of August 2000, available at:
15. Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Preliminary Draft Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters”, adopted by the Special Commission, “Report of the Special Commission”, drawn up by Peter Nygh and Fausto Pocar, Preliminary Document No 11 of August 2000, available at:
16. International Chamber of Commerce(ICC), “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Electronic Commerce”, June 6, 2001, available at:
17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), “Recommendation of the OECD Council concerning Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce”, “Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce”, available at:
18. OECD, “Consumers in the Online Marketplace: The OECD Guidelines Three Years Later”, Reported by the Committee on Consumer Policy on the Guidelines for Consumer Protection in the Context of Electronic Commerce, Feb. 3, 2003, DSTI/CP(2002)4/FINAL.
19. “Personal Jurisdiction”, U.S., available at: