請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21766
標題: | 跨國「綁架子女」事件之國際審判管轄權 The International Judicial Jurisdiction of Transnational “Child Abduction” Case |
作者: | Ting-Chi Chen 陳庭琪 |
指導教授: | 沈冠伶(Kuan-Ling Shen) |
關鍵字: | 跨國綁架子女,國際審判管轄權,1980年子女綁架海牙公約,1996年子女保護海牙公約,布魯塞爾第二號規則,人事訴訟法等之一部改正法律案, Transnational Child Abduction,International Judicial Jurisdiction,The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention,The 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention,The 2003 New Brussels Regulation II,An Amendment to Personal Status Litigation Act, |
出版年 : | 2019 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 隨著交通與通訊科技之進展,在現代社會中,異國戀情、跨國婚姻與移民家庭漸多,當父母因種種因素感情不睦時,可能發生一方擅自將子女帶出國,或者未依約定將子女帶回國之跨國綁架子女行為。為了維護子女之最佳利益,有必要避免子女在衍生而來的訴訟程序中遭受到更大的傷害。因此,如何決定法院之國際審判管轄權,避免增加綁架子女之誘因,尤其值得關注。
本文主要以我國實務上所發生具體個案,探討法院處理跨國綁架子女事件之國際審判管轄權之態度,並從國際公約觀點及我國地理位置與文化較為相近之日本法出發,來分析我國法院之處理方式是否符合世界思潮,抑或有所缺失。我國就此議題之研究雖然繁多,但多半集中於家事事件法制定前,因此實有必要研究在現行家事事件法規範下應如何處理此類事件。一方面比較舊法時代與現行法下之案例,另一方面則假設:若舊時代案例係發生於家事事件法增訂後,其處理結果是否有所不同?對於我國之規範進行檢討,並提出建議。最後對於現行我國家事事件法之規範,討論可能之解釋論方向,進而提出一點未來修法方向之淺見,以期盡可能地保護未成年子女之最佳利益。 本文之立場為:若有明文規定,則應適用明文的規範。明文立法為終極目標,但在法有欠缺而未明文立法時,某程度應援引內國土地管轄之規範,以定國際審判管轄。而援引的法學方法,則可以透過「類推適用」內國土地管轄之規定,再透過適當的法律解釋方法,將海牙公約之目的與所建構之原則,套用至具體個案。具體言之,於離婚合併親權酌定事件,在我國家事事件採統合處理原則之前提下,應肯認離婚事件受訴法院具有管轄權,此時以家事事件法第53條來決定國際審判管轄權。單獨提起親權酌定事件與交付子女事件,類推適用家事事件法第104條,以未成年子女住居所地法院具有國際審判管轄權。未成年人監護事件,類推適用家事事件法第120條,以未成年人之住居所地法院具有國際審判管轄權。作為外國裁判承認之要件的間接的國際審判管轄,則以我國法有關國際審判管轄之規定,來判斷外國法院有無管轄權;於我國法無明文之情形,與直接的國際審判管轄權之處理模式相同,類推適用相關的土地管轄之規範。 The number of transnational marriage and immigrant family is on the rise. Technological advancement in communication and transportation is probably the major motivation behind this trend. Such phenomenon may further lead to transnational child abduction – an act whereby one of the parents knowingly and willfully abduct his/her child to a foreign nation without prior arrangement or consent with his/her spouse. Whenever such event occurs, there is an emergent need to safeguarding the best interest of the child and avoid further injury from derived civil procedure. Therefore, it is worth to research on a functional way determining which court preserves the international judicial jurisdiction so as to decrease the incentive of child abduction. This study discusses the perspective of Taiwan court towards international judicial jurisdiction issue of transnational child abduction case and whether the decision by Taiwan court is in line with global trend based on analyses of international convention and Japanese law – the jurisdiction which resembles to Taiwan’s geolocation and culture. Although many studies have been conducted in this field, much of which are conducted before the legislation of Family Proceedings Act, hence the need to study how does the Family Proceedings Act handles such issue. This study on one hand aims to compare cases before and after the legislation of the Family Proceedings Act. On the other hand, the study hypothesizes the outcome of the case—a hypothetical scenario if the case before the legislation of Family Proceedings Act occurs after the legislation and then proposes suggestions accordingly. This study interprets current Family Proceedings Act of Taiwan and gives advice for future amendment in order to safeguard the best interest of the child. This study suggests if the provision is explicitly stipulated, such provision shall be enforced. Explicit legislation is the ultimate goal. However, in case no provision is applicable, Taiwan court should apply local jurisdictional regulations in terms of international judicial jurisdiction. The method of jurisprudence may be applying local jurisdictional regulations analogically and through proper interpretation of the objectives and principles of “The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention” and “The 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention” subsume to actual case. More specifically, when court decides to jointly adjudicate a divorce case and a child custody case, Taiwan’s Family Proceedings Act affirms the court which divorce case is indicted holds jurisdiction. In such case, Article 53 of Family Proceedings Act should be implemented to determine international judicial jurisdiction. When child custody case is trial alone or in case the court enforces a child custody order, Article 104 of Family Proceedings Act should be applied analogically. Hence, the court where the child is domiciled holds international judicial jurisdiction. In case of indirect international jurisdiction—an essential element for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, Taiwan’s regulation regards international jurisdiction should be followed to determine whether foreign court has jurisdiction over Taiwan’s court. In case Taiwan does not have the provision explicitly stipulated, the solution is the same as dealing with direct international jurisdiction—by applying relevant local jurisdictional regulations analogically. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21766 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU201804367 |
全文授權: | 未授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.31 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。