论文标题:英国普通法与衡平法之比较研究
论文作者
论文导师 杨丽英,论文学位 硕士,论文专业 法律史
论文单位 西南政法大学,点击次数 256,论文页数 48页File Size3006K
2007-04-01论文网 http://www.lw23.com/lunwen_50750062/
普通法(Common Law)与衡平法(Equity)同是英美法系国家法律的两大渊源，两者与制定法(Statute Law)一起架构了整个英美法系国家法律的框架。普通法是指12世纪前后由英国的普通法院创立并发展起来的一套通行于全国的法律规则；衡平法则是英国于14世纪左右由大法官在审判实践的基础上发展起来的一整套法律规则，因其以“公平”、“正义”为基础，故名。 普通法与衡平法在许多方面都存在着差异，国内外学术界对普通法与衡平法的比较这一课题的研究也较多，但是多以宏观的角度全面地进行比较。本文则旨在从细微处入手，单就两者的救济方式进行细节上的比较。 普通法的救济方式很少，主要就是损害赔偿金(damages)，这种救济方式在简单商品经济时期很实用，体现其快捷，简便，适用范围广之特点；衡平法是在英国经济结构趋于复杂化的时期诞生的，彼时遭受损失的人已不满足于金钱上的救济，他们索求的是更多样的，更具体的，更有针对性的救济，于是衡平救济应运而生。普通法与衡平法并存了数世纪，普通救济与衡平救济也同台竞技了数世纪，为什么单一的损害赔偿金最终并没有被多样灵活的衡平救济取代?为什么衡平救济始终位列候补席?1875年之后，普通法与衡平法融合，不再有普通法院与衡平法院之分，那普通救济与衡平救济的适用情况又是怎样?进入21世纪，各式各样新的诉讼形式出现，普通救济与衡平救济又怎样来适应这些新的情况，怎样为遭受损失的人谋求最大的公平?这些问题都是本文想要论述与探讨的问题。 本文主要包括以下六个部分： 引论主要梳理普通法和衡平法产生发展的大体脉络，简单介绍两者的主要特点，并指出救济是整个英国法体系中非常重要的一个环节，而通过对救济方式的理解和研究可以对普通法与衡平法之间的关系有较为直观的了解和认识。 第一部分主要是介绍普通法和普通法上的救济以及普通法经过金盛期后遭遇到的巨大困境。1066年，诺曼公爵威廉征服英国，建立诺曼王朝，英国进入封建时期，而英国法也自此正式登上历史舞台。从威廉一世执政到爱德华一世执政这两百余年的时间是英国的普通法产生和发展的时期。威廉一世，亨利一世，亨利二世以及爱德华一世这几位有作为的国王对普通法的产生和发展起到了不同程度的推动与促进作用，使之得以在罗马法复兴的巨大浪潮下独辟蹊径，形成了独特的概念，原则和理念。普通法上的救济方式是损害赔偿金，这种方式尽管单一，但是在简单商品经济时期却具有无与伦比的广泛适用性，几乎可以适用于当时可能发生的所有案件。随着社会的发展，经济的增长，这种单一的救济方式逐渐无法满足人们的救济需求，加上普通法在程序和内容上的缺陷，普通法的发展遭遇了前所未有的困境，这些困境单凭普通法自身的调节已无法应对，急需外力介入来使普通法度过这个难关。 第二部分首先分析了衡平法兴起的原因与过程，指出它是肩负着补普通法之不足这一使命而诞生的。其后介绍了衡平法上的几种救济方式，包括特别履行，禁令，接管人，废除，改正以及返还。最后分析了衡平法的特点，作用以及地位，指出衡平法尽管具有简便和灵活的特性，在应对新型案件的场合显得游刃有余，尽管在出色地完成了补普通法之不足的历史使命的基础上还通过自身的发展推进了整个英国法的发展，尽管拥有相对普通法来说更多样且更具针对性的救济方式，更好地满足了人们的救济需求，但是却始终处于“从规则”的地位，就算在1615年与普通法的正面交锋中取得了胜利，却还是无法取普通法而代之，反而逐渐吸收了普通法的遵循先例原则，最终成为了英国判例法的一部分。 第三部分首先简单介绍了1875年普通法与衡平法的融合，英国结束了数百年来两种法院体系并存的司法体制，通过司法改革将普通法院和衡平法院融入同一个法院体系下。在这一部分后面的篇幅中，笔者以两个较为典型的案例为例分析了普通救济与衡平救济在1875年后的适用情况，并指出尽管普通法与衡平法两大渊源在理论上业已融合，但是这种融合其实仅仅是形式上的融合，普通法与衡平法的区别仍然存在，尤其是在救济方式的适用方面。 第四部分主要是以案例分析的形式来展示普通法和衡平法进入现代之后救济方式的改进和创新。尽管普通法因稳定而僵化，但是它仍在救济这一环节上竭力改进以适应新的时代发展要求，笔者通过契约法和侵权法领域的几个典型案例指出普通法在救济方式方面的改进是卓有成效的，但是因普通法之特性，这种改进不可避免地只能以循序渐进的方式缓慢进行。而灵活的衡平法在这方面的成就则是可以以“辉煌”来形容，笔者以玛利华禁令和安东·皮勒命令这两个典型的案例分析了衡平救济的适用规则在现代的创新，指出衡平法仍在很尽责地履行其使命，以快捷和灵活来弥补着普通法改进的缓慢。最后，笔者指出，不论是普通法稳定而缓慢的改进还是衡平法果断而富于灵性的创新，都是为了更好地适应时代的发展要求来为当事人谋求最大的公平。 本文的结语部分主要概况总结了本文的主要内容和观点，重申了可以将对救济方式的研究作为探寻英国普通法和衡平法之间关系的视角，并指出19世纪司法改革对普通法和衡平法进行的融合使得两者能够更好地发展和相互影响。而普通法和衡平法各自的特性和两者之间的特殊的关系又使得英国法能够协调发展，既维系着英国人引以为傲的历史连续性，又使之能够及时地做出调整与改进，从而始终能赶上时代的步伐。
Common law and equity ate two legal source of Anglo-American legal system; they constitute the flame of Anglo-American legal system together with statute law. Common law was created and developed by Common law Courts about 12th century, it"s a series of rules applied all over the country. Equity arose and developed based on the practices of chancellors around 14th century, it"s called equity because it"s base on "aequum bonum". Common law and equity have many differences, there were a great deal of researches on the problem of company of common law and equity, but mostly were in the view of macroscopically, in this essay, the author wants to change the view into microcosmic, compares their remedies only. The only remedy of common law is damages, which was characteristic of swift, convenient and widely applied in simple commodity economy time. Equity appeared while the economical structure of England tended to complication, people who suffered loss won"t be satisfied with damages only, they needed the remedies were various, material and hand more pertinences. Equity arose in such situation. Common law and equity coexisted for several centuries; their remedies also competed with each other for a long period. Why was not damages replaced by equitable remedies? Why did equitable remedies were always situated be an alternate? After common law and equity synchronized in 1875, there were no distinction between Common law Courts and Chancery Court, how about the application of the two remedies? There were a variety of new forms of action arose in 21st century, how about to seek the biggest fair for people who suffered loss? All of above questions are the author plans to discuss in this essay. This essay consists of six parts, which are as follows: The preface is a concise introduce to the histories and causes of common law and equity. At the end of this part, the author points out that remedy is a very important link of the whole legal system, we can recognize the relationship of the two legal sources directly by researching of it. The first part is dealing with common law and its remedy, along with the dilemma which common law confronted after its heyday. In 1066, the Conqueror William landed England and set up Norman Dynasty, England entered feudal period, English law had its own history henceforth. The 200 years from William I to Edward I were the era of the birth and development of common law. These Kings, William I, Henry I, HenryⅡ, Edward I, impulsed and accelerated the development of common law. Partly because of these excellent dominators, common law developed in a very different way from Roman law and formed a lot of distinctive conceptions, principles and legal sense. Damages, which the only remedy of common law, was singleness but had unapproachable applicability in the simple commodity economic time, it could be applied in almost all cases. As the growing of economy, the only type of remedy couldn"t satisfy with people any more, in addition the inherent defects, common law confronted a huge dilemma which it never met before. The dilemma couldn"t be deal by common law only; it needed a outside force to cope with. At the beginning of the second part, the author analyzes the reasons and cause of the rise of equity and points out equity had shouldered a mission since it was born: complement common law. Thereafter, the author introduces six types of equitable remedies, including specific performance, injunction, receiver, rescission, rectification and restitution. At the end of this part, the author analyzes equity"s function and station. Although equity was convenient, flexible and with skill and ease while dealing a case, although it accomplished its mission excellently and, further, promoted the development of the whole English law, although it could offer the remedies which were variously and with more pertinences, it placed a "sub-rule" position all the time. Even it defeated common law in a face-to-face controversy in 1615, it could not replace common law anyway, and instead, it absorbed the "stare decisis" principle from common law and to bea part of English case law at last. The third part is divided into two parts. The first part introduces the confluence of common law and equity in 1875, which finished the coexistence of two different procedures in theory. At the last part, the author analyzes the application of the two remedies after 1875 by two typical cases and points out though common law and equity were merged in theory, there were plenty distinctions of them in practice, especially in remedy field. The fourth part is to show the improvements and innovations of the two remedies in modern time in the form of case study. Common law is rigisent, but it did its utmost to improve its remedy application, according to the contract law cases and tort law cases, the author points out all of these improvements were effectively, however, they also slowly inevitably due to the trait of common law. On the other hand, the innovations of equitable remedies are exciting, the author instances Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order to points out equity performances it mission faithfully in modem time, it complement the slowness of common law"s improvements with its convenient and flexible trait. At last, the author points out all of the improvements and innovations points to the same object: adapt themselves to new era and to seek the biggest fair for people who suffered loss. The postscript is a summary of the essay, the author restates that apprehend the relation of common law and equity by study of remedies is a novel and visual way. Then, the author points out the confluence of common law and equity made their developments swifter and healthier. At the end of this part, the author comes to a conclusion: the reason for English law"s development is in phase is that the traits of common law and equity and their relationship which kept the continuity of English law and made it keep up with time.
|
