摘要各種涉外法律糾紛，因情形互異，各案間之法律關係時而複雜時而簡單，但凡是進入訴訟階段，總是得面臨至少三項問題，一是該案件應由何國法院管轄，亦即法院管轄權之選擇；二是管轄法院確定後，該法院依何國法律裁判，此即為法律適用之問題；三是該判決可否在國外執行以保障當事人私法上權益。本文主要在探討管轄權之限制－不方便法院原則，現今國際裁判管轄權擴張之趨勢已然成形，所導致的問題須以不方便法院原則來制衡，而法院究竟應如何去適用才不致於濫用不方便法院原則所賦予之的裁量權。是以，不方便法院原則的適用要件為何，即為本文之重點。因此，僅是知曉英國著名之The Spiliada案及美國經典之Gulf Oil案之判決內容外是不足夠的，透過如這兩個代表性的案例作為適用不方便法院原則之經緯，輔以其他相關法令的制定及相關案件之介紹及分析，始能得出操作不方便法院原則時要滿足的要件，而此包含前提要件、所須衡量之要素、及所要堅持的原則。由於目前國際上並未有直接就不方便法院原則規定之公約，是以，本文先就英國及美國之實務發展，分析不方便法院原則之意涵及適用，次而歸納整理我國對於不方便法院原則之學說意見與實務裁判，藉由兩者之比較分析，檢討我國審判實務之作法。亦嘗試透過英美兩國不方便法院原則之整理分析，盼能為將來我實務對於處理處理國際裁判管轄權過度擴張所產生之問題時，提出參考方向。 AbstractEach conflicts case has to confront at least three issues－ jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement. This thesis mainly explores the use of the doctrine of forum non conveniens as the limit of the jurisdiction of the court. Since more and more countries expand their jurisdictional power, problem of unfairness of trial is getting more serious. So courts are in need of discretionary power to limit their own jurisdictional exercises. This thesis discusses not only the leading cases of U.K. and the United States, but also how courts apply the forum non conveniens doctrine to cases, including the factors that courts have to balance, and the principles that courts have to follow. This thesis also suggests that Taiwan doesn’t have to copy foreign practices, because Taiwan has its own system of law. All Taiwan’s courts have to focus is the fairness of trial and the end of justice of each individual.
