国际域名争议专家裁决机制研究
|
摘要
域名是网络环境下提供任何服务的前提和基础，为快速有效地解决域名争议，互联网络环境下建立与发展了域名争议专家裁决机制这一新型解决民商事争议方式。在国际域名争议专家裁决机制中由于大量涉外因素的存在，以及域名管理机构、注册机构、争议解决机构、专家的非国内化特点，使得国际域名争议专家裁决机制在一定程度上形成了与有关国内法规定的冲突，并引发一些相应的法律问题。本文通过对国际域名争议专家裁决机制中的研究，主要包括对法律适用、相关诉讼的管辖权、注册管理机构及争议解决机构的可诉性等问题的研究，旨在推动专家裁决机制的健康发展以有效保障当事人在专家裁决机制中的应有权益。
本文分五个部分来展开对国际域名争议专家裁决机制中的研究。第一部分为国际域名争议专家裁决机制概述，通过对国际域名争议专家裁决机制的产生、基本特点及法律性质的阐述来分析域名争议专家裁决机制中所涉及的主要法律问题；第二至第四部分则依次分别从国际域名争议专家裁决机制规范体系的性质、法律适用问题、司法管辖权问题等三个领域就域名争议解决专家裁决机制所可能涉及的具体法律问题进行了探讨，并就完善该机制的法律适用规则、避免机制中所形成的司法管辖权冲突等方面问题提出了相应的意见与建议。此外针对国际域名管理、注册、争议解决机构普遍通过格式条款来排除当事人对其提起诉讼的可能性这一现象，本文第五部分通过对国际域名管理、注册、争议解决机构可诉性的理论分析与UDRP规范体系中的免责条款效力分析来论证了国际域名管理、注册、争议解决机构的可诉性问题。
Domain name is the premise and foundation of any service provided under cyber circumstance. In order to solve the disputes of Domain name, as a new type of solution of civil and commercial disputes, panel's solution mechanism of domain name disputes has been established and developed under cyber circumstance. In panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes, because of the existence of plenty foreign factors and the de-nationization characteristics of domain name administrators, registrars, dispute solution providers and panelists, panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes causes some conflicts of law and regulation of relevant countries in some degree and brings about corresponding legal problems. This thesis aims to promote the beneficent development of panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes and protect the due privileges of parties through research on relevant legal problems in panel's solution mechanism of international domain name dispu
tes, including application of law, jurisdiction of relevant suitcases and actionability of administrators and dispute solution providers.
This thesis is divided into five parts to demonstrate the research on panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes. The first part is the outline of panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes, mainly discussing the main legal problems in panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes through demonstration of derivation, basic characteristics and legal property of this mechanism. The second, third and fourth parts discuss the possible problems from three concrete fields of regulations' property, application of laws and jurisdiction in sequence and bring forth corresponding opinions and suggestions of improving application rules of laws and avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction. Furthermore, as to the phenomenon of administrators', registrars' and providers' using standard clauses to eliminate the possibility of the parties' suit against them, the fifth part demonstrates the actionability of international domain name administrators, registrars and disput
e solution providers through analyses of jurisprudence and legal effect of immunity clauses in UDRP regulation system.
本文分五个部分来展开对国际域名争议专家裁决机制中的研究。第一部分为国际域名争议专家裁决机制概述，通过对国际域名争议专家裁决机制的产生、基本特点及法律性质的阐述来分析域名争议专家裁决机制中所涉及的主要法律问题；第二至第四部分则依次分别从国际域名争议专家裁决机制规范体系的性质、法律适用问题、司法管辖权问题等三个领域就域名争议解决专家裁决机制所可能涉及的具体法律问题进行了探讨，并就完善该机制的法律适用规则、避免机制中所形成的司法管辖权冲突等方面问题提出了相应的意见与建议。此外针对国际域名管理、注册、争议解决机构普遍通过格式条款来排除当事人对其提起诉讼的可能性这一现象，本文第五部分通过对国际域名管理、注册、争议解决机构可诉性的理论分析与UDRP规范体系中的免责条款效力分析来论证了国际域名管理、注册、争议解决机构的可诉性问题。
Domain name is the premise and foundation of any service provided under cyber circumstance. In order to solve the disputes of Domain name, as a new type of solution of civil and commercial disputes, panel's solution mechanism of domain name disputes has been established and developed under cyber circumstance. In panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes, because of the existence of plenty foreign factors and the de-nationization characteristics of domain name administrators, registrars, dispute solution providers and panelists, panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes causes some conflicts of law and regulation of relevant countries in some degree and brings about corresponding legal problems. This thesis aims to promote the beneficent development of panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes and protect the due privileges of parties through research on relevant legal problems in panel's solution mechanism of international domain name dispu
tes, including application of law, jurisdiction of relevant suitcases and actionability of administrators and dispute solution providers.
This thesis is divided into five parts to demonstrate the research on panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes. The first part is the outline of panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes, mainly discussing the main legal problems in panel's solution mechanism of international domain name disputes through demonstration of derivation, basic characteristics and legal property of this mechanism. The second, third and fourth parts discuss the possible problems from three concrete fields of regulations' property, application of laws and jurisdiction in sequence and bring forth corresponding opinions and suggestions of improving application rules of laws and avoiding conflicts of jurisdiction. Furthermore, as to the phenomenon of administrators', registrars' and providers' using standard clauses to eliminate the possibility of the parties' suit against them, the fifth part demonstrates the actionability of international domain name administrators, registrars and disput
e solution providers through analyses of jurisprudence and legal effect of immunity clauses in UDRP regulation system.
引文
[1]Peter Drahoe. A philosophy of ip. Partmouth: Partmouth Publishing Co, 1996
[2]Carlo Piana. Italy to implement a new domain name registration law. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2000, (7): 132～136
[3]Dawn Osborne. Domain names-fair or foul?. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2000, (6): 85～89
[4]P Narayanan. Trade mark cases. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1985
[5]郭卫华，金朝武，王静．网络中的法律问题及其对策．第1版．北京：法律出版社，2001
[6]邓炯．规范域名抢注的国际立法新发展．法律科学，2001，(1)：41～46
[7]胡建淼．行政法学．第1版．北京：法律出版社，1998
[8]Henry Campbell Black. Black's law dictionary. ST Paulminn: West Group Publishing Co, 1979
[9]邵沙平，余敏友．国际法问题专论．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2002
[10]Ole Lando. The lex mereatoria in international commercial arbitration. International and Comparative Law Quartly, 1985, 34 (2): 752～755
[11]中国社会科学院法学研究所民法研究室．外国仲裁法．第1版．北京：中国社会科学出版社，1982
[12]Charles L Evans. International commercial arbitration: a comparison of legal regimes. Texas International Law Journal, 1973, (8): 20～25
[13]Symeonides. Private international law at the end of 20th century:progress or regress?. In: Proc of the 15th session of International Academy of Comparative Law. Bristol, 1998
[14]郭玉军，车英．世纪之初国际私法的回顾与展望．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2002
[15]李步云．法理学．第1版．北京：经济科学出版社，2000
[16]卡佩莱蒂．比较法教学与研究：方法与目的．见：比较法学的新动向．北京：北京大学出版社，1993
[17]梁西．国际法．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2000
[18]朱景文．关于法律与全球化的几个问题．法学，1998，(3)：67～69
[19]谷春德．西方法律思想史．第1版．北京：中国人民大学出版社，2000
[20]黄进，程卫东．“九五”期间中国国际私法研究的回顾与展望．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2001
[21]魏振瀛．民法．第1版．北京：北京大学出版社，2000
[22]韩德培．国际私法新论．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1997
[23]余劲松，吴志攀．国际经济法．第1版．北京：北京大学出版社，2000
[24]Filip Dely. International business law and lex mercatoria. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co, 1992
[25]郑远民．现代商人法研究．第1版．北京：法律出版社，2001
[26]何其生．冲突法的回应与变革——由美国与欧盟等的立法看电子商务冲突法的发展．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2002
[27]孙维佳．欧盟电子商务立法的框架与特点．法学杂志，2000，(5)：33～36
[28]肖永平，王霖．论网络版权侵权的法律适用．见：网络经济与法律论坛(第一卷)．北京：中国检察出版社，2002
[29]李双元．国际私法(冲突法篇)．第2版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2001
[30]韩健．现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践．第2版．北京：法律出版社，2000
[31]肖永平．肖永平论冲突法．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2002
[32]Don R Pember. Mass media law. Dubuque: Wm C Brown Publishers, 1990
[33][法]埃马纽埃尔．法国与欧洲信息技术法律实务指南．第1版．北京：中国法制出版社，2000
[34]余先予．国际私法教程．第1版．北京：中国财政经济出版社，1998
[35]Eric A Posner. Economic analysis of contract law-after three decades:success or failure?. The Yale Law Journal, 2003, (1): 829～834
[36]Morris. The conflict of laws. London: Stevens and Sons, 1984
[37]Reese. Restate of the law, second, conflict of laws. Washington: American Law Institute Publisher, 1971
[38]黄进，宋连斌，徐前权．仲裁法学．修订本．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2002
[39]韩德培．中国冲突法研究．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1993
[40]黄进．国际私法．第1版．北京：法律出版社，1999
[41]沈涓．海牙《民商事管辖权和外国判决公约》(草案)与中国相关法律之比较研究．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2001
[42]张楚．外国电子商务法．第1版．北京：北京邮电大学出版社，2000
[43]张楚．电子商务法初论．第1版．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000
[44][美]博登海默．法理学：法律哲学与法律方法．第1版．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1999
[45]Norman Vieira. Constitutional civil rights. ST Paulminn: West Group Publishing Co, 1999
[46]黄进．国家及其财产管辖豁免的几个悬而未决的问题．中国法学，2001，(4)：140～146
[47]郑远民，易志斌．对电子认证机构责任机制的法律思考．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2002
[48]薛虹．网络时代的知识产权法．第1版．北京：法律出版社，2000
[49]郭寿康，赵秀文．国际经济贸易仲裁法．第1版．北京：中国法制出版社，1999
[50]Jonathan Rosenoer. Famous trademarks. Cyber Law, 1996, (2): 45～48
[51]Beth Simone Noveck. Designing deliberative democracy in cyberspace:the role of the cyber-lawyer. Journal of Science&Technology Law, 2003, (9): 2～6
[52]Jonathan Rosenoer. Coded speech. Cyber Law, 1996, (3): 22～27
[53]D F Cavers. A critique of the Choice of law problem. Harward Law Review, 1933, 47 (2): 173～179
[2]Carlo Piana. Italy to implement a new domain name registration law. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2000, (7): 132～136
[3]Dawn Osborne. Domain names-fair or foul?. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, 2000, (6): 85～89
[4]P Narayanan. Trade mark cases. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1985
[5]郭卫华，金朝武，王静．网络中的法律问题及其对策．第1版．北京：法律出版社，2001
[6]邓炯．规范域名抢注的国际立法新发展．法律科学，2001，(1)：41～46
[7]胡建淼．行政法学．第1版．北京：法律出版社，1998
[8]Henry Campbell Black. Black's law dictionary. ST Paulminn: West Group Publishing Co, 1979
[9]邵沙平，余敏友．国际法问题专论．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2002
[10]Ole Lando. The lex mereatoria in international commercial arbitration. International and Comparative Law Quartly, 1985, 34 (2): 752～755
[11]中国社会科学院法学研究所民法研究室．外国仲裁法．第1版．北京：中国社会科学出版社，1982
[12]Charles L Evans. International commercial arbitration: a comparison of legal regimes. Texas International Law Journal, 1973, (8): 20～25
[13]Symeonides. Private international law at the end of 20th century:progress or regress?. In: Proc of the 15th session of International Academy of Comparative Law. Bristol, 1998
[14]郭玉军，车英．世纪之初国际私法的回顾与展望．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2002
[15]李步云．法理学．第1版．北京：经济科学出版社，2000
[16]卡佩莱蒂．比较法教学与研究：方法与目的．见：比较法学的新动向．北京：北京大学出版社，1993
[17]梁西．国际法．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2000
[18]朱景文．关于法律与全球化的几个问题．法学，1998，(3)：67～69
[19]谷春德．西方法律思想史．第1版．北京：中国人民大学出版社，2000
[20]黄进，程卫东．“九五”期间中国国际私法研究的回顾与展望．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2001
[21]魏振瀛．民法．第1版．北京：北京大学出版社，2000
[22]韩德培．国际私法新论．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1997
[23]余劲松，吴志攀．国际经济法．第1版．北京：北京大学出版社，2000
[24]Filip Dely. International business law and lex mercatoria. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co, 1992
[25]郑远民．现代商人法研究．第1版．北京：法律出版社，2001
[26]何其生．冲突法的回应与变革——由美国与欧盟等的立法看电子商务冲突法的发展．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2002
[27]孙维佳．欧盟电子商务立法的框架与特点．法学杂志，2000，(5)：33～36
[28]肖永平，王霖．论网络版权侵权的法律适用．见：网络经济与法律论坛(第一卷)．北京：中国检察出版社，2002
[29]李双元．国际私法(冲突法篇)．第2版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2001
[30]韩健．现代国际商事仲裁法的理论与实践．第2版．北京：法律出版社，2000
[31]肖永平．肖永平论冲突法．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，2002
[32]Don R Pember. Mass media law. Dubuque: Wm C Brown Publishers, 1990
[33][法]埃马纽埃尔．法国与欧洲信息技术法律实务指南．第1版．北京：中国法制出版社，2000
[34]余先予．国际私法教程．第1版．北京：中国财政经济出版社，1998
[35]Eric A Posner. Economic analysis of contract law-after three decades:success or failure?. The Yale Law Journal, 2003, (1): 829～834
[36]Morris. The conflict of laws. London: Stevens and Sons, 1984
[37]Reese. Restate of the law, second, conflict of laws. Washington: American Law Institute Publisher, 1971
[38]黄进，宋连斌，徐前权．仲裁法学．修订本．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2002
[39]韩德培．中国冲突法研究．第1版．武汉：武汉大学出版社，1993
[40]黄进．国际私法．第1版．北京：法律出版社，1999
[41]沈涓．海牙《民商事管辖权和外国判决公约》(草案)与中国相关法律之比较研究．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2001
[42]张楚．外国电子商务法．第1版．北京：北京邮电大学出版社，2000
[43]张楚．电子商务法初论．第1版．北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000
[44][美]博登海默．法理学：法律哲学与法律方法．第1版．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1999
[45]Norman Vieira. Constitutional civil rights. ST Paulminn: West Group Publishing Co, 1999
[46]黄进．国家及其财产管辖豁免的几个悬而未决的问题．中国法学，2001，(4)：140～146
[47]郑远民，易志斌．对电子认证机构责任机制的法律思考．见：中国国际私法与比较法年刊．北京：法律出版社，2002
[48]薛虹．网络时代的知识产权法．第1版．北京：法律出版社，2000
[49]郭寿康，赵秀文．国际经济贸易仲裁法．第1版．北京：中国法制出版社，1999
[50]Jonathan Rosenoer. Famous trademarks. Cyber Law, 1996, (2): 45～48
[51]Beth Simone Noveck. Designing deliberative democracy in cyberspace:the role of the cyber-lawyer. Journal of Science&Technology Law, 2003, (9): 2～6
[52]Jonathan Rosenoer. Coded speech. Cyber Law, 1996, (3): 22～27
[53]D F Cavers. A critique of the Choice of law problem. Harward Law Review, 1933, 47 (2): 173～179