论股东表决权协议的正当性基础

发布时间：2018-03-05 19:18

本文选题：股东表决权协议　切入点：正当性基础　出处：《中国政法大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 股东表决权协议早在第一次世界大战之前就已经出现,各主要国家和地区的公司法对其效力的态度一般都经历了从禁止到许可的过程。虽然我国公司实践中已经出现了股东表决权协议的运用,但由于我国并没有相关立法对其加以规定,所以法院将如何认定股东表决权协议的效力是值得我们探讨的问题,而这个问题归根结底是对股东表决权协议正当性的考量,本文将紧紧围绕这一主题分为五个部分展开。第一部分,股东表决权协议的含义界定。该部分分析了股东表决权协议的概念,旨在阐述股东表决权协议的产生根源及运作机理。此外,本部分通过对股东表决权协议制度与相关制度的比较,进而说明作为公司控制权争夺工具之一的股东表决权协议制度具有不可替代的地位。第二部分,股东表决权协议正当性的历史基础。在对主要国家和地区对股东表决权协议效力态度转变的理论源头剖析中,明了传统公司法理论对股东表决权协议效力否认的理由和现代公司法理论对股东表决权协议效力肯认的理由,从而进一步厘清作为股东表决权协议客体的表决权的性质和股东表决权协议的本质。第三部分,股东表决权协议正当性的实践基础。笔者从五个方面阐述了股东表决权协议的功能,从而体现了股东表决权协议制度的建立在现代公司控制和股东大会运营中具有的重要现实意义。第四部分,股东表决权协议正当性的理论基础。从契约正义观角度,笔者论证了肯认股东表决权协议效力的理论基础。在契约正义观的价值冲突解决原则的指导下,股东表决权协议所涉的两个价值的博弈结果是牺牲安全价值,巩固自由价值,肯定股东表决权协议的效力。但自由不是无边界的,笔者认为应该对缔结股东表决权协议的主体作一定的限制,为缔结股东表决权协议的自由划定一个初步的界限。第五部分,股东表决权协议正当性的效力基础。以公司法中国家强制的正当性与合理性原则为着眼点,笔者进一步论证了不可断然否定股东表决权协议效力的理由:当程序性的国家强制和事后的国家强制可以对股东表决权协议中可能出现的私人强制进行防阻时,就不应该选择实体性的国家强制和事前的国家强制否定股东表决权协议的效力。同时,笔者提出应该从股东表决权协议的内容和形式两个方面对股东表决权协议的效力加以限制,进一步明确缔结股东表决权协议的自由的界限。
[Abstract]:The shareholder voting agreement already existed long before the first World War. The attitude of the company law of the major countries and regions to its effectiveness has generally gone through the process from prohibition to license. Although the application of shareholder voting agreement has already appeared in the company practice of our country, However, since China does not have relevant legislation to regulate it, how will the court determine the validity of the shareholder voting agreement is a question that we should explore, and this issue is, in the final analysis, a consideration of the legitimacy of the shareholder voting agreement. This paper will focus on this theme is divided into five parts. The first part is the definition of shareholder voting agreement. This part analyzes the concept of shareholder voting agreement, aiming to explain the origin and operation mechanism of shareholder voting agreement. Through the comparison between the system of shareholder voting agreement and the related system, this part shows that the system of shareholder voting agreement, as one of the tools for corporate control, has an irreplaceable position. The second part, the historical basis of the legitimacy of shareholder voting agreement. In the theoretical source analysis of the change of attitude towards the validity of shareholder voting agreement in major countries and regions, The reasons why the traditional company law theory denies the validity of the shareholder voting agreement and the reason why the modern company law theory is willing to recognize the validity of the shareholder voting agreement are stated. Further clarify the nature of voting rights as the object of shareholder voting agreement and the nature of shareholder voting agreement. The third part, the practical basis of the legitimacy of shareholder voting agreement. The author expounds the function of shareholder voting agreement from five aspects. Therefore, the establishment of shareholder voting agreement system has important practical significance in modern company control and shareholders' general meeting operation. Part 4th, the theoretical basis of the legitimacy of the shareholder voting agreement. From the perspective of contractual justice, the author demonstrates the theoretical basis of the validity of the agreement. The result of the game between the two values involved in the shareholder voting agreement is to sacrifice the security value, consolidate the free value, affirm the validity of the shareholder voting agreement, but freedom is not borderless, The author thinks that the main body of concluding shareholder voting agreement should be restricted and a preliminary limit should be drawn for the freedom of concluding shareholder voting agreement. Part 5th, the basis of validity of shareholder voting agreement. Focusing on the principles of legitimacy and reasonableness of state compulsion in company law, The author further demonstrates the reason why the validity of the shareholder voting agreement cannot be categorically denied: when the procedural state coercion and the subsequent state compulsion can prevent the private coercion that may occur in the shareholder voting agreement, We should not choose substantive state coercion or prior state compulsion to deny the validity of shareholder voting rights agreement. At the same time, The author puts forward that the validity of shareholder voting agreement should be restricted from two aspects: the content and form of shareholder voting agreement, and the boundary of freedom of concluding shareholder voting agreement should be further clarified.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D922.291.91

【共引文献】