中柬公司董事权利义务比较研究

发布时间：2018-06-16 21:17

  本文选题：公司董事 + 董事权利　； 参考：《南京大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：伴随着现代公司的发展,公司治理结构正逐渐从"股东会中心主义"转变为"董事会中心主义"。董事在公司中的地位愈来愈提高,董事的权利也逐渐增强。董事作为公司的管理者及经营决策者,对公司的影响也日益凸显。在该背景下,理论界对董事相关问题的研究越来越多。不过,与董事地位提升、权利增强相伴随的是董事权利滥用的问题。董事作为公司的代理人,其为了个人私利而损害公司及股东和其他利害相关者的权益抑或在履行职责时给公司带来巨大损失,将产生大量的代理成本。为了解决董事滥用权利的问题,董事义务制度随之发展,该制度旨在规制董事的权利范围,使董事必须为了公司和股东整体利益的最大化而积极努力地履行职责。完善董事的权利义务分配有助于公司的发展,而该分配的完善绝大程度上取决于公司治理结构的改善。中国2005年修订的《公司法》,将董事的注意义务(勤勉义务)纳入了法律的范畴。立法在完善了董事忠实义务的基础上,弥补了董事注意义务的规定,该做法具有极大的进步意义。柬埔寨《商业企业法》也于同年正式实施,该法对董事制度作了较全面的规定,如董事有权管理公司的事业和业务。不过,该法有关董事义务的规定十分模糊,立法还存在诸多问题,如对董事忠实义务的规定过于原则,没有明确规定忠实义务的主体范围,于此同时,立法也缺乏信息公开和披露义务的规定等。然而,比较中国和柬埔寨两国的董事权利义务制度还是具有重大意义的。通过对两国董事制度法律规定的比较研究,本文发现两国的董事制度存在若干差异,在立法上,中国公司法有值得柬埔寨公司法借鉴的地方。因此,文章在比较两国董事权利与义务的同时,希望从中国法律中找到柬埔寨公司董事制度值得借鉴的立法经验,并探索相关的法律完善路径。本文以中柬两国公司董事权利和义务的法律规范为基本出发点,分析目前两国公司法的缺点及不足,同时,进一步关注其他国家的相关做法,思考构建一个系统规制董事权利义务的法律规范体系。本文不包括引言和结语,由以下三个部分组成:第一部分:中柬董事权利分析,这一部分首先从董事权利产生的法律基础入手,然后对董事的概念进行阐释,并论述董事权利的来源与范围。其次,对中柬董事的角色定位、董事的职权性质与边界进行了简要的分析,以及对公司董事权利分配的法律依据有一个基本和清晰的认识。最后,从董事的角色定位及权利分配的法律依据出发,重点探讨董事的权能制度。与此同时,通过研究公司机关理论,从公司内部权力分配与制衡的角度分析与讨论公司代表权的归属问题。第二部分:中柬董事义务分析,这部分首先从公司与董事之间法律关系的观点分析入手。董事与公司之间的关系存在两种学说:代理抑或信托说和委任说,通过对此两种观点的分析可以得出,无论在哪种学说下董事都对公司负有义务。其次,本文进一步结合董事义务的界定、义务的性质,实证性分析了司法实践中违反义务的判断标准。最后对中柬董事义务的确定及其内容进行了详细分析,并论证了柬埔寨董事义务存在的问题。第三部分:结合以上论述,这一部分主要是对法律规范和制度体系的角色进行分析,即对中柬两国的董事权利义务法律制度进行具体比较与分析。并在比较中柬董事制度的基础上,分析中国立法经验对柬埔寨的可借鉴性,最终找出柬埔寨公司立法的完善路径。
[Abstract]:With the development of modern companies, the corporate governance structure is gradually changing from "stockholder centralism" to "board centralism". The status of directors in the company is increasing and the directors' rights are gradually increasing. As the manager of the company and the decision-makers, the influence of the directors has become increasingly prominent. In this context, the theoretical circle There are more and more research on the issues related to the directors. However, with the promotion of the status of the directors, the enhancement of the rights is accompanied by the abuse of the rights of the directors. As the agent of the company, the director will damage the rights and interests of the company and the shareholders and other stakeholders for personal interests or bring huge losses to the company when performing its duties. A large number of agency costs. In order to solve the problem of the abuse of the director's rights, the system of directors' obligation has developed. The system aims to regulate the scope of the rights of the directors and make it necessary for the directors to perform their duties actively and actively to maximize the interests of the company and the shareholders. The perfection of the company is largely determined by the improvement of the corporate governance structure. In 2005, the company law revised by China has incorporated the duty of attention (duty of diligence) of the director into the category of the law. On the basis of perfecting the directors' duty of loyalty, the legislation has made up for the regulations of the directors' duty of attention. This practice has great progressive significance. Kampuchea < commerce. The law of the enterprise is also formally implemented in the same year. The law makes a more comprehensive provision on the director system, such as the director has the right to manage the business and business of the company. However, the provisions of the law on Directors' obligations are very vague. There are many problems in the legislation, such as the principles of the duty of loyalty to the directors, and there is no definite scope for the subject of the duty of loyalty. At the same time, the legislation also lacks the provision of information disclosure and disclosure obligations. However, it is of great significance to compare the rights and obligations of the directors of China and Kampuchea. Through a comparative study of the legal provisions of the two countries' directors' system, this paper finds that there are some differences in the degree of board of directors of the two countries. In legislation, the law of China has a law. Therefore, in comparison with the rights and obligations of the directors of the two countries, the article hopes to find the legislative experience that the Cambodia Co director system should learn from the Chinese law and explore the relevant ways of perfecting the law. This article is based on the legal norms of the rights and obligations of the directors of the two countries and Cambodia as the basic starting point. This article does not include the introduction and conclusion, which is composed of the following three parts: the first part: the analysis of the rights of the director of China and Cambodia, this part begins with the power of the director. On the basis of the legal basis of profit, the concept of the director is explained, and the source and scope of the director's rights are discussed. Secondly, the role of the director of China and Cambodia, the character of the director's power and the boundary are briefly analyzed, as well as a basic and clear understanding of the legal basis for the distribution of the rights of the directors. Finally, from the director On the basis of the role orientation and the legal basis for the distribution of rights, it focuses on the power and energy system of the directors. At the same time, the second part is the analysis and discussion of the ownership of the company's representative power through the study of the company's agency theory, from the point of view of the distribution and balance of the internal power of the company. There are two theories in the relationship between the directors and the company: agent or trust and appointment, through the analysis of the two views, no matter what kind of doctrine the director is obligated to the company. Secondly, this article further combines the definition of the director's obligation, the nature of the obligation, and the empirical analysis The judgment standard of the breach of duty in the judicial practice. Finally, the determination and content of the obligations of the director of Kampuchea and Cambodia are analyzed in detail, and the problems existing in the obligations of the directors of the directors are demonstrated. The third part: this part is mainly the analysis of the role of the legal norms and system system, that is, the directors of China and Cambodia. The legal system of rights and obligations is compared and analyzed in detail. On the basis of comparing the Chinese and Cambodian system of directors, this paper analyzes the reference of China's legislative experience to Kampuchea, and finally finds out the perfect path of the Cambodia Co legislation.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.291.91;D933.5;DD912.29
，

本文编号：2028139