The subject of this thesis is a comparative study of property preservation procedures that applied in interregional civil cases and interregional civil judicial assistance among the courts of Chinese three law districts,Based on the theory of interregional private law, the author puts forward the theory of separation of substantive jurisdiction, enforced jurisdiction and property preservation procedure jurisdiction, as well as the theory of jurisdiction of attachment,The author calls the court that exercises jurisdiction over the substantive judgment procedure of civil cases the Substantive Judgment Court, the court that exercises jurisdiction over enforcing the civil judgment, arbitral award and other legal documents is called Enforced Court, the court that exercises jurisdiction over property preservation ruling procedure is called Property Preservation Ruling Court, the court that exercises the jurisdiction of attachment is called Courtof Attachment, Courts in the Chinese three law districts have realized reciprocal recognition and enforcement of interregional civil judgments (in part) and arbitration awards, reciprocal entrustment and service of civil judicial documents, as well as reciprocal entrustment of investigation and collection of civil evidences, even reciprocal assistance in property preservation in interregional arbitral procedures (in part),However, it is completely unable to achieve interregional civil litigation reciprocal assistance in property preservation and interregional reciprocal recognition and enforcement of the rulings and orders of property preservation,There are two issues,The first is whether the effective substantive judgment made by the foreign substantivecourt, after assistedforeign substantivecourt to take property preservation measures by local property precervation ruling court, the substantive judgment can be recognized and enforced by the local property preservation ruling court in the future,The second is whether the effective substantive judgment made by the local substantivejudgment court, after the court took property preservation measures against the defendant or the preserved party's property outside the jurisdiction, the substantive judgment can be recognized and enforced by the foreign property precervation ruling courtin the future,These two issues are uncertain both in theory and in practice, Therefore, the courts in the Chinese three law districts cannot realize the free-flowing of rulings and orders of interregional property preservation, nor can they fully realize reciprocal assistance in property preservation, nor can they reach interregional civil judicial assistance arrangement in the field of property preservation,The reason behind them is that there are many interregional legal conflicts among Chinese three law districts,In order to find out the reasons, the author discusses the meanings of interregional civil cases, interregional judicial assistance in civil cases and interregional property preservation procedures through comparative studies, to demonstrates how the courts in Chinese three law districts applied interregional property preservation procedures content and mode, the conclusion is that Mainland China courts belong to the conservativeness, the Hong Kong SAR courts belong to open, the Macao SAR courts belong to relatively open,Interregional conflicts of law lead to conflicts in the interregional property preservation procedures applied by courts in the Chinese three law districts, including the conflicts of interregional civil jurisdictions, the conflicts of the examination and approval procedure of interregional property preservation, the conflicts of the enforced procedure of interregional property preservation, and the conflicts of the objection procedure of interregional property preservation, In order to find a solution, the author investigates the multiple jurisdictions countries and federal countries such as UK and US, to learn their specific practices in resolving the conflicts of interregional property preservation procedures, At the same time, by studying the EU, the HCCH, the UNCITRAL, the CMI&IMO and so on, to learn their specific practices in resolving the conflicts of transnational property preservation procedures between member states and contracting states, The experiences can be used as a reference to solve the conflicts in Chinese interregional property preservation procedures,The author presentsthe solutions of interregional conflicts of property preservation procedures in China, the idea of author is to through bold innovation absorbing reasonable experiences of other countries, other regions and international organizations, and put up with the project which has Chinese characteristics to solve the problems of interregional conflict of property preservation procedures in China, and to fill in the field of property preservation of interregional civil judicial assistance,The author thinks that it is necessary to make an overall plan, choose the most suitable and feasible solution path, and pay attention to the implementation step by step according to the principle of first easy, then difficult and step by step,It is necessary to apply the principles of international private law flexibly in the field of interregional private law, and to actively coordinate the national reform and opening up and the overall situation of the Two Centenary Goals, Therefore, the system and scheme design proposed by the author include that the courts of the Chinese three law districts all recognize the procedural jurisdiction of interregional property preservation as a relatively independent procedural jurisdiction,The courts in the Chinese three law districts must apply the local law fairly when adopting property preservation measures,The courts in the Chinese three law districts have unified the examining and deciding standards for the extraterritorial enforcement of property preservation measures,Courts in the Chinese three law districts have unanimously recognized the jurisdiction of attachment,On the premise of realizing the above goals, the Chinese three law districts can promote the interregional arbitration cases and interregional civil cases under the jurisdiction agreement in two steps, and reached the interregional civil judicial assistance arrangement of reciprocal assistance in property preservation across jurisdictions,Next to facilitate the interregional civil judicial assistance arrangements that over the comprehensive property preservation procedures in the courts of Chinese three law districts,After these goals had been successfully realized, the author puts forward a more long-term goal is about to the field of interregional private law and interregional judicial assistance, to develop a comprehensive legislative interpretation of interregional judicial assistance through the central legislature, namely the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, in order to solve the problems of interregional legal conflicts from the source, Thus, it paves the way for the free-flowing of the rulings and orders of interregional property preservation among the Chinese three law districts, and promotes the long-term goal of reciprocal recognition and enforcement of all civil and commercial case judgments, arbitration awards, preservation rulings and orders, as well as other legal documents with enforced contents among Chinese three law districts. Key Words: Chinese Three Law Districts, Interregional Private Law, Interregional Civil Cases, Interregional Civil Judicial Assistance, Property Preservation

本文主题是中國三法域的法院，在區際民事案件和區際民事司法協助之中適用的財產保全程序的比較研究。作者主要以區際私法理論作為基礎理論，提出實體管轄權、執行管轄權與財產保全程序管轄三權分離的理論，以及提出扣押管轄權理論。作者把民事案件實體判決程序的管轄法院稱為實體判決法院，把執行民事判決、仲裁裁決以及其他法律文書的管轄法院稱為執行法院，把財產保全裁決程序的管轄法院稱為財產保全裁決法院，把行使扣押管轄的法院稱為扣押法院。中國三法域的法院之間已經實現區際民事判決(部分)和區際仲裁裁決的相互認可和執行，區際民事司法文書的相互委託送達和區際民事證據的相互委託調查取證，甚至實現在區際仲裁程序(部分)中相互協助财產保全，但卻完全不能實現區際民事訴訟相互協助財產保全及區際相互認可和執行財產保全的裁決和命令。當中有兩個問题，第一是域内財產保全裁決法院在協助域外實體判決法院採取財產保全措施之後，該域外實體判決法院作出的生效判決，將來能否獲得域内財產保全裁決法院的認可和執行？第二是域内實體判決法院對被告或被保全人在域外的財產採取財產保全措施之後，該域內實體判決法院作出的生效判決，將來能否獲得域外保全裁決法院的認可和執行？在理論和實踐中這兩個問题都不確定，所以，當前在中國三法域的法院之間，既不能實現區際財產保全裁決和命令自由流動，又不能完全實現相互協助財產保全，也不能達成財產保全領域的區際民事司法協助安排，背後的原因是中國三法域之間存在諸多區際法律衝突因素。為了找出原因，作者通過比較研究來論述區際民事案件、區際民事司法協助、區際財產保全程序的含義，論證了中國三法域法院所適用的區際財產保全程序的内容和模式，得出結論是中國内地法院屬於保守型，香港特區法院屬於開放型，澳門特區法院屬於相對開放型。區際法律衝突因素導致中國三法域的法院所用的區際財產保全程序亦存在衝突，包括區際民事管轄權的衝突、區際財產保全審批程序的衝突、區際財產保全執行程序的衝突、區際財產保全異議程序的衝突等四方面的衝突。為了尋求解決方案，作者通過考察英國、美國等多法域國家、聯邦制國家，瞭解它們解決本國的區際財產保全程序衝突的具體做法；同時通過考察歐盟、海牙國際私法會議、聯合國國際貿易法委員會、國際海事委員會和國際海事組織等際組織，瞭解它們解決成員國、締約國之間跨國財產保全程序衝突的具體做法；汲取經驗作為解決中國區際財產保全程序衝突的参考和借鑒。作者提出了解決中國區際財產保全程序衝突的方案，作者的思路就是要通過大膽創新吸收借鑒其他國家和地區以及國際組織的合理經驗，拿出具有中國特色的方案來解決中國區際財產保全程序衝突的問题，並且要填補財產保全領域的區際民事司法協助的空白。作者認為要統籌兼顧，選擇最合適、最可行的解決路徑，按照先易後難和循序漸進來步步抓好落實。既要将國際私法原則變通適用在區際私法領域，又要主動服務國家改革開放和兩個 100年奮鬥目標的大局，為此，作者提出的制度和方案設計，包括中國三法域的法院都認可區際財產保全程序管轄權是相對獨立程序性管轄權；中國三法域的法院採取財產保全措施都必须公平適用法院地法；中國三法域的法院都要统一財產保全措施域外執行力的審查判斷標準；中國三法域的法院都要統一認可扣押管轄權。在實現上述目標的前提下，中國三法域可以分兩步推進區際仲裁案件和當事人協議管轄的區際民事案件兩大領域的案件，達成跨法域相互協助財產保全的區際民事司法協助安排；接著來就促成中國三法域的法院達成綜合性財產保全程序的區際民事司法協助安排。這些目標都成功實現之後，作者提出更長遠的目標就是在區際私法領域和區際司法協助領域，與時俱進地由中央立法機關即全國人大常委會制訂一部綜合性區際司法協助的立法解釋，從源頭上解決區際法律衝突的問题。如果得以實現，可以為區際財產保全的裁決和命令可以在中國三法域之間自由流動鋪平道路，推進中國三法域之間相互認可和執行全部民商事案件判決、仲裁裁決、保全的裁決和命令以及其他有強制執行效力的法律文書的遠景目標。 關鍵字： 中國三法域、區際私法、區際民事案件、區際民事司法協助、財產保全