The New Validity Rules in Chinese Civil Code and Chinese State-owned Enterprises’ Freedom in Contracting: One Step Too Far

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Hao Jiang, Antonia von Appen
{"title":"The New Validity Rules in Chinese Civil Code and Chinese State-owned Enterprises’ Freedom in Contracting: One Step Too Far","authors":"Hao Jiang, Antonia von Appen","doi":"10.1093/cjcl/cxac024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Upon the enactment of Chinese Civil Code, the previous rules that allowed for enlarged state power to annul contracts such as General Principles of Civil Law article 58 §3 and Contract Law article 52 §1-§2 were dropped. Chinese law has gone one step further in promoting freedom of contract. The validity rules now have been streamlined and the previous contradictory and inconsistent treatment between civil juristic acts and contracts, state and private parties eliminated. However, the new legislative technique will unavoidably facilitate asset stripping, the very reason that the paternalistic rules were in place. Through a historical, doctrinal and logical lens, we will show why there can be no effective model of a neutral set of validity rules that could deal with state-owned enterprises in a less than free and competitive market. The only way to make it work is to have SOEs exit most of the competitive industries and focus on areas that serve the policy goals. Also, paternalistic rules concerning the validity of a contract in trading state-assets should be enacted either in the Civil Code or through special legislations and applicable to government, state-owned enterprises and private parties alike.","PeriodicalId":42366,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxac024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Upon the enactment of Chinese Civil Code, the previous rules that allowed for enlarged state power to annul contracts such as General Principles of Civil Law article 58 §3 and Contract Law article 52 §1-§2 were dropped. Chinese law has gone one step further in promoting freedom of contract. The validity rules now have been streamlined and the previous contradictory and inconsistent treatment between civil juristic acts and contracts, state and private parties eliminated. However, the new legislative technique will unavoidably facilitate asset stripping, the very reason that the paternalistic rules were in place. Through a historical, doctrinal and logical lens, we will show why there can be no effective model of a neutral set of validity rules that could deal with state-owned enterprises in a less than free and competitive market. The only way to make it work is to have SOEs exit most of the competitive industries and focus on areas that serve the policy goals. Also, paternalistic rules concerning the validity of a contract in trading state-assets should be enacted either in the Civil Code or through special legislations and applicable to government, state-owned enterprises and private parties alike.
民法典效力新规则与国有企业承包自由:一步之遥
《中国民法典》颁布后,以前允许扩大国家权力废除合同的规定,如《民法通则》第58条第3款和《合同法》第52条第1款至第2款被废除。中国法律在促进合同自由方面又向前迈进了一步。现在,有效性规则已经简化,以前民事法律行为和合同、国家和私人之间相互矛盾和不一致的处理方式已经消除。然而,新的立法技术将不可避免地促进资产剥离,这正是家长式规则存在的原因。通过历史、理论和逻辑的视角,我们将展示为什么在一个不那么自由和竞争的市场中,不可能有一套中立的有效性规则的有效模型来处理国有企业。让它发挥作用的唯一方法是让国有企业退出大多数竞争性行业,专注于为政策目标服务的领域。此外,关于国有资产交易合同有效性的家长式规则应在《民法典》中或通过特别立法制定,并适用于政府、国有企业和私营部门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (CJCL) is an independent, peer-reviewed, general comparative law journal published under the auspices of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL) and in association with the Silk Road Institute for International and Comparative Law (SRIICL) at Xi’an Jiaotong University, PR China. CJCL aims to provide a leading international forum for comparative studies on all disciplines of law, including cross-disciplinary legal studies. It gives preference to articles addressing issues of fundamental and lasting importance in the field of comparative law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信