【作者】 刘学平；

【导师】 韩长印；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 破产失权制度是破产责任约束机制的重要组成部分，也是发挥破产制度应有作用之保障。责任感的淡薄和责任追究机制的缺失，可以说是制约中国自然人破产制度迟迟不能出台的瓶颈。商品经济的发展和市场竞争的激烈使得企业经营者享有更为广泛的权力和自由，伴随者权力的扩大，经营者的义务和责任也应相应的加重，而中国企业破产的责任承担形式和追究机制很不完善，经营者极尽恶意经营和利益输送之能事，经营者的权利与义务严重失衡。破产失权制度正是在破产的最后关口建立一种责任追究和责任威慑机制从而对破产人或准破产人进行恰当的约束，平衡其权利义务。破产失权制度本身不能由破产法一概规定再加上民众和学界对“失权”的误解，都导致了失权制度的支离零碎及不甚完善，制约了立法和实践的发展。本文对破产失权制度进行了学理上的分析和研究并提出了完善我国破产失权制度的设想，分为引言、正文和结语三大部分，正文分为四部分：第一部分是破产失权制度的概述。本部分通过梳理各国关于破产失权的法律规定，把破产失权的内涵界定为债务人或准债务人因受破产清算宣告而在一定期间丧失从事公务型、经营型和信誉型职业的资格，其性质为权利能力上的限制，阐释了破产失权制度具有防止“自愿”破产与“再犯”的独特功能和保证债权实现、促进诚信的一般功能，并比较了其与刑法前科等制度的异同。第二部分叙述了破产立法理念的历史沿革与破产失权制度的形成。社会的进步、文明的彰显及权利的普遍化促使破产有罪向破产无罪、破产不免责向破产免责的历史嬗变，也最终为破产失权制度的形成提供了社会、经济和心理基础。第三部分对破产失权的正当性进行了价值分析。破产失权制度不仅没有侵害人权，而且还保障了多数人的人权。破产人享有破产免责利益，准破产人通过法人人格独立制度与投资者有限责任原则享有事实上的免责利益，保证某些行业的生存及纯洁性是破产失权存在的哲理基础。第四部分表达了对破产失权制度的一些立法设想。破产失权应该采取“当然失权附以宽松复权条件”的模式，主体包括破产人和准破产人，失权范围应该根据失权的性质和职业的分类及特点分为公务型、经营型和信誉型三种职业。破产失权裁定对失权人和第三人产生拘束力，并以复权程序作为救济机制，复权主体应与失权<WP=5>主体一致，复权事由以“行为违法性”作为主要判断标准，并应由法院按照特别程序予以审查。本文以“责任”为本位，采用了社会学、经济学、政治学和心理学等分析方法，，对破产失权制度进行了多角度跨学科的研究。更多还原

【Abstract】 The system of disqualification for Bankruptcy is an important component of bankrupt duty restriction mechanism, and also makes sure that the due effect of bankruptcy be brought into play. The public responsibility become indifferent and it is short of the mechanism that investigates and fixes liabilities, so to speak, which is the bottle-neck that prevents the Chinese individual bankruptcy system from coming on all the while. Both the development of the commodity economy and the impetuosity of market competition cause corporational operator to take broader power and more ample freedom. The enlargement of corporational operator should be in line with his duty and liability, however, owing to the absence of the forms and the fixed mechanism about responsibility for Business Corporation bankrupt, the operators manage maliciously as well as figure for benefit at their best. The system throws proper restriction on bankrupts or quasi-bankrupts and balances their rights and obligations just through establishing one responsibility fixed and overawed mechanism in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy law cannot provide the system totally; in addition the public and the theoretic kingdom misapprehend "disqualification", which results in the fragmentariness and faultiness of the system, and prevents the legislation and practice from developing. This paper makes doctrinal analysis and research on the system of disqualification for bankrupt, moreover puts forward some suggestions, which is divided into three parts including foreword, main body and concluding remarks in total 46,000 words approximately. The main body is composed of four branch sections as follows:First section is a summary of the system of disqualification for bankruptcy. By way of combing out the current regulation and theory about the system of disqualification for bankruptcy, this section defines its connotation as individual debtors or quasi-debtors under the sentence of bankruptcy liquidation lose the qualifications of being engaged in public affairs, management and other credit-standing occupations. The quality of disqualification for bankrupt belongs to the restrictions in the legal capacity. This section explains that the system either plays unusual role in avoiding "voluntary" bankrupt or has common function of ensuring claims’ realization and promoting good faith, also compares it with the system of penal record of previous crime and so on.Second section narrates the history changes of the bankruptcy law doctrine and the formation of the disqualification system. In addition to the advancement of society and the protrusion of civilization, vague generalization of human’s rights cause changes of the bankruptcy concept, e.g. from<WP=7>" bankruptcy is guilty of a crime" to "bankruptcy is innocent", and "responsibility is not exempted in bankruptcy" to "bankruptcy discharge", these changes finally provide social, economic and psychological base for the formation of the disqualification system.Third section analyses the justness of the disqualification for bankruptcy. The system does not infringe humans’ rights, but just safeguard humans’ rights of the majority. The disqualification for bankruptcy does not depend on "subjective fault", it can entirely achieve the object that rewards and punishment is clearly demarcated by procedural design. Bankrupts enjoy benefits from discharge; quasi-bankrupts enjoy essential benefits from "discharge" through the doctrine of corporate personality independence and the principle of limited investor; for the sake of ensure the survival and immaculacy of some vocations, which are philosophic bases of the existence of the disqualification system.Fourth section expresses some legislation suggestions about the system .it should adopt the model of "certain disqualification with relax rehabilitation conditions", the subject of disqualification includes bankrupts and quasi-bankrupts, the disqualification should means not being engaged in three types of public affairs, management and other credit-standing occupations according t更多还原