【摘要】：吉本斯訴奧格登案,又被稱為汽船壟斷案,發(fā)生于1824年的美國。18世紀(jì)末,隨著英國工業(yè)革命的擴(kuò)展,蒸汽機(jī)傳入美國,帶動(dòng)了美國各個(gè)行業(yè)的發(fā)展,其中最具影響力的就是汽船的誕生,在約翰·菲奇(John Fich)、詹姆斯·拉姆齊(James Rumsey)、羅伯特·富爾頓(Robert Fulton)、約翰·史蒂芬斯(John Stevens)等人的努力下,美國汽船行業(yè)逐漸興起,但由于法制不完善,美國汽船航運(yùn)處于各自壟斷狀態(tài)中,富爾頓和利文斯頓壟斷了紐約州的汽船航運(yùn)權(quán),引起各界不滿,反壟斷情緒高漲。利文斯頓和富爾頓相繼去世后,奧格登成為汽船壟斷者的代言人,吉本斯因?yàn)槠瑝艛嗪图易寮m紛最終向奧格登發(fā)起挑戰(zhàn),將他告至最高法院,最高法院大法官馬歇爾判決紐約汽船壟斷專營法違憲,富爾頓、奧格登等人的汽船壟斷專營權(quán)不合法,而吉本斯獲得了自由的汽船經(jīng)營權(quán),從此美國各州水域解放,商業(yè)、貿(mào)易和交通運(yùn)輸自由發(fā)展。本文將從政治環(huán)境、交通發(fā)展、法制建設(shè)等三個(gè)方面,分析吉本斯案產(chǎn)生的時(shí)代背景;以反汽船壟斷斗爭(zhēng)為主線,結(jié)合經(jīng)濟(jì)糾紛、家庭糾紛、地方人文特色,大量運(yùn)用書信、傳記等材料分析案件產(chǎn)生的原因和進(jìn)程;結(jié)合當(dāng)時(shí)的報(bào)刊雜志、名人評(píng)論、新聞媒體,分析該案的社會(huì)反響;結(jié)合“商業(yè)條款”的相關(guān)判例分析吉本斯案的法律影響,結(jié)合此后聯(lián)邦與州的權(quán)利關(guān)系、交通運(yùn)輸、商業(yè)貿(mào)易的發(fā)展?fàn)顩r,分析該案在中央權(quán)力的加強(qiáng)、國內(nèi)市場(chǎng)的統(tǒng)一等方面的影響。本文希望通過對(duì)吉本斯案的解析,不僅能展示“吉本斯案”在美國法制史上里程碑式的歷史地位,更能為國人了解美國建國初期科技創(chuàng)新、社會(huì)發(fā)展、歷史變革等提供一個(gè)視角,為中國特色社會(huì)主義的法制、經(jīng)濟(jì)建設(shè)提供一種經(jīng)驗(yàn)。
[Abstract]:Gibbons v. Ogden, also known as the Steamboat Monopoly case, took place in the United States in 1824. At the end of the 18th century, with the expansion of the British Industrial Revolution, steam engines were introduced into the United States, driving the development of various industries in the United States. The most influential of these was the birth of the steamboat, with the efforts of (John Fich), (John Fich), James Ramsay (James Rumsey), Robert Fulton (Robert Fulton), John Stephens (John Stevens) and others. American steamship industry is rising gradually, but because of imperfect legal system, American steamship shipping is in their respective monopoly state. Fulton and Livingston monopolize the shipping right of New York State, which causes discontent and upsurge of anti-monopoly sentiment. After the deaths of Livingston and Fulton, Ogden became a spokesman for steamboat monopolists, and Gibbons eventually challenged Ogden to the Supreme Court because of steamboat monopolies and family disputes. Supreme Court Justice Marshall ruled that the New York Steamboat Monopoly Act was unconstitutional, that Fulton and Ogden's monopoly on steamers was illegal, and that Gibbons was granted the right to operate the steamboat freely, thus liberating and commercial from the waters of the states of the United States. Free development of trade and transportation. This paper will analyze the background of the Gibens case from three aspects: political environment, traffic development and legal system construction. Taking the fight against steamboat monopoly as the main line, combining economic disputes, family disputes, local humanistic characteristics, a large number of letters, biographies and other materials to analyze the cause and process of the case; Combined with the newspapers and magazines, celebrity reviews, news media, analysis of the social repercussions of the case; Combined with the relevant jurisprudence of the "Commercial Clause" to analyze the legal impact of the Gibbons case, combining the power relations between the Federation and the state, the development of transportation and commercial trade, and analyzing the strengthening of the case in the central authority, Domestic market unity and other aspects of the impact. This paper hopes that through the analysis of the Gibbons case, it will not only show the landmark historical status of the "Gibbons case" in the history of American legal system, but also provide a better understanding of the scientific and technological innovations and social development of the United States in the early years of the founding of the United States. Historical change provides an experience for the legal system and economic construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西華師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：K712.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 鄭鵬程;;美國規(guī)制地方保護(hù)主義法律制度研究[J];中國法學(xué);2010年02期

2 張麗霞;;美國憲法州際貿(mào)易條款演進(jìn)的技術(shù)分析[J];鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年03期

3 馮川;;美國州際貿(mào)易調(diào)控權(quán)力研究[J];南京大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2006年01期

4 任東來;美國的立國之本和強(qiáng)國之道[J];博覽群書;2005年04期

5 張千帆;美國聯(lián)邦政府對(duì)州際貿(mào)易的調(diào)控[J];南京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué).人文科學(xué).社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年02期

6 曾爾恕;論美國憲法中的“貿(mào)易條款”[J];政法論壇;1996年03期

7 潘華仿;略論美國憲法的聯(lián)邦主義原則和法律體系[J];比較法研究;1994年Z1期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 劉姿驛;約翰·馬歇爾的外交與司法生涯[D];山東師范大學(xué);2012年

2 安思源;美國憲法上“貿(mào)易條款”解釋的歷史演變[D];北京大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2301193