我国《民事诉讼法》在第四编“涉外民事诉讼程序的特别规定”中规定了无条件的被告财产管辖权,司法实践亦遵循此规定,但被告财产管辖权在涉外民事诉讼管辖权领域是极富争议的问题。对此问题进行比较法考察,既有制度借鉴的理论意义,也有考察被告财产管辖权被国际社会接受程度的现实意义。德国、美国和欧盟布鲁塞尔管辖权体系是三个最有影响的涉外管辖权体系,比较法考察表明,被告财产管辖权在传统上都被承认,但近几十年普遍受到了限制。从现实主义出发,结合原、被告利益的平衡、各国竞相扩大管辖权的现实以及涉外判决执行的需要,我国应保留被告财产管辖权,但应视我国涉外管辖权体系的未来变动情况对其给予合理的限制。 China’s “Civil Procedure Law” stipulates unconditional defendants’ property jurisdiction in the fourth series of “Special Regulations on Foreign-related Civil Proceedings”, and judicial practice abides by this provision. However, the defendant’s property jurisdiction is in the field of foreign-related civil lawsuit jurisdiction It is a very controversial issue. This issue of comparative law inspection, both the theoretical reference to the system, but also to examine the accused property jurisdiction is accepted by the international community, the practical significance. The jurisdiction system of Brussels, Germany, the United States and the European Union is the most influential system of foreign-related jurisdiction. According to the comparative study, the defendant’s property jurisdiction has traditionally been recognized but has been generally limited in recent decades. Starting from the realism and combining the interests of the original and defendants, the reality of each country competing to expand its jurisdiction and the need of execution of foreign-related judgments, China should keep the defendant’s property jurisdiction, but should give it according to the future changes of our country’s foreign-related jurisdiction system Reasonable restrictions.