摘 要股东通过协议约定公司治理事项和通过协议管理公司，在国外公司治理实践中是比较普遍的现象。但是我国理论和实践中对股东治理协议存在一定的误解。理论上通常将股东治理协议等同于股东协议，立法上没有对股东治理协议的形式以及内容作出清晰的规定。导致司法实践在处理相关纠纷时经常否定股东治理协议的效力。解决这一问题，需要结合公司治理机制的本质重新认识股东治理协议。实际上，股东治理协议是具有特定内容的公司内部治理文件。其是由全体股东达成的，以公司治理结构调整、公司内部权力的归属与分配、公司商业事务的经营管理以及董事和高管人员的任命与解任为内容，旨在约束公司、全体股东、董事和高级管理人员等公司内部人员的公司内部管理文件。因此无论是从内容还是从形式上看，股东治理协议都发挥着正式治理机制所不能代替的作用。法定的公司治理机制有股东会决议、董事会决议和公司章程。决议是公司意思形成的重要机制，而公司章程具有契约、自治规范等性质，是公司自治的宪章。但是公司自治并不局限于决议和章程，股东通过协议进行自治也是一种重要的治理方式。股东治理协议虽然表现为股东之间的合同，但就其核心内容而言，是公司治理和内部管理事项，因而与个别股东之间的协议存在本质上的区别。股东会决议的召开、章程的修改和登记需要一定成本，而股东治理协议的程序相对简单，只要全体股东达成一致，并且通知公司即可。因而股东治理协议可以在程序和内容上替代股东会决议，是一种非常态的治理机制。在内部治理上，治理协议与章程所体现的利益并非异质，而是同质，因此股东治理协议在一定条件下是可以转化为公司章程的。具体而言可以是对章程的修改、补充或者替代，因而对公司、股东和董事等高级管理人员有约束力。股东可以选择将股东治理协议记载于章程中，也可以选择以单独文件的方式呈现，只需对公司履行一定的告知程序即可。在法律适用上，股东治理协议涉及合同规则与公司法之间的关系问题。股东治理协议虽表现为一种合同，但是这种合同应当放在公司法的框架中进行分析。合同规则与公司法具有不同的制度利益，可以通过利益衡量的方法，对公司中复杂的利益状态进行比较，从而为股东治理协议的救济选择妥当的法律依据。比较法上股东治理协议也被美国等市场经济国家所采用。未来我国公司法修改中，如何明确有限责任公司中股东治理协议的程序与实体规则，需要认真对待。

AbstractIt is a common phenomenon in foreign corporate governance practices that shareholders manage corporate through shareholder agreements. However, there are certain misunderstandings about shareholder agreements in theory and practice of China. Shareholder agreement is usually misunderstood with other general shareholder contracts by some corporate law scholars. However, in legislation, there is no definition on the form and contents of shareholder agreements. This makes courts prone to negating the validity of shareholder agreements in dealing the conflicts between shareholder agreements, company resolutions, and company articles of association. To solve this problem, it is necessary to rethink shareholder agreements in combination with the essence of the corporate governance mechanism.In fact, shareholder agreements are a company's internal governance documents with specific content. It is reached by all shareholders, with the purpose of adjustment of the corporate governance structure, the distribution of internal powers of the company, the company’s operation and business management, and the appointment of directors and senior executives. It aims to biding the company, all shareholders, directors and senior executives. Internal management documents of the company. Therefore, no matter in terms of content or form, shareholder agreements play a pivotal role that cannot be replaced by formal governance mechanisms.The statutory corporate governance mechanism includes the resolutions of the shareholders meeting, the resolutions of the board of directors and bylaws of the company. Resolutions are an important mechanism for the formation of the company's will, and the company's bylaw is contracts and autonomous norms in nature. The articles is regarded as autonomy charter of company in Great Britain. But company autonomy is not limited to resolutions and bylaw. Shareholder autonomy through agreement is also an important governance method. Although shareholder governance agreement is expressed as a contract between shareholders, its core content is about corporate governance and internal management matters, so it is essentially different from the agreement between some shareholders. The convening of the resolutions of the shareholders' meeting, the amendment and registration of the company's bylaw cost too much. Shareholder agreement are relatively simple, as long as all shareholders reach an agreement and notify the company. Therefore, shareholder agreement can replace the resolutions of the shareholders meeting in terms of procedures and content, which is an abnormal governance mechanism. On the governance of internal affairs, the interests embodied in shareholder agreements and bylaw are not heterogeneous, but homogeneous. Therefore, shareholder agreements can be transformed into bylaw under certain conditions. Specifically, it can be a modification, supplement or replacement of bylaw, which is effective for senior management personnel such as the company, shareholders, and directors. Shareholders can choose to set the shareholder governance agreement in the company's bylaw, or it can choose to present it in a separate document, as long as it performs a certain notification procedure to the company.In terms of the application of law, the shareholder agreement involves the relationship between contract rules and company law rules. Although shareholder governance agreement is a kind of contract, this kind of contract should be analyzed in the framework of company law. Contract rules and company law rules have different institutional benefits. It is necessary to balance the complex interests in the company through proper methods. Only in this way can we choose appropriate rules for the relief of shareholder governance agreements.From the perspective of comparative law, shareholder agreements have also been adopted by market economy countries such as the United States. In the future reform of Chinese company law, how to clarify the procedures and substantive rules of shareholder agreements in closely held corporate needs to be taken seriously.