论现代型民事诉讼
|
摘要
现代社会以来,社会生活经历了深刻变革,利益转型期带来了一些群体的、大规模的纠纷,即现代型纠纷,但是由于立法的不足、人们权益意识的不甚觉醒,使社会公共利益得不到很好的保护。现代型诉讼以不同于传统民事诉讼的特征、结构、功能展示在世人面前,其更适合在协同主义的诉讼模式下存在并发挥作用,对传统民诉法的原告资格理论、诉讼证据理论、诉讼功能等产生了巨大的冲击。
现代型诉讼的概念被大多数国家接受,只是称谓和侧重点所不同。英美法系以美国的集团诉讼和英国的代表诉讼为代表,大陆法系则以德国的团体诉讼和日本的选定代表人诉讼为代表,通过比较分析两大法系的不同运行机制,以期对我国的现代型民事诉讼构建有借鉴意义。
就我国而言,对群体诉讼、公益诉讼等相近理论的探讨可谓百花齐放,现代型诉讼与其有交集却又不完全重合。因此,厘清现代型诉讼的界限,并结合我国的现状分析我国的现代型纠纷的类型有十分重要的意义。本文通过分析我国现代型民事诉讼在理论、立法、司法实践中的现状,总结出存在的问题。
我国目前涉及到重大权利型的现代型纠纷还占一定比重,由于当事人不会轻易放弃权利救济,完善我国现存的代表人诉讼制度并构建示范诉讼机制比较合适;其次,小额多数权利型纠纷作为一种不断扩大的形式,笔者主张有限制的引进美国的集团诉讼和德国的团体不作为诉讼制度,以期对以后的实践慢慢发挥更大的作用;最后,对于最高层次的涉及纯粹公益的现代型纠纷,建议构建由检察机关和公民个人提起诉讼的制度。当然不一定立竿见影,各部分有轻重缓急,先后顺序,是一个逐步放开的过程。
China is in the period of deeply social transformation. Public interests are infringed upon now and then such as states assets are faced with misappropriation seriously , which due to the benefits allotment is not all in this period . Public interests can not be protected not only because of imperfection of litigation and Judiciary, but also the people’s less-interest in awakening consciousness. The modern-typed lawsuits are different from the traditional civil litigation in characteristics, structure and functions. In this word, it is more appropriated to the model of the collaborative action doctrine and takes an important place. It has been making a large passion to the traditional civil procedural lawsuits, such as the theory of the role of the partner, the evidence theory and the action function.
The modern-typed lawsuits concept is accepted by most countries, but in different titles and focus. The class action of the United States and the representative proceeding of the Britain are on behalf of the common law system. The group litigation of Germany and the Selection of representative action of Japan are the representation of the civil law system. We hope that the comparative analysis study of different operating system to China Construction of a modern-type civil reference.
In our case, the group litigation, public interest litigation and other similar theories has been researched much more; the modern-typed lawsuits with a common ground but not completely coincide. Therefore, it is very important to clarify the boundaries and types of the modern-typed lawsuits with our analysis of the status. We can find the problems of our country in the theory, legislative and judicial practice through the analysis of the modern-typed lawsuits’current situation of the three forms.
Currently, the major-right-typed dispute involves many people has being taken some place of the modern-typed lawsuits in our country, and the parties will not give up their rights easily, so improve the lawsuits of our country and build the model action is a right road. This is the first one. Second, the small-type disputes, as most of the right the form of a constantly expanding, the author advocated the introduction of limited class action the United States and Germany group litigation, this will play a great role in the guiding of the subsequent practice form now on; Finally, for pure public goods involving the highest level of modern Type dispute, the proposed building by the prosecutors and private citizens sue system. However, all of this will not be accomplished immediately, each part should be prioritized. It is a gradual process of liberalization.
现代型诉讼的概念被大多数国家接受,只是称谓和侧重点所不同。英美法系以美国的集团诉讼和英国的代表诉讼为代表,大陆法系则以德国的团体诉讼和日本的选定代表人诉讼为代表,通过比较分析两大法系的不同运行机制,以期对我国的现代型民事诉讼构建有借鉴意义。
就我国而言,对群体诉讼、公益诉讼等相近理论的探讨可谓百花齐放,现代型诉讼与其有交集却又不完全重合。因此,厘清现代型诉讼的界限,并结合我国的现状分析我国的现代型纠纷的类型有十分重要的意义。本文通过分析我国现代型民事诉讼在理论、立法、司法实践中的现状,总结出存在的问题。
我国目前涉及到重大权利型的现代型纠纷还占一定比重,由于当事人不会轻易放弃权利救济,完善我国现存的代表人诉讼制度并构建示范诉讼机制比较合适;其次,小额多数权利型纠纷作为一种不断扩大的形式,笔者主张有限制的引进美国的集团诉讼和德国的团体不作为诉讼制度,以期对以后的实践慢慢发挥更大的作用;最后,对于最高层次的涉及纯粹公益的现代型纠纷,建议构建由检察机关和公民个人提起诉讼的制度。当然不一定立竿见影,各部分有轻重缓急,先后顺序,是一个逐步放开的过程。
China is in the period of deeply social transformation. Public interests are infringed upon now and then such as states assets are faced with misappropriation seriously , which due to the benefits allotment is not all in this period . Public interests can not be protected not only because of imperfection of litigation and Judiciary, but also the people’s less-interest in awakening consciousness. The modern-typed lawsuits are different from the traditional civil litigation in characteristics, structure and functions. In this word, it is more appropriated to the model of the collaborative action doctrine and takes an important place. It has been making a large passion to the traditional civil procedural lawsuits, such as the theory of the role of the partner, the evidence theory and the action function.
The modern-typed lawsuits concept is accepted by most countries, but in different titles and focus. The class action of the United States and the representative proceeding of the Britain are on behalf of the common law system. The group litigation of Germany and the Selection of representative action of Japan are the representation of the civil law system. We hope that the comparative analysis study of different operating system to China Construction of a modern-type civil reference.
In our case, the group litigation, public interest litigation and other similar theories has been researched much more; the modern-typed lawsuits with a common ground but not completely coincide. Therefore, it is very important to clarify the boundaries and types of the modern-typed lawsuits with our analysis of the status. We can find the problems of our country in the theory, legislative and judicial practice through the analysis of the modern-typed lawsuits’current situation of the three forms.
Currently, the major-right-typed dispute involves many people has being taken some place of the modern-typed lawsuits in our country, and the parties will not give up their rights easily, so improve the lawsuits of our country and build the model action is a right road. This is the first one. Second, the small-type disputes, as most of the right the form of a constantly expanding, the author advocated the introduction of limited class action the United States and Germany group litigation, this will play a great role in the guiding of the subsequent practice form now on; Finally, for pure public goods involving the highest level of modern Type dispute, the proposed building by the prosecutors and private citizens sue system. However, all of this will not be accomplished immediately, each part should be prioritized. It is a gradual process of liberalization.
引文
[1]小岛武司.现代型诉讼的意义、性质和特点[J].西南政法大学学报.1999.(1).116-118.
[2]顾培东.社会冲突与诉讼机制[M].成都:四川大学出版社,1991.15.
[3]肖建国.现代型民事诉讼的结构和功能[J].政法论坛.2008.(1).112-123.
[4]吕霞.环境公益诉讼的性质和种类——从对“公益”的解剖入手[J].中国人口·资源与环境.2009.(3).54-59.
[5]陈刚.自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集[M].北京:中国法制出版社.2006.141.
[6]吴俐.群体诉讼之效益价值研究[J].经济与法.2007.(3).282-283.
[7]汤维建.群体性纠纷诉讼解决机制论[M].北京:北京大学出版社2008.97.
[8]陈虹.环境公益诉讼功能研究[J].法商研究. 2009. (1).28-35.
[9]张艳蕊.民事公益诉讼制度研究——兼论民事诉讼机能的扩大[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2007.146.
[10]范愉著.集团诉讼问题研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2005.179-183.
[11]沈冠伶.诉讼权保障与裁判外纷争处理[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2008.173.
[12]肖建国、黄忠顺.任意诉讼担当的类型化分析[J].北京科技大学学报(社会科学版).2009.(1).54-62.
[13]肖建国.示范诉讼及其类型化研究——以美国、英国、德国为对象的比较法考察[J].法学杂志.2008.(1).33-37.
[14]齐树洁、徐雁.群体诉讼的困境与出路:示范诉讼制度的建构[J].法学研究.2009.(1).75-79.
[15] [意]莫诺·卡佩莱蒂编.福利国家与接近正义.刘俊祥等译[M].北京:法律出版社.2000.68.
[16]陈荣宗.诉讼当事人与民事程序法[M]:台湾三民书局.1998. 53-54.
[17]彰武生、杨严炎.我国群体诉讼的立法与司法实践.[J].法学研究.2007.(2).45-50.
[18]王振民.法院与宪法——论中国宪法的可诉性[M].北京:中国法制出版社.2001.119.
[19]程汝竹.司法改革与政治发展[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.2001.273.
[20]谭兵.民事诉讼法[M]:北京,法律出版社.2000.62.
[21]单锋,现代型民事诉讼中的原告资格和当事人适格.南京社会科学.2005.(11).83-88.
[22]谷口安平.程序的正义与法.王亚新、刘荣军译.[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996. 151-198.
[23]杨雅妮、王道.浅论诉的利益——从当事人适格层面的分析[J].天水行政学院学报.2007.(3).117-120.
[24]姜炳俊.德国投资人示范诉讼新制.迈向二十一世纪之民事法学研究.元照出版有限公司.2006.159.
[25]赵许明.公益诉讼模式比较与选择[J].比较法研究.2003.(2).78-79.
[2]顾培东.社会冲突与诉讼机制[M].成都:四川大学出版社,1991.15.
[3]肖建国.现代型民事诉讼的结构和功能[J].政法论坛.2008.(1).112-123.
[4]吕霞.环境公益诉讼的性质和种类——从对“公益”的解剖入手[J].中国人口·资源与环境.2009.(3).54-59.
[5]陈刚.自律型社会与正义的综合体系——小岛武司先生七十华诞纪念文集[M].北京:中国法制出版社.2006.141.
[6]吴俐.群体诉讼之效益价值研究[J].经济与法.2007.(3).282-283.
[7]汤维建.群体性纠纷诉讼解决机制论[M].北京:北京大学出版社2008.97.
[8]陈虹.环境公益诉讼功能研究[J].法商研究. 2009. (1).28-35.
[9]张艳蕊.民事公益诉讼制度研究——兼论民事诉讼机能的扩大[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2007.146.
[10]范愉著.集团诉讼问题研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2005.179-183.
[11]沈冠伶.诉讼权保障与裁判外纷争处理[M].北京:北京大学出版社.2008.173.
[12]肖建国、黄忠顺.任意诉讼担当的类型化分析[J].北京科技大学学报(社会科学版).2009.(1).54-62.
[13]肖建国.示范诉讼及其类型化研究——以美国、英国、德国为对象的比较法考察[J].法学杂志.2008.(1).33-37.
[14]齐树洁、徐雁.群体诉讼的困境与出路:示范诉讼制度的建构[J].法学研究.2009.(1).75-79.
[15] [意]莫诺·卡佩莱蒂编.福利国家与接近正义.刘俊祥等译[M].北京:法律出版社.2000.68.
[16]陈荣宗.诉讼当事人与民事程序法[M]:台湾三民书局.1998. 53-54.
[17]彰武生、杨严炎.我国群体诉讼的立法与司法实践.[J].法学研究.2007.(2).45-50.
[18]王振民.法院与宪法——论中国宪法的可诉性[M].北京:中国法制出版社.2001.119.
[19]程汝竹.司法改革与政治发展[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社.2001.273.
[20]谭兵.民事诉讼法[M]:北京,法律出版社.2000.62.
[21]单锋,现代型民事诉讼中的原告资格和当事人适格.南京社会科学.2005.(11).83-88.
[22]谷口安平.程序的正义与法.王亚新、刘荣军译.[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996. 151-198.
[23]杨雅妮、王道.浅论诉的利益——从当事人适格层面的分析[J].天水行政学院学报.2007.(3).117-120.
[24]姜炳俊.德国投资人示范诉讼新制.迈向二十一世纪之民事法学研究.元照出版有限公司.2006.159.
[25]赵许明.公益诉讼模式比较与选择[J].比较法研究.2003.(2).78-79.