论民事诉讼中的复议制度
|
摘要
本文通过对我国民事诉讼法现行立法中复议制度进行梳理和分析,认为民事诉讼中的复议在我国法中规定极其粗陋,难以应用于实践,无法满足对民事诉讼中大量的、庞杂的程序事项救济的需求。从程序性权利救济和权力制约的功能定位出发,以实现程序正义和程序的独立价值为目的,本文借鉴大陆法系的抗告制度和英美法系的中间上诉制度,并进行了比较法研究,提出按照程序性裁判的形态要求构建我国的民事诉讼复议制度。在明确我国民事复议制度改革思路的基础上,厘清了复议制度与程序性上诉的分工,划分了复议的适用范围,进而对民事诉讼复议制度的复议事项、复议主体、复议审查程序、举证责任、复议结论效力等具体规则进行了论证和构建。
The review system in China's Civil Procedure Law is so brief that review of the procedural matters and review system has been extremely limited in civil trial. Review the current civil legislation, in terms of ideas, legislative and judicial practice, there are obvious shortcomings, leading to reconsideration of this important right of the remedies in name only and not playing its due role. There are four chapters in the paper , described as follows:
In the first chapter "Analysis of the existing civil review system",through the analysis of legislation, the current civil trial, wo can see the existence of the following problems: First, there is a vacuum in the remedies of procedural rights; second, the judge discretion is too large to form a judicial constraints; Third, review program is not established and become a mere formality, these problems hinder the function of civil trial review .The implementation of the revised Code of Civil Procedure for review have been refined and perfected in 2007 , but the trial review didn’t get due attention, although the existing law on the implementation of the rule review may be used as reference, to a certain extent, represents the needs of the system in the judicial and law enforcement practice in the moment, but can not be directly applied. Because the proceedings in relation to the implementation of procedures, litigation of the most concentrated expression of relief on the procedural rights of the parties should take the road of justice, in accordance with the rights of the functional positioning of relief to design rules. In the review system, functional orientation, the right to relief is the basic theory of law on behalf of the current mainstream thinking, the party hopes to protect the rights of jurisdiction or supervision of self-correction, it is better to give the parties the right to supervise the judicial proceedings stronger .
In chapter II"the basic theory of the civil review system", this paper summarized as follows: the right to procedural relief, the power constraints, the independent value of procedural justice. Procedural rights theory can be described as a relief, in the trial proceedings, interested parties or the litigation related to the right to be infringed or face the judges, giving the parties a means of relief - the right to proceedings referred to the context of interactions between the parties and the courts made by only contain a link to the Court's procedural rights . Restriction of power refers to the illegal exercise of the court or a judge of procedural justice can monitor and restrict the right of the parties. Judicial power as a public authority, there are two kinds of constraints model, first the power constraints of power, and second, the right to restrict the power. In the increasingly focus on democracy and procedural justice today, in order to allow justice to be seen, giving citizens more rights to protect their rights and remedies, restricting public authority more and more important, in this sense, the right to relief is also of power constraints exist. The independent value of procedural justice is to be realized in the legal process itself, the value of procedural justice proceedings are intrinsic qualities, which is independent of the intrinsic qualities rather than being dependent on instrumental program. This paper argues that reconsideration of the system should be based on procedural decision forms, review the judge's judicial conduct.
Looking outside the law review as a concept within the framework of civil law in China is unique, both common law and civil law, did not create a separate "review" the concept of the program relief to American law and judicial Review placed within the framework of civil appeals, Germany, France, Japan and France for the procedural system achieve the establishment of specialized programs referee. No matter what form to achieve a procedural decision, all referees undertake programs of relief and procedural functions. In comparison, Germany and Japan Kanggu system are similar as our review system in a larger sense, we can serve as a review of China's civil trial procedural decision forms of reference.
In chapter III" Reform of the civil review system", this paper argues that a review of the relief stage of the proceedings, with the value of an independent appeal system, as well as procedural relief features, review and appeal system must determine a reasonable division of labor. In the object, this paper will address the procedural matters of the award is divided into two categories, the finality of decisions and interlocutory decisions, finality of the end of first instance ruled that effectiveness of the procedures took place , should be given a chance to appeal the same ,The middle of first instance ruled that the procedures for procedural matters among the ruling, if the direct appeal, will inevitably lead to delays and litigation over the first trial a waste of resources, it will be the object of review into the middle of decision. According to this classification, is inadmissible, rejected the prosecution, allowed to withdraw his claim into the end of the proceedings of appeal ruled that the existing object. As for the reconsideration of the object, this article may appear in the trial of civil rights and procedures of litigation to sort out the dispute, prioritization, appropriate to expand the scope of review system object. This paper argues that the object should be added to review the scope of the matters are: the court allowed them to postpone the cost of litigation ,the parties apply for a waiver or preservation of evidence, for identification, re-investigation, identification, inquests, applications for extension of the burden of proof to apply for a witness to testify in court dismissed the case, as well as the terms of reference adopted by the court to suspend the proceedings, the court acts specified period.
In chapter IV "Construction of Civil Procedure Review System "Reconsideration expanding to the trial is only the "quantity" of the expansion, but also need to review the rules of procedure for "quality" of the upgrading and transformation, this paper advocates the conduct of judges of procedural justice for judicial review of the process of building, in order to procedural referee's manner to review. In the review of the main, the paper advocated an increase litigation as a reconsideration of the main agents and stakeholders to exclude court mandate to bring the power of review. Reconsideration of the Court on admissibility in this paper that the application for reconsideration by the trial court accepted, such as the trial court affirmed the grounds for reconsideration may be self-correcting, such as the grounds for denial of reconsideration, should be left to a higher court to review make a reconsideration decision. Reconsideration of the conditions of admissibility as follows: reconsideration of the applicant suitable grid, in the statutory deadline for application for reconsideration, the reconsideration review applicants should provide clear reasons and facts. Review organizations should review the composition of a panel of the court separately to better ensure that procedural justice, the implementor independent value. In the allocation of the burden of proof in this paper do not support the principle "who advocates, who the burden of proof", that can refer to the administrative reconsideration of the principle of the burden of proof from the original award or a decision made by the Full Court of the trial on their judicial acts of bear the burden of proof and the presentation of the legality of the obligation, the object is essentially a civil review by the applicant and the application for reconsideration of the trial , regarding the trial evidence, it’s more fair and reasonable for the trial Court bearing the burden of proof . Review to determine the conclusions made, it should be made res judicata, the procedural matters of the review are no longer as objects after review, but still within the framework of the supervision system for retrial.
The review system in China's Civil Procedure Law is so brief that review of the procedural matters and review system has been extremely limited in civil trial. Review the current civil legislation, in terms of ideas, legislative and judicial practice, there are obvious shortcomings, leading to reconsideration of this important right of the remedies in name only and not playing its due role. There are four chapters in the paper , described as follows:
In the first chapter "Analysis of the existing civil review system",through the analysis of legislation, the current civil trial, wo can see the existence of the following problems: First, there is a vacuum in the remedies of procedural rights; second, the judge discretion is too large to form a judicial constraints; Third, review program is not established and become a mere formality, these problems hinder the function of civil trial review .The implementation of the revised Code of Civil Procedure for review have been refined and perfected in 2007 , but the trial review didn’t get due attention, although the existing law on the implementation of the rule review may be used as reference, to a certain extent, represents the needs of the system in the judicial and law enforcement practice in the moment, but can not be directly applied. Because the proceedings in relation to the implementation of procedures, litigation of the most concentrated expression of relief on the procedural rights of the parties should take the road of justice, in accordance with the rights of the functional positioning of relief to design rules. In the review system, functional orientation, the right to relief is the basic theory of law on behalf of the current mainstream thinking, the party hopes to protect the rights of jurisdiction or supervision of self-correction, it is better to give the parties the right to supervise the judicial proceedings stronger .
In chapter II"the basic theory of the civil review system", this paper summarized as follows: the right to procedural relief, the power constraints, the independent value of procedural justice. Procedural rights theory can be described as a relief, in the trial proceedings, interested parties or the litigation related to the right to be infringed or face the judges, giving the parties a means of relief - the right to proceedings referred to the context of interactions between the parties and the courts made by only contain a link to the Court's procedural rights . Restriction of power refers to the illegal exercise of the court or a judge of procedural justice can monitor and restrict the right of the parties. Judicial power as a public authority, there are two kinds of constraints model, first the power constraints of power, and second, the right to restrict the power. In the increasingly focus on democracy and procedural justice today, in order to allow justice to be seen, giving citizens more rights to protect their rights and remedies, restricting public authority more and more important, in this sense, the right to relief is also of power constraints exist. The independent value of procedural justice is to be realized in the legal process itself, the value of procedural justice proceedings are intrinsic qualities, which is independent of the intrinsic qualities rather than being dependent on instrumental program. This paper argues that reconsideration of the system should be based on procedural decision forms, review the judge's judicial conduct.
Looking outside the law review as a concept within the framework of civil law in China is unique, both common law and civil law, did not create a separate "review" the concept of the program relief to American law and judicial Review placed within the framework of civil appeals, Germany, France, Japan and France for the procedural system achieve the establishment of specialized programs referee. No matter what form to achieve a procedural decision, all referees undertake programs of relief and procedural functions. In comparison, Germany and Japan Kanggu system are similar as our review system in a larger sense, we can serve as a review of China's civil trial procedural decision forms of reference.
In chapter III" Reform of the civil review system", this paper argues that a review of the relief stage of the proceedings, with the value of an independent appeal system, as well as procedural relief features, review and appeal system must determine a reasonable division of labor. In the object, this paper will address the procedural matters of the award is divided into two categories, the finality of decisions and interlocutory decisions, finality of the end of first instance ruled that effectiveness of the procedures took place , should be given a chance to appeal the same ,The middle of first instance ruled that the procedures for procedural matters among the ruling, if the direct appeal, will inevitably lead to delays and litigation over the first trial a waste of resources, it will be the object of review into the middle of decision. According to this classification, is inadmissible, rejected the prosecution, allowed to withdraw his claim into the end of the proceedings of appeal ruled that the existing object. As for the reconsideration of the object, this article may appear in the trial of civil rights and procedures of litigation to sort out the dispute, prioritization, appropriate to expand the scope of review system object. This paper argues that the object should be added to review the scope of the matters are: the court allowed them to postpone the cost of litigation ,the parties apply for a waiver or preservation of evidence, for identification, re-investigation, identification, inquests, applications for extension of the burden of proof to apply for a witness to testify in court dismissed the case, as well as the terms of reference adopted by the court to suspend the proceedings, the court acts specified period.
In chapter IV "Construction of Civil Procedure Review System "Reconsideration expanding to the trial is only the "quantity" of the expansion, but also need to review the rules of procedure for "quality" of the upgrading and transformation, this paper advocates the conduct of judges of procedural justice for judicial review of the process of building, in order to procedural referee's manner to review. In the review of the main, the paper advocated an increase litigation as a reconsideration of the main agents and stakeholders to exclude court mandate to bring the power of review. Reconsideration of the Court on admissibility in this paper that the application for reconsideration by the trial court accepted, such as the trial court affirmed the grounds for reconsideration may be self-correcting, such as the grounds for denial of reconsideration, should be left to a higher court to review make a reconsideration decision. Reconsideration of the conditions of admissibility as follows: reconsideration of the applicant suitable grid, in the statutory deadline for application for reconsideration, the reconsideration review applicants should provide clear reasons and facts. Review organizations should review the composition of a panel of the court separately to better ensure that procedural justice, the implementor independent value. In the allocation of the burden of proof in this paper do not support the principle "who advocates, who the burden of proof", that can refer to the administrative reconsideration of the principle of the burden of proof from the original award or a decision made by the Full Court of the trial on their judicial acts of bear the burden of proof and the presentation of the legality of the obligation, the object is essentially a civil review by the applicant and the application for reconsideration of the trial , regarding the trial evidence, it’s more fair and reasonable for the trial Court bearing the burden of proof . Review to determine the conclusions made, it should be made res judicata, the procedural matters of the review are no longer as objects after review, but still within the framework of the supervision system for retrial.
引文
[1]《民事诉讼法》第四十八条规定,法院对当事人提出的回避申请,应当在申请提出的三日内,以口头或者书面形式作出决定。申请人对决定不服的,可以在接到决定时申请复议一次。复议期间,被申请回避的人员,不停止参与本案的工作。人民法院对复议申请,应当在三日内作出复议决定,并通知复议申请人。
[2]《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》(以下简称《民诉意见》)第一百一十条补充规定,对当事人不服财产保全、先予执行裁定提出的复议申请,人民法院应及时审查。裁定正确的,通知驳回当事人的申请;裁定不当的,作出新的裁定变更或者撤销原裁定。
[3]《民诉意见》补充规定,被罚款、拘留的人不服罚款、拘留决定申请复议的,上级人民法院应在收到复议申请后五日内作出决定,并将复议结果通知下级人民法院和当事人。如上级法院认为强制措施不当,应制作决定书变更下级人民法院的拘留、罚款决定。
[4] 2008年11月3日发布的《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>执行程序若干问题的解释》,对执行管辖异议和复议进行补充规定。
[5]王诗贤、田志伟:《论民事诉讼回避决定程序的诉讼性》,载于《浙江工商大学学报》2004年第4期(总第67期),第55页。
[6]丁芙蓉:《我国民事执行复议制度的建构》,载于《淮北煤炭师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年2月第一期,第73页。
[7]参见黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期,第86页;黄良友:《试论民事诉讼复议制度》,载于《现代法学》1995年第6期,第51页
[8]参见梁文书主编:《民事诉讼使用大全》,河北人民出版社1993年版,第280页。
[9]黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期(总第48期),第86页。
[10]黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期(总第48期),第86页。
[11]廖永安、雷勇:《论我国民事诉讼复议制度的改革和完善》,载于《法律科学》(《西北政法大学学报》)2008年第3期,第142—143页。
[12]赵旭光、侯冀燕:《论法官程序性违法的救济——以民事诉讼程序为视角》,载于江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版)》2007年6月第7卷第2期,第47页。
[13]程燎原、王人博:《赢得神圣——权利及其救济通论》,山东人民出版社1998年版,第368页。
[14]周孟炎:《论人民法院的诉讼指挥权》,载于“法律教育网”, 2009-10-7 www.chinalawedu.com/news /2004_6/2/1630577364.htm。
[15] [M]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆1982年版,第391页。
[16]黄松有:《诉讼指挥权:正当性基础与制度建构》,引自中国民商法律网http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article,2009-10-7浏览。
[17]陈瑞华著:《问题与主义之间--刑事诉讼基本问题研究》,中国人民法学出版社2003年第1版,第228——230页。
[18] Micheal zander :The police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,revised secondedition,Swe-et& Maxwell ,1900,page 196,转引自陈瑞华:《程序性制裁制度的法理学分析》,载于《中国法学》2005年第6期,第154页。
[19]参见陈瑞华:《程序性制裁制度的法理学分析》,载于《中国法学》2005年第6期,第153——158页。
[20]高新华:《论司法程序性裁判》,载于《国家检察官学院学报》2008年2月第16卷第1期,第86页。
[21]汤维建主编:《外国民事诉讼法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年9月第1版,第26页。
[22]乔欣、郭纪元著:《外国民事诉讼法》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2002年6月第1版,第118—119页。
[23]参见王亚新著:《对抗与判定:日本民事诉讼的基本结构》,清华大学出版社2002年4月第1版,337页。
[24]参见铃木正裕:《抗告的特质》,载新堂幸司编:《讲座民事诉讼》,东京弘文堂1985年版,第7卷307页,转引自王亚新著:《对抗与判定:日本民事诉讼的基本结构》,清华大学出版社2002年4月第1版,306—307页。
[25]乔欣、郭纪元著:《外国民事诉讼法》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2002年6月第1版,第294页。
[26] [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译,《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版,第321-322页。
[27]蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文库,第38页。
[28]参见刘学在:《民事裁定上诉审程序之检讨》,载于《法学评论》(双月刊),2001年第6期,第60—62页。
[29]参见童兆洪:《民事执行前沿问题》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第143页;翁晓斌:《民事执行救济制度》,浙江大学出版社2005年版,第160页;陈楠:《论我国执行异议制度的反思与重塑》,载于《兰州学刊》2005年第4期,第145、150页。
[30]汤维建主编:《外国民事诉讼法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年9月第1版,第26页。
[31]参见雷勇:《当事人民事诉讼权利救济机制研究》,湘潭大学硕士论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第18页。
[32]参见蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第45页。
[33]参见冯建晓、吕继普:《当事人不服诉讼中止裁定应设救济途径》,载于《法制日报》2006年4月6日“立法·人大”版。
[34]参见蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第46页;参见雷勇:《当事人民事诉讼权利救济机制研究》,湘潭大学硕士论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第25页。
[35]廖永安、雷勇:《论我国民事诉讼复议制度的改革与完善》,载于《法律科学》(西北政法大学学报)2008年第3期,第148页。
[36]陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社2005年第二版,见第五章“程序正义理论”,第242页。
[37]黄良友:《试论民事诉讼复议制度》,载于《现代法学》1995年第6期,第53页。
[38]参见陈志伟:《论司法复议》,武汉大学硕士论文2003年10月,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第81页。
[39] [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译:《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版,第324页。
[40] [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译:《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版,第325页。
1.全国人大常委会法制工作委员会民法室编:《民事诉讼法条文说明、立法理由及相关规定》,北京大学出版社2007年11月第1版。
2.汤维建主编:《美国民事诉讼规则》,中国检察出版社2003年第1版。
3.汤维建主编:《外国民事诉讼法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年9月第1版。
4.梁文书主编:《民事诉讼使用大全》,河北人民出版社1993年版。
5.程燎原、王人博:《赢得神圣——权利及其救济通论》,山东人民出版社1998年版。
6.乔欣、郭纪元著:《外国民事诉讼法》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2002年6月第1版。
7.王亚新著:《对抗与判定:日本民事诉讼的基本结构》,清华大学出版社2002年4月第1版。
8.季卫东:《法律程序的意义——对中国法制建设的另一种思考》,中国法制出版社2004年11月第1版。
9.谢佑平主编:《司法公正的建构》,中国检察出版社2005年6月第1版。
10.肖建国:《司法公正的理念与制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年6月第1版。
11.陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社2005年第二版,第五章“程序正义理论”。
12.周汉化主编:《行政复议司法化:理论、实践与改革》,北京大学出版社2005年4月第一版。
13. [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译:《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》,中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版。
14. [日]谷口安平著,王亚新、刘荣军译:《程序正义与诉讼》中国政法大学出版社2002年第一版。
15. [法]孟德斯鸠著,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆1982年第三版。
16.王诗贤、田志伟:《论民事诉讼回避决定程序的诉讼性》,载于《浙江工商大学学报》2004年第4期(总第67期)。
17.丁芙蓉:《我国民事执行复议制度的建构》,载于《淮北煤炭师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年2月第一期。
18.黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期(总第48期)。
19.廖永安、雷勇:《论我国民事诉讼复议制度的改革和完善》,载于《法律科学》(《西北政法大学学报》)2008年第3期。
20.赵旭光、侯冀燕:《论法官程序性违法的救济——以民事诉讼程序为视角》,载于江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版)》2007年6月第7卷第2期。
21.周孟炎:《论人民法院的诉讼指挥权》,载于“法律教育网”, 2009-10-7 www.chinalawedu.com/news /2004_6/2/1630577364.htm。
22.黄松有:《诉讼指挥权:正当性基础与制度建构》,引自中国民商法律网http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article,2009-10-7。
23.陈瑞华:《程序性制裁制度的法理学分析》,载于《中国法学》2005年第6期。
24.高新华:《论司法程序性裁判》,载于《国家检察官学院学报》2008年2月第16卷第1期。
25.刘学在:《民事裁定上诉审程序之检讨》,载于《法学评论》(双月刊)2001年第6期。
26.陈楠:《论我国执行异议制度的反思与重塑》,载于《兰州学刊》2005年第4期。
27.冯建晓、吕继普:《当事人不服诉讼中止裁定应设救济途径》,载于《法制日报》2006年4月6日“立法?人大”版。
28.黄良友:《试论民事诉讼复议制度》,载于《现代法学》1995年第6期。
29.雷勇:《当事人民事诉讼权利救济机制研究》,湘潭大学硕士论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库。
30.蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库。
31.陈志伟:《论司法复议》,武汉大学硕士论文2003年10月,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库。
[2]《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>若干问题的意见》(以下简称《民诉意见》)第一百一十条补充规定,对当事人不服财产保全、先予执行裁定提出的复议申请,人民法院应及时审查。裁定正确的,通知驳回当事人的申请;裁定不当的,作出新的裁定变更或者撤销原裁定。
[3]《民诉意见》补充规定,被罚款、拘留的人不服罚款、拘留决定申请复议的,上级人民法院应在收到复议申请后五日内作出决定,并将复议结果通知下级人民法院和当事人。如上级法院认为强制措施不当,应制作决定书变更下级人民法院的拘留、罚款决定。
[4] 2008年11月3日发布的《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>执行程序若干问题的解释》,对执行管辖异议和复议进行补充规定。
[5]王诗贤、田志伟:《论民事诉讼回避决定程序的诉讼性》,载于《浙江工商大学学报》2004年第4期(总第67期),第55页。
[6]丁芙蓉:《我国民事执行复议制度的建构》,载于《淮北煤炭师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年2月第一期,第73页。
[7]参见黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期,第86页;黄良友:《试论民事诉讼复议制度》,载于《现代法学》1995年第6期,第51页
[8]参见梁文书主编:《民事诉讼使用大全》,河北人民出版社1993年版,第280页。
[9]黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期(总第48期),第86页。
[10]黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期(总第48期),第86页。
[11]廖永安、雷勇:《论我国民事诉讼复议制度的改革和完善》,载于《法律科学》(《西北政法大学学报》)2008年第3期,第142—143页。
[12]赵旭光、侯冀燕:《论法官程序性违法的救济——以民事诉讼程序为视角》,载于江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版)》2007年6月第7卷第2期,第47页。
[13]程燎原、王人博:《赢得神圣——权利及其救济通论》,山东人民出版社1998年版,第368页。
[14]周孟炎:《论人民法院的诉讼指挥权》,载于“法律教育网”, 2009-10-7 www.chinalawedu.com/news /2004_6/2/1630577364.htm。
[15] [M]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆1982年版,第391页。
[16]黄松有:《诉讼指挥权:正当性基础与制度建构》,引自中国民商法律网http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article,2009-10-7浏览。
[17]陈瑞华著:《问题与主义之间--刑事诉讼基本问题研究》,中国人民法学出版社2003年第1版,第228——230页。
[18] Micheal zander :The police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,revised secondedition,Swe-et& Maxwell ,1900,page 196,转引自陈瑞华:《程序性制裁制度的法理学分析》,载于《中国法学》2005年第6期,第154页。
[19]参见陈瑞华:《程序性制裁制度的法理学分析》,载于《中国法学》2005年第6期,第153——158页。
[20]高新华:《论司法程序性裁判》,载于《国家检察官学院学报》2008年2月第16卷第1期,第86页。
[21]汤维建主编:《外国民事诉讼法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年9月第1版,第26页。
[22]乔欣、郭纪元著:《外国民事诉讼法》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2002年6月第1版,第118—119页。
[23]参见王亚新著:《对抗与判定:日本民事诉讼的基本结构》,清华大学出版社2002年4月第1版,337页。
[24]参见铃木正裕:《抗告的特质》,载新堂幸司编:《讲座民事诉讼》,东京弘文堂1985年版,第7卷307页,转引自王亚新著:《对抗与判定:日本民事诉讼的基本结构》,清华大学出版社2002年4月第1版,306—307页。
[25]乔欣、郭纪元著:《外国民事诉讼法》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2002年6月第1版,第294页。
[26] [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译,《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版,第321-322页。
[27]蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文库,第38页。
[28]参见刘学在:《民事裁定上诉审程序之检讨》,载于《法学评论》(双月刊),2001年第6期,第60—62页。
[29]参见童兆洪:《民事执行前沿问题》,人民法院出版社2003年版,第143页;翁晓斌:《民事执行救济制度》,浙江大学出版社2005年版,第160页;陈楠:《论我国执行异议制度的反思与重塑》,载于《兰州学刊》2005年第4期,第145、150页。
[30]汤维建主编:《外国民事诉讼法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年9月第1版,第26页。
[31]参见雷勇:《当事人民事诉讼权利救济机制研究》,湘潭大学硕士论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第18页。
[32]参见蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第45页。
[33]参见冯建晓、吕继普:《当事人不服诉讼中止裁定应设救济途径》,载于《法制日报》2006年4月6日“立法·人大”版。
[34]参见蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第46页;参见雷勇:《当事人民事诉讼权利救济机制研究》,湘潭大学硕士论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第25页。
[35]廖永安、雷勇:《论我国民事诉讼复议制度的改革与完善》,载于《法律科学》(西北政法大学学报)2008年第3期,第148页。
[36]陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社2005年第二版,见第五章“程序正义理论”,第242页。
[37]黄良友:《试论民事诉讼复议制度》,载于《现代法学》1995年第6期,第53页。
[38]参见陈志伟:《论司法复议》,武汉大学硕士论文2003年10月,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库,第81页。
[39] [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译:《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版,第324页。
[40] [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译:《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版,第325页。
1.全国人大常委会法制工作委员会民法室编:《民事诉讼法条文说明、立法理由及相关规定》,北京大学出版社2007年11月第1版。
2.汤维建主编:《美国民事诉讼规则》,中国检察出版社2003年第1版。
3.汤维建主编:《外国民事诉讼法学研究》,中国人民大学出版社2007年9月第1版。
4.梁文书主编:《民事诉讼使用大全》,河北人民出版社1993年版。
5.程燎原、王人博:《赢得神圣——权利及其救济通论》,山东人民出版社1998年版。
6.乔欣、郭纪元著:《外国民事诉讼法》,人民法院出版社、中国社会科学出版社2002年6月第1版。
7.王亚新著:《对抗与判定:日本民事诉讼的基本结构》,清华大学出版社2002年4月第1版。
8.季卫东:《法律程序的意义——对中国法制建设的另一种思考》,中国法制出版社2004年11月第1版。
9.谢佑平主编:《司法公正的建构》,中国检察出版社2005年6月第1版。
10.肖建国:《司法公正的理念与制度研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2006年6月第1版。
11.陈瑞华:《刑事诉讼前沿问题》,中国人民大学出版社2005年第二版,第五章“程序正义理论”。
12.周汉化主编:《行政复议司法化:理论、实践与改革》,北京大学出版社2005年4月第一版。
13. [德]汉斯—约阿希姆·穆泽拉克著,周翠译:《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》,中国政法大学出版社2005年8月第1版。
14. [日]谷口安平著,王亚新、刘荣军译:《程序正义与诉讼》中国政法大学出版社2002年第一版。
15. [法]孟德斯鸠著,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆1982年第三版。
16.王诗贤、田志伟:《论民事诉讼回避决定程序的诉讼性》,载于《浙江工商大学学报》2004年第4期(总第67期)。
17.丁芙蓉:《我国民事执行复议制度的建构》,载于《淮北煤炭师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2009年2月第一期。
18.黄胜春、王健:《论人民法院的民事诉讼复议权》,载于《法律科学》1993年第2期(总第48期)。
19.廖永安、雷勇:《论我国民事诉讼复议制度的改革和完善》,载于《法律科学》(《西北政法大学学报》)2008年第3期。
20.赵旭光、侯冀燕:《论法官程序性违法的救济——以民事诉讼程序为视角》,载于江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版)》2007年6月第7卷第2期。
21.周孟炎:《论人民法院的诉讼指挥权》,载于“法律教育网”, 2009-10-7 www.chinalawedu.com/news /2004_6/2/1630577364.htm。
22.黄松有:《诉讼指挥权:正当性基础与制度建构》,引自中国民商法律网http://www.civillaw.com.cn/article,2009-10-7。
23.陈瑞华:《程序性制裁制度的法理学分析》,载于《中国法学》2005年第6期。
24.高新华:《论司法程序性裁判》,载于《国家检察官学院学报》2008年2月第16卷第1期。
25.刘学在:《民事裁定上诉审程序之检讨》,载于《法学评论》(双月刊)2001年第6期。
26.陈楠:《论我国执行异议制度的反思与重塑》,载于《兰州学刊》2005年第4期。
27.冯建晓、吕继普:《当事人不服诉讼中止裁定应设救济途径》,载于《法制日报》2006年4月6日“立法?人大”版。
28.黄良友:《试论民事诉讼复议制度》,载于《现代法学》1995年第6期。
29.雷勇:《当事人民事诉讼权利救济机制研究》,湘潭大学硕士论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库。
30.蒋晓亮:《民事诉讼复议制度研究》,西南政法大学硕士学位论文,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库。
31.陈志伟:《论司法复议》,武汉大学硕士论文2003年10月,载于中国知网硕士论文数据库。