民事糾紛可訴性及其范圍擴(kuò)展研究.pdf

1、糾紛作為一種社會(huì)現(xiàn)象，總是與社會(huì)的發(fā)展和人們的交往相伴相隨?，F(xiàn)代社會(huì)存在多種糾紛解決途徑，民事訴訟屬于糾紛的裁判解決機(jī)制，但并不是所有的糾紛都能通過(guò)民事訴訟加以解決。我國(guó)民事訴訟立法對(duì)法院主管范圍作了概括性的規(guī)定，然而在實(shí)踐操作中卻面臨很多尷尬，很多糾紛陷于狀告無(wú)門(mén)的境地。立法通過(guò)主管對(duì)法院受理案件的范圍進(jìn)行限定，是國(guó)家本位觀念的體現(xiàn)，不利于公民訴權(quán)的保護(hù)?？v觀法治進(jìn)化的歷史，立法確立的權(quán)利本身是在糾紛的發(fā)生和解決過(guò)程中確立起來(lái)的，所以

2、本文試圖繞開(kāi)從法院審判權(quán)力的角度審視法院的受案范圍，而從糾紛本身的性質(zhì)來(lái)判斷和規(guī)范什么樣的糾紛可以進(jìn)入法院。本文包括導(dǎo)言、正文和結(jié)語(yǔ)三個(gè)部分，其中正文由五章組成。導(dǎo)言主要闡述了研究這個(gè)論題的原因和意義。正文以明確糾紛以及糾紛的可訴性的含義為起點(diǎn)，考察了糾紛的可訴性及可訴范圍與訴權(quán)、受案范圍的關(guān)系，由此揭示糾紛的可訴范圍對(duì)公民訴權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)以及法院受案范圍的確定具有重要意義。而后本文通過(guò)對(duì)中外糾紛的可訴情況的考察和比較，指出了中國(guó)在糾紛的可訴

3、性問(wèn)題上存在的缺陷，即缺乏明確的糾紛可訴性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及糾紛可訴范圍狹窄。進(jìn)而提出衡量糾紛可訴性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，即法律意義上權(quán)利義務(wù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、訴的利益標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在此基礎(chǔ)上，本文最后提出擴(kuò)大法院可訴范圍的初步設(shè)想，即觀念上須革新司法觀念，內(nèi)容上將憲法權(quán)利糾紛和形成中的權(quán)利糾紛納入糾紛可訴范圍，程序上須通過(guò)取消前置程序、降低起訴條件、擴(kuò)大當(dāng)事人概念來(lái)保障糾紛可訴范圍擴(kuò)大的實(shí)現(xiàn)。 本文借助了理論界有關(guān)方面的理論成果，搜集了司法實(shí)踐中的生動(dòng)案例，在對(duì)有關(guān)資料

4、進(jìn)行了一定分析整理基礎(chǔ)上加以分析論證而完成。事實(shí)上，糾紛的可訴性是一個(gè)理論性很強(qiáng)的論題，沒(méi)有深厚的理論知識(shí)的積淀，難以成文。另外這一論題的探討又涉及很多司法操作的實(shí)際情況，所以使得該論題又帶有很強(qiáng)的實(shí)踐性，離開(kāi)了深入的調(diào)查研究，必然顯得幼稚而空泛。恰這兩個(gè)方面，筆者智識(shí)和能力的有所不足，使得本文缺漏之處難免，還望老師批評(píng)指正。 Disputeisalwaysaccompaniedwiththedevelopmentoftheso

5、cietyandpeople'scontactsasakindofsocialphenomenon.Amongallkindsofmethodsofsettlementofdisputesinmodernsocial,thecivillitigationbelongstothemechanismofsettlingdisputesbyjudgment.Butnoteverydisputecanbesolvedthroughthecivi

6、llitigation.Thecivilprocedurelawofourcountryprovidesforthechargelatitudeofthecourtresumptively.Butinpractice,thisregulationfacesmuchawkwardness.Alotofdisputessinkintotheconditionthattheirdisputecan'tbesolvedbyanyorgan.Th

7、roughcharge,legislationlimitstherangewhichthecourtacceptsthecase,whichistheembodimentofthenationalstandardideaandunfavorabletotheprotectionofcitizens'rightofaction.Makingageneralsurveyoftheevolvinghistoryofrulingbylaw,th

8、elegalrightitselfisestablishedinthecourseofemergenceandsettlementofdisputes.Sothisarticleattemptstojudgeandstandardizewhatkindofdisputemayaccesstothecourtfromthenatureofdispute,ratherthanexaminetherangeofthechargeoftheco

9、urtfromtheviewofcourt'sjurisdiction.Thisarticleconsistsofthreepart,introduction,textandfinalchapter.Andthetextismadeupoffivechapters.Theintroductionmainlyexplainsthereasonandmeaningforstudyingthisproposition.Beginningwit

10、htellingthemeaningofdisputeandthejusticiablilityofdispute,thetexthaveinvestigatedtherelationbetweenjusticiablilityofdisputeandrightofactionortherangeofcharge.Thereforeitannouncesthatitisfullofsignificancefortheconfirming

11、oftherangeofchargeandtherealizationofrightofactiontofixtherangeofjusticiablilityofdispute.Andthenthistext,throughtheinvestigationandcomparisonoftheconditionofjusticiablilityinChineseandothercountries,pointoutthedefecttha

12、texistsattheconditionofjusticiablility,whichistheproblemoflackingofthestandardofjusticiablilityandtherangeofjusticiablilitybeingtoonarrow.Further,itputsforwardthemeasuringstandardofjusticiabilityofdispute,namelystandardo

13、frightsandobligationsinthelegalsenseandstandardofinterestsofaction.Onthisbasis,thistextproposesthetentativeimaginationofexpandingtherangeofchargeofcourts.Firstlywemustimprovejudicialidea.Secondlywemustputthetwokindsofdis

14、pute,namelyconstitutionrightdisputeandthedisputeconcerningrightofbeingforming,intotherangeofjusticiability.Thirdlywemustensuretherealizationofexpandingtherangeofjusticiabilitythroughcancelingtheleadingprocedure,reducingt

15、heligitationcondition,expandingconceptoflitigant.Thisarticleiscompletedbydintoftheoryachievementconcernedandvividcasesinthejudicialpractice.Infact,justiciabilityisapropositionfulloftheory.Withoutsufficientaccumulationoft

16、heoryknowledge,itisdifficulttofinishthethesis.Inaddition,thediscussionofthispropositioninvolvesalotofactualconditionsthatappearinthepracticeofjustice,whichmakethispropositionfullofpracticality.Sowithoutdeepinvestigations