本文關(guān)鍵詞：論無行為能力人離婚起訴之代理問題　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 身份行為 法定代理 目的性限縮 法律漏洞 婚姻契約

【摘要】： 原告為無民事行為能力人,其法定代理人可否提起離婚訴訟的問題,理論界尚無系統(tǒng)研究的學(xué)術(shù)成果。同時,由于我國親屬法立法的滯后,理論界和實務(wù)界對此問題在解釋論的層面并未達(dá)成共識。這進(jìn)一步導(dǎo)致司法裁判的矛盾,適用法律的混亂和說理的匱乏與謬誤。 本文以對“身份行為不得代理”原則的辨析為論證起點(diǎn),引入法學(xué)方法論的方法對現(xiàn)行法規(guī)進(jìn)行分析、論證。并在保證社會妥當(dāng)性的前提下,參照契約法規(guī)則對“婚姻目的”進(jìn)行類比分析,為原告法定代理人起訴權(quán)的確定提供新的注腳。進(jìn)而建立以原告法定代理人起訴權(quán)為中心的二次評價體系,還原無行為能力人離婚救濟(jì)的本真面貌和應(yīng)有理念,合法、合理、有效地保護(hù)雙方當(dāng)事人的利益。 本文分為六個部分,以“發(fā)現(xiàn)問題——原則探討——方法論研究——實質(zhì)論證——體系構(gòu)建——結(jié)論”的路徑展開。 第一部分,通過比較最高法院公布的兩例典型判例,引出本問題在司法界的矛盾現(xiàn)狀。進(jìn)而通過梳理理論界的研究現(xiàn)狀和外法域的立法實例,歸納出矛盾的根源,也就是我國親屬法相關(guān)立法的滯后,導(dǎo)致本問題需要解釋論層面的深入研究和論證。而細(xì)化到現(xiàn)行法,其矛盾焦點(diǎn)應(yīng)該是對于《最高人民法院關(guān)于適用〈中華人民共和國民事訴訟法〉若干問題的意見》第94條(以下簡稱《意見》第94條)的理解。 第二部分,針對“身份行為不得代理”的原則進(jìn)行詳細(xì)論證。還原其本來的內(nèi)涵和適用的方法、步驟。再將之帶入本文問題,進(jìn)一步澄清本文問題的矛盾所在。也就是《意見》第94條的內(nèi)容是否應(yīng)理解為對于原告法定代理人的特別法律授權(quán)。 第三部分,運(yùn)用駁論的方法,針對否定論學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行檢視。論證《意見》第94條是否應(yīng)進(jìn)行目的性限縮。首先確定否定論學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)導(dǎo)致的方法論上的結(jié)果,也就是目的性限縮的運(yùn)用。進(jìn)而引入阿列克西關(guān)于目的性限縮的論證體系,通過對使用目的性限縮手段的內(nèi)部論證和外部論證,檢視對于《意見》第94條進(jìn)行目的性限縮的合理性。并得出,在外部論證方面,目的性限縮的充分性和必要性不強(qiáng),其合理性不足的初步結(jié)論。 第四部分,運(yùn)用正面論證的方法,對原告監(jiān)護(hù)人法定代理權(quán)的合理性進(jìn)行實質(zhì)性論證。針對婚姻的契約性特點(diǎn),引入離婚與契約解除的對比分析,通過對于婚姻目的的研究,探討給予原告法定代理人起訴權(quán)對于無行為能力人的利弊,通過利益衡量,檢視第三部分得出的初步結(jié)論。其間,運(yùn)用大量的法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、法社會學(xué)、倫理學(xué)的方法,力求論證的合理性和全面性。最后得出在婚姻目的不能達(dá)成的情況下,給予監(jiān)護(hù)人程序性的起訴權(quán)實為妥當(dāng)?shù)慕Y(jié)論。 第五部分,體系檢視方法的運(yùn)用,兼含立法論層面的探討。通過對比各國及地區(qū)的法律制度,討論給予原告法定代理人起訴權(quán)后所引出的相關(guān)司法問題,并論證對《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第183條進(jìn)行目的性限縮的可能。最后筆者提出了在現(xiàn)行法基礎(chǔ)上建立以原告法定代理人起訴權(quán)為中心的二次評價體系的設(shè)想。 第六部分,本文的結(jié)論部分。通過方法論論證、實質(zhì)論證和體系論證,本文得出的結(jié)論是,我國現(xiàn)有立法雖存在疏失,但是在解釋論的層面,不需超越法律的續(xù)造依然可以解決無行為能力人作為原告的離婚起訴問題。但是,原告法定代理人起訴權(quán)的獲得僅僅是一個正確的開始,其需要正確的司法理念和合理的配套評價體系的共同協(xié)作,才能合理保護(hù)各方權(quán)益。而真正解決本文問題,則需要立法層面的修正。
[Abstract]:The plaintiff is a person without capacity for civil conduct, the legal representative can divorce proceedings problems, there is no systematic research on the theory of academic achievements. At the same time, due to the lag of our family law legislation, theory and Practice on this issue did not reach a consensus in the interpretation of the level. This leads to further conflict and lack of judicial adjudication, the fallacy of confusion of the applicable law and reasoning.
Based on the analysis of "identity behavior can not substitute" principle for the demonstration starting point, introduced the methodology of law analysis of the existing regulations and demonstration. Under the premise of ensuring social rationality, according to contract law rules for "the purpose of marriage" analogy analysis, provide a new footnote for determining the plaintiff prosecution legal agent right. And the establishment of the two evaluation system to the plaintiff legal agent right of prosecution as the center, to restore a person without capacity and should be the real face of divorce relief concept, legal, reasonable, effective protection of the interests of both parties.
This article is divided into six parts: "the discovery problem - the principle discussion - the methodology research - the substantive argument - the system construction - the conclusion".
The first part, through the typical case in two cases according to the Supreme Court, leads to the problem in the contradictory situation of judicial circles. Then through the legislative example research combing theoretical circles and the status of international law, summed up the origin of the contradiction, which is China's family law related legislation lag, resulting in the need to explain further problems research and demonstration on the level. And to refine the current law, the contradiction between the focus should be to "the Supreme People's Court on the application of the" People's Republic of China civil procedural law views > ninety-fourth issues (hereinafter referred to as the "opinions > ninety-fourth) understanding.
The second part, a detailed argumentation on "identity behavior can not substitute" principle. Reduction of its original connotation and applicable method. Then this paper steps into the problem, this paper further clarify the contradiction problem. < > ninety-fourth views is whether the content should be understood as the legal representative for special legal authorization.
The third part, using the split method, for negation of scholars. Examine the argument < > ninety-fourth views whether should carry on the limit of aim. Firstly, a negative determination methodology of scholars caused on the results, it is to limit the application. Then the introduction of Alexy about the limit of aim the demonstration system, through the use of purposive restrictions means the internal and external demonstration demonstration, examine for < > ninety-fourth views a reasonable limit of aim. And that, in the external argument, necessity and sufficiency of the limit of aim is not strong, the lack of the rationality of the preliminary conclusions.
The fourth part, using the method of positive analysis, the guardian legal agent right the rationality of the substantive argument. According to the characteristics of the contract of marriage, divorce and introduction of comparative analysis of the contract, through the research for the purpose of marriage, to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the plaintiff legal agent for the prosecution of a person without capacity through interest the measure, the third part draws the preliminary conclusion view. Meanwhile, by using the method of economics, sociology of law, ethics, and strive to demonstrate the rationality and comprehensiveness. Finally reach the purpose of marriage can not in the case of the prosecution procedure to the guardian is the proper conclusion.
The fifth part, system view method, and from the perspective of legislation on legal system. Through the comparison of different countries and regions, to discuss the relevant judicial problems give the plaintiff legal agent leads to prosecution after, and demonstrates the objective limit of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China may < > 183rd. Finally, the author puts forward the establishment of the two evaluation system to the legal agent right of prosecution as the center in the current on the basis of the method.
The sixth part, the conclusion of this paper. Through the method of argument, argument and system demonstration, we can draw a conclusion that the existing legislation of our country, although there are errors, but in the interpretation level, does not need to be continued beyond the law made still can solve the incompetent person as the plaintiff sued for divorce. However, for the legal agent right of prosecution is only a start in the right direction, it needs the cooperation of the right of judicial idea and supporting reasonable evaluation system, in order to protect the interests of all parties. But the real problem is solved in this paper, needed to revise the legislative level.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D923.9;D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 魏樹發(fā);;成年人監(jiān)護(hù)制度的理念與立法選擇[J];福建師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2007年03期

2 楊立新;張莉;;論植物人的權(quán)利行使和保護(hù) 植物人法律問題系列研究之二[J];法律適用;2006年09期

3 劉引玲;論離婚訴權(quán)及其行使[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2000年04期

4 許莉;論提起離婚訴訟不得代理[J];法學(xué);2002年11期

5 古兀;;全國首例“植物人休妻案”,背后幾多濃情與爭議[J];婚姻與家庭(性情讀本);2007年07期

6 楊立新;論親屬法律行為[J];南陽師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2005年05期

7 李霞;民法親屬編三題[J];山東社會科學(xué);2004年08期

8 苗文全;配偶權(quán)的涵義及價值探析[J];政治與法律;2000年04期

，

本文編號：1361432