本文選題：當(dāng)事人的確定 + 當(dāng)事人適格��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)代民事訴訟理論已經(jīng)將民事訴訟當(dāng)事人界定為純粹程序法上之概念，即將向法院主張權(quán)利的人及其相對(duì)人視為當(dāng)事人，而無需考慮其與實(shí)體法律上之利害關(guān)系。在此前提下，若在訴訟進(jìn)行過程中發(fā)現(xiàn)了當(dāng)事人與本案并無實(shí)質(zhì)或者形式上的利害關(guān)系，即為非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人，那么訴訟程序的繼續(xù)進(jìn)行可能存在合法性問題，對(duì)此有必要對(duì)訴訟程序進(jìn)行適當(dāng)?shù)奶幚�，理論上稱之為非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人的變更。 我國(guó)沒有確立非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人概念，對(duì)出現(xiàn)非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人后的程序進(jìn)行方式存在立法空白，實(shí)踐中對(duì)非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人的處理方式比較混亂，存在法官濫用權(quán)力、當(dāng)事人訴權(quán)無法保證等弊端。 第一部分首先分析了非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人的識(shí)別標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及處理模式。理論上，非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人的識(shí)別標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有訴訟實(shí)施權(quán)與當(dāng)事人適格兩種；具體處理模式，一是不允許對(duì)非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人進(jìn)行變更而駁回起訴或駁回其訴訟請(qǐng)求，二是可依職權(quán)變更當(dāng)事人。兩種不同處理模式有不同的法理依據(jù)。 第二部分對(duì)非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更的域外實(shí)踐進(jìn)行考察，以德、日為代表的大陸法系并未就非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更問題采取統(tǒng)一的立法規(guī)定，而是將其作為任意的當(dāng)事人變更交由司法實(shí)踐解決，英美法系則依賴法官的自由裁量權(quán)，由法官依職權(quán)對(duì)其進(jìn)行變更，而前蘇聯(lián)、俄羅斯法中明確規(guī)定了更換非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人的階段以及具體程序。 第三部分對(duì)我國(guó)非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更的歷史沿革進(jìn)行了梳理，并分析了現(xiàn)行《民事訴訟法》刪除此項(xiàng)內(nèi)容的原因。司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更采取了多樣化的對(duì)策，沒有統(tǒng)一規(guī)定，急需立法對(duì)此問題進(jìn)行回應(yīng)，，我國(guó)理論界也對(duì)此問題進(jìn)行了理論上的構(gòu)建。 第四部分討論了在我國(guó)構(gòu)建非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更制度的具體內(nèi)容，應(yīng)當(dāng)構(gòu)建協(xié)同性的非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更制度。在構(gòu)建過程中需要樹立當(dāng)事人處分權(quán)與法官審判權(quán)相平衡、程序安定與訴訟效率相平衡、程序正義與實(shí)體正義相平衡、法秩序統(tǒng)一以及分配正義的理念。具體的制度內(nèi)容分為當(dāng)事人變更的啟動(dòng)程序、變更程序、異議與救濟(jì)程序等，并規(guī)定變更制度產(chǎn)生的主觀效果與客觀效果。 最后一部分討論了非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更制度與我國(guó)民事訴訟其他關(guān)聯(lián)制度的銜接，包括與訴的變更制度、訴狀更正制度、第三人訴訟制度、共同訴訟制度，以此保障非正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人變更制度能夠與我國(guó)民事訴訟制度相契合。
[Abstract]:The modern theory of civil action has defined the civil litigant as the concept of pure procedural law, that is, the person claiming the right to the court and his counterpart are regarded as the parties, without considering their interest in substantive law. On this premise, if the parties are found to have no substantial or formal interest in the case in the course of the proceedings, that is, the parties concerned are illegitimate parties, then the continuation of the proceedings may have a problem of legality. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with the procedure properly, which is called the change of the improper party in theory. The concept of improper party has not been established in our country, and there is a legislative gap in the way of proceeding after the appearance of the improper party. In practice, the treatment of the improper party is confused, and there is abuse of power by the judge. The litigant's right of action cannot be guaranteed and so on. The first part analyzes the identification standard and treatment mode of non-proper parties. In theory, there are two kinds of identification standards for improper parties: the right to implement litigation and the right of the parties to apply; the specific mode of treatment is to reject the suit or the request for action by not allowing the improper parties to change. Second, the parties can be changed ex officio. Two different processing models have different legal basis. The second part investigates the extraterritorial practice of the change of illegitimate parties. The civil law system, represented by Germany and Japan, has not adopted a unified legislative provision on the issue of the alteration of illegitimate parties. The common law system relied on the discretion of the judge, and the judge changed it ex officio, while the former Soviet Union, Russian law clearly provides for the replacement of improper parties and specific procedures. The third part combs the history of the change of the improper parties and analyzes the reasons for the deletion of this content in the current Civil procedure Law. In judicial practice, various countermeasures have been taken to change the improper parties. There is no uniform regulation, so legislation is urgently needed to respond to this problem, and the theoretical circle of our country has also made a theoretical construction of the problem. In the fourth part, the author discusses the concrete content of constructing the system of unjustified party's alteration in our country, and should construct the cooperative system of unjustified party's change. In the process of construction, it is necessary to establish a balance between the right of disposition of the parties and the judge's jurisdiction, a balance between procedural stability and litigation efficiency, a balance between procedural justice and substantive justice, a unity of law and order, and a concept of distributive justice. The specific content of the system is divided into the starting procedure of the change of the party, the procedure of the change, the procedure of dissent and the procedure of relief, and the subjective and objective effects of the change of the system are stipulated. The last part discusses the connection between the system of alteration of improper parties and other related systems of civil action in our country, including the system of alteration and action, the system of correction of pleadings, the system of third party action, and the system of joint action. In order to ensure that the system of improper parties to change can be consistent with the civil litigation system in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.12

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 肖建華;正當(dāng)當(dāng)事人理論的現(xiàn)代闡釋[J];比較法研究;2000年04期

2 趙沛沛;;談釋明在我國(guó)民事訴訟當(dāng)事人變更中的適用[J];法律適用;2006年12期

本文編號(hào)：2093147