【摘要】：交叉訴訟以多數(shù)當事人制度為形式要件,以訴和訴的合并為理論基礎,實現(xiàn)共同當事人之間,可能存在的后續(xù)糾紛與本訴在同一司法程序中一并審理,以使有牽連關(guān)系的系列糾紛一次性解決徹底解決,促進民事訴訟公正、效率價值的進一步實現(xiàn),保障公平正義,實現(xiàn)社會和諧。 論文的研究思路,首先對交叉訴訟進行理論上的定義與剖析,分析交叉訴訟的理論支點、價值追求,從交叉訴訟的結(jié)構(gòu)模式角度,對交叉訴訟有了較為全面的認識。再將視野擴展到域外,了解美國交叉請求在一次性糾紛解決為原則的指導下,程序的立法規(guī)制和在司法中運用的現(xiàn)狀,發(fā)現(xiàn)其在完善我國交叉訴訟及相關(guān)制度上的啟示與借鑒；其次,從真實案例入手,綜合分析我國“一案”審理中遇見的困惑和制度缺陷。發(fā)現(xiàn)一次性糾紛解決必要性,思考如何以制度保障實現(xiàn)糾紛在同一訴訟程序中解決。隨后審視我國的立法現(xiàn)狀,我國僅有部分一次性糾紛解決的程序保障,如共同訴訟、第三人制度和反訴。其中不足部分——交叉訴訟,在法律中也有初步探索,明確規(guī)定了可以“一并判決”但是沒有明確規(guī)定訴和訴的程序。通過第二部分的研究,筆者認為建立交叉訴訟的必要性和可行性已經(jīng)具備。最后,筆者建議在我國多數(shù)當事人制度基礎上,建立與本訴、反訴互為體系的交叉訴訟,完善我國的訴求體系。同時,在交叉訴訟的立法中,應細化交叉訴訟的實體要件、規(guī)范交叉訴訟的程序要件,更要重視制度本身可能存在的問題。
[Abstract]:Cross-action takes the system of majority parties as the formal elements and the combination of litigation and action as the theoretical basis to realize that the possible subsequent disputes may be tried together with this suit in the same judicial proceedings between the joint parties. In order to make a series of disputes involved in a one-off settlement, to promote the justice of civil proceedings, the further realization of the value of efficiency, to ensure fairness and justice, to achieve social harmony. The research idea of this paper is to define and analyze the cross-action theoretically, analyze the theoretical fulcrum and value pursuit of the cross-action, and have a more comprehensive understanding of the cross-action from the angle of the structure mode of the cross-action. Secondly, the author extends his field of vision to understand the legislative regulation of the procedure and the current situation of its application in the administration of justice under the guidance of the principle of one-off dispute resolution in the United States, and finds out its enlightenment and reference in perfecting the cross-litigation and related system in our country. Secondly, starting with real cases, this paper comprehensively analyzes the confusion and system defects encountered in the trial of "one case" in our country. Find out the necessity of one-off dispute resolution, and consider how to resolve the dispute in the same procedure by system guarantee. Then it examines the current legislative situation of our country, only partial one-off dispute resolution procedural protection, such as joint action, third party system and counterclaim. Some of them-cross-litigation, also have a preliminary exploration in the law, clearly stipulated that can be "adjudicated together" but there is no clear provisions on the procedure of action and action. Through the second part of the study, the author believes that the necessity and feasibility of cross-litigation has already been established. Finally, the author suggests that based on the system of most parties in our country, the system of cross-action should be established and the system of mutual action and counterclaim should be established to perfect the system of demands of our country. At the same time, in the legislation of cross-action, we should refine the substantive elements of cross-action, standardize the procedural elements of cross-action, and pay more attention to the problems that may exist in the system itself.
【學位授予單位】：西南交通大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D915

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 林軻亮;;我國引入交叉訴訟的可行性分析[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(上半月);2008年02期

2 張晉紅;;訴的合并制度的立法缺陷與立法完善之價值分析[J];法學評論;2007年04期

3 李紀森;;從訴訟標的理論出發(fā)談訴的合并問題[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(下旬刊);2008年12期

4 王惠奕;美國民事訴訟的一次性解決糾紛原則——以反訴制度為視角[J];廣西政法管理干部學院學報;2001年04期

5 劉學在;美國民事訴訟中的反訴、交叉訴訟與引入訴訟介評[J];華東政法學院學報;2003年06期

6 張芳芳;中美民事訴訟法律制度之比較[J];華南師范大學學報(社會科學版);1997年04期

7 牟寶珍;;美國民事訴訟中的交叉訴訟制度研究[J];世紀橋;2007年09期

8 張晉紅;;訴的合并之程序規(guī)則研究[J];暨南學報(哲學社會科學版);2012年08期

9 張晉紅;訴的合并有關(guān)問題的思考——兼論提高民事訴訟效率的有效途徑[J];廣東商學院學報;2002年04期

10 齊樹潔;謝嵐;;中美民事訴訟當事人制度比較研究[J];訴訟法論叢;2000年02期

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前1條

1 張金澤;我國無獨立請求權(quán)第三人制度研究[D];中國青年政治學院;2013年

，

本文編號：2272710