德日必要共同诉讼“合一确定”概念的嬗变与启示

The Evolution and Inspiration of the“One Judgment”Concept in German and Japanese Necessary Common Litigation

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

段文波

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

段文波

摘要：

作为诉的主观合并禁止原则的例外,必要共同诉讼滥觞于日耳曼固有法上的诉讼团体共享诉讼实施权制度。随着诉讼团体范围的扩张,被视为一种妨诉抗辩的共同诉讼也受到质疑。以诉讼标的不可分为契机,必要共同诉讼的识别标准变为诉讼标的应合一确定。当诉讼法与实体法从体系上分离之后,必要共同诉讼的识别标准从实体法转向诉讼法,从必须共同诉讼转向避免矛盾判决,即从诉讼标的应合一确定演化为判决之合一确定,同时完成了从法律上合一确定转向逻辑上合一确定的华丽转身。借此,必要共同诉讼的类型也随之从单一走向多元,类似必要的共同诉讼应运而生。

语种：

中文

出版日期：

2016-03-15

学科：

诉讼法学

收录：

北大核心期刊; 中国科技核心期刊; CSSCI

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

段文波. 德日必要共同诉讼“合一确定”概念的嬗变与启示[J]. 现代法学,2016(02):149-165.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 德日必要共同诉讼“合一确定”概念的嬗变与启示
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 段文波
  • dc.contributor.author
  • DUAN Wen-bo;Law School of Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学;
  • dc.publisher
  • 现代法学
  • dc.publisher
  • Modern Law Science
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2016
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 02
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.38;No.204
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 149-165
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2016-03-15
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 共同诉讼;;合一确定;;固有必要的共同诉讼;;类似必要的共同诉讼
  • dc.subject
  • common litigation;;identity;;true necessary litigation;;similar necessary litigation
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 作为诉的主观合并禁止原则的例外,必要共同诉讼滥觞于日耳曼固有法上的诉讼团体共享诉讼实施权制度。随着诉讼团体范围的扩张,被视为一种妨诉抗辩的共同诉讼也受到质疑。以诉讼标的不可分为契机,必要共同诉讼的识别标准变为诉讼标的应合一确定。当诉讼法与实体法从体系上分离之后,必要共同诉讼的识别标准从实体法转向诉讼法,从必须共同诉讼转向避免矛盾判决,即从诉讼标的应合一确定演化为判决之合一确定,同时完成了从法律上合一确定转向逻辑上合一确定的华丽转身。借此,必要共同诉讼的类型也随之从单一走向多元,类似必要的共同诉讼应运而生。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • As an exception of the principle of forbidding litigation's subject combination,necessary common litigation origins from Germanic indigenous law,in which lawsuit groups can share the right of initiating litigations. At first,the existence of common litigation could be raised as a demurrer. With the expansion of the range of lawsuit group,such demurrer became questioned. Seeing the impartibility of the object of action,the identification criteria of necessary common litigation changed to be the identity of the object of action. After the separation of procedural law and substantive law,the identification criteria became adjusted by procedural law rather than substantive law. The common litigation was no longer mandatory but only initiated to avoid conflicting judgments. Therefore,the identification criteria transformed from "one object of action "to "one judgment",and the purpose of common litigation transformed from applying "one law"to applying "one logic".Thereby,the category of common litigation is also diversified,and similar necessary litigation comes into being.
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 国家社科基金2015年西部项目“迈向制度理性的民事庭审阶段化构造研究”(15XFX012)
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 50-1020/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1001-2397
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 1.147
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D915.1
回到顶部