民事纠纷可诉性及其范围扩展研究

摘要

纠纷作为一种社会现象，总是与社会的发展和人们的交往相伴相随。现代社会存在多种纠纷解决途径，民事诉讼属于纠纷的裁判解决机制，但并不是所有的纠纷都能通过民事诉讼加以解决。我国民事诉讼立法对法院主管范围作了概括性的规定，然而在实践操作中却面临很多尴尬，很多纠纷陷于状告无门的境地。立法通过主管对法院受理案件的范围进行限定，是国家本位观念的体现，不利于公民诉权的保护。纵观法治进化的历史，立法确立的权利本身是在纠纷的发生和解决过程中确立起来的，所以本文试图绕开从法院审判权力的角度审视法院的受案范围，而从纠纷本身的性质来判断和规范什么样的纠纷可以进入法院。本文包括导言、正文和结语三个部分，其中正文由五章组成。导言主要阐述了研究这个论题的原因和意义。正文以明确纠纷以及纠纷的可诉性的含义为起点，考察了纠纷的可诉性及可诉范围与诉权、受案范围的关系，由此揭示纠纷的可诉范围对公民诉权的实现以及法院受案范围的确定具有重要意义。而后本文通过对中外纠纷的可诉情况的考察和比较，指出了中国在纠纷的可诉性问题上存在的缺陷，即缺乏明确的纠纷可诉性标准以及纠纷可诉范围狭窄。进而提出衡量纠纷可诉性的标准，即法律意义上权利义务标准、诉的利益标准。在此基础上，本文最后提出扩大法院可诉范围的初步设想，即观念上须革新司法观念，内容上将宪法权利纠纷和形成中的权利纠纷纳入纠纷可诉范围，程序上须通过取消前置程序、降低起诉条件、扩大当事人概念来保障纠纷可诉范围扩大的实现。 本文借助了理论界有关方面的理论成果，搜集了司法实践中的生动案例，在对有关资料进行了一定分析整理基础上加以分析论证而完成。事实上，纠纷的可诉性是一个理论性很强的论题，没有深厚的理论知识的积淀，难以成文。另外这一论题的探讨又涉及很多司法操作的实际情况，所以使得该论题又带有很强的实践性，离开了深入的调查研究，必然显得幼稚而空泛。恰这两个方面，笔者智识和能力的有所不足，使得本文缺漏之处难免，还望老师批评指正。 Disputeisalwaysaccompaniedwiththedevelopmentofthesocietyandpeople'scontactsasakindofsocialphenomenon.Amongallkindsofmethodsofsettlementofdisputesinmodernsocial,thecivillitigationbelongstothemechanismofsettlingdisputesbyjudgment.Butnoteverydisputecanbesolvedthroughthecivillitigation.Thecivilprocedurelawofourcountryprovidesforthechargelatitudeofthecourtresumptively.Butinpractice,thisregulationfacesmuchawkwardness.Alotofdisputessinkintotheconditionthattheirdisputecan'tbesolvedbyanyorgan.Throughcharge,legislationlimitstherangewhichthecourtacceptsthecase,whichistheembodimentofthenationalstandardideaandunfavorabletotheprotectionofcitizens'rightofaction.Makingageneralsurveyoftheevolvinghistoryofrulingbylaw,thelegalrightitselfisestablishedinthecourseofemergenceandsettlementofdisputes.Sothisarticleattemptstojudgeandstandardizewhatkindofdisputemayaccesstothecourtfromthenatureofdispute,ratherthanexaminetherangeofthechargeofthecourtfromtheviewofcourt'sjurisdiction.Thisarticleconsistsofthreepart,introduction,textandfinalchapter.Andthetextismadeupoffivechapters.Theintroductionmainlyexplainsthereasonandmeaningforstudyingthisproposition.Beginningwithtellingthemeaningofdisputeandthejusticiablilityofdispute,thetexthaveinvestigatedtherelationbetweenjusticiablilityofdisputeandrightofactionortherangeofcharge.Thereforeitannouncesthatitisfullofsignificancefortheconfirmingoftherangeofchargeandtherealizationofrightofactiontofixtherangeofjusticiablilityofdispute.Andthenthistext,throughtheinvestigationandcomparisonoftheconditionofjusticiablilityinChineseandothercountries,pointoutthedefectthatexistsattheconditionofjusticiablility,whichistheproblemoflackingofthestandardofjusticiablilityandtherangeofjusticiablilitybeingtoonarrow.Further,itputsforwardthemeasuringstandardofjusticiabilityofdispute,namelystandardofrightsandobligationsinthelegalsenseandstandardofinterestsofaction.Onthisbasis,thistextproposesthetentativeimaginationofexpandingtherangeofchargeofcourts.Firstlywemustimprovejudicialidea.Secondlywemustputthetwokindsofdispute,namelyconstitutionrightdisputeandthedisputeconcerningrightofbeingforming,intotherangeofjusticiability.Thirdlywemustensuretherealizationofexpandingtherangeofjusticiabilitythroughcancelingtheleadingprocedure,reducingtheligitationcondition,expandingconceptoflitigant.Thisarticleiscompletedbydintoftheoryachievementconcernedandvividcasesinthejudicialpractice.Infact,justiciabilityisapropositionfulloftheory.Withoutsufficientaccumulationoftheoryknowledge,itisdifficulttofinishthethesis.Inaddition,thediscussionofthispropositioninvolvesalotofactualconditionsthatappearinthepracticeofjustice,whichmakethispropositionfullofpracticality.Sowithoutdeepinvestigations,itmustseeminmatureandvague.Iknowthattosomeextentmyintelligenceandabilityareinsufficient,whichmaymakethethesishavesomegapsandomissionsunavoidably.Iwouldbegratefulifteachersmakesacommentandgivemesomeadvice.

目录

文摘

英文文摘

导言

第一章纠纷及纠纷的可诉性

第二章两大法系纠纷可诉性考察

第三章中国纠纷可诉范围现状及问题

第四章纠纷的可诉性的衡量标准

第五章纠纷可诉范围的扩展

结语

参考文献

后记

论文独创性声明及论文使用授权声明