【作者】 何四海；

【导师】 廖永安；

【作者基本信息】 湘潭大学 ， 诉讼法， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 当事人民事诉讼权利救济机制是指构成救济系统的各救济方式，在当事人诉讼权利救济过程中所形成的功能构造、相互关系和运行规律的总和。诉讼权利救济机制包含异议、复议、上诉及申请再审四种救济方式。其中，异议和复议是诉讼权利的独立救济方式，因一般发生在诉讼过程中，亦可称之为诉中救济；上诉和申请再审适用于实体权利和诉讼权利的一并救济，为附带救济方式，因其一般发生在案件判决后，亦可称之为终局救济。诉讼权利救济机制具有保护实体权利、保障当事人与法院平等交涉、促进当事人实质参与程序和控制法院职权的价值。在我国，有必要在诉讼权利保障方面构建以独立救济机制为主导的、以附带救济机制为辅助的“双轨”救济机制。现行立法中的诉讼权利救济机制还存在诸多缺陷：一是救济结构失衡的问题，即诉中的独立救济畸少，终局救济过多，异议和复议适用范围仅限于立法所列举的几种情形，大量的诉讼权利无法在诉讼过程中得到及时救济。二是救济配置有失理性的问题，即存在救济缺位、救济过度、救济配置随性等问题。三是救济系统构造的“碎片化”问题，如各救济方式的程序设计粗糙，相关规则零散且不统一；诸救济方式功能定位模糊，存在功能交叉和功能不足等情形；缺少系统思维和宏观视野，各救济方式多是封闭性存在，内部结构关系不清，诸救济方式之间缺少范围上的过滤机制和功能上的衔接机制。这也直接导致了救济机制运行的科层化，特殊救济方式的普通化、救济成本支出的扩大化及救济机制功能失灵的常态化。成熟的民事诉讼法制，都有内容完备、形式理性的诉讼权利救济机制。就诉讼权利救济机制运行的模式来看，存在以德国、日本立法为代表的双轨“金字塔”模式和以法国为代表的一元“金字塔”模式。前一模式为诉讼权利设置了两套救济体系，即诉讼权利的独立救济体系和附带救济体系；后一模式中，诉讼权利与实体权利共用一个救济通道，不存在独立的诉讼权利救济轨道。重塑我国当事人诉讼权利救济机制内含着一些不可或缺的重要遵循，这些遵循是救济机制运行的基本准则，是救济制度设计的基础，也是救济法律关系中各诉讼主体行为的指南。一是要确定诉讼权利救济机制的运行原则，包括普遍救济原则、有限救济原则、用尽普通救济原则和救济相称原则；二是要在实践和立法中改变传统的诉讼权利救济理念，实现从传统模式的固守到协同主义的转变、从注重权利的拓展到关注权利救济的转变、从注重终局救济到重视过程救济的转变等；三是要实现我国诉讼权利救济机制运行模式的转型，按照救济层次分明、救济底面坚实和构筑救济“塔顶”的要求，建立双轨“金字塔式”救济模式。因此，很有必要在救济机制运行基本准则的引导下，确立独立救济机制的主导地位，为独立救济方式进行专门性立法，实现独立救济方式的形式理性。同时，要扩大救济机制适用范围，特别是扩大包括复议和异议在内的诉中救济方式适用的范围，处理好救济范围界定和范围排除的关系。为了丰富权利救济层次，还要明确各救济方式功能差异化定位，实现各救济方式的功能分流。立法要加强各救济方式的程序建构，特别是增强异议和复议的可操作性，确定异议和复议等救济方式的适用对象范围、程序要件及法院受理裁决方式等。为避免各救济方式之间的分裂，还要梳理各救济方式之间的内部关系，建立各救济方式之间的过滤机制和衔接机制。更多还原

【Abstract】 The remedy mechanism of parties’ civil litigation rights is defined as the generalterm of functional structure, relationship and running rules of various remedies which isformed during the process of the litigant right remedy. Remedy mechanism of Litigationrights contains objection, reconsideration, appeal and application of retrial. Objectionand reconsideration which are known as the remedy during litigation, generallyoccurring in the course of the proceedings, are independent remedies of litigation rights.Appeal and application of retrial are final remedies for usually they take place after thecase decision is made, and as subsidiary means, they are applied to the remedy of bothsubstantive rights and procedural rights. The value of the remedy mechanism oflitigation rights includes protecting substantive rights, ensuring equal negotiationsbetween parties and the court, promoting parties to substantially participate in theprocess and controlling the court’s authority. In my country, it’s necessary to construct"double-track" mechanism which is dominated by independent remedy mechanism andtakes the subsidiary means as a supplement in terms of litigation rights protection.Many drawbacks have been seen in the current legislation on the remedymechanism of litigation rights. Firstly, the remedy structure is out of balance. Fewremedies in the litigant process, while redundant ones after the last instance performed.The scope of application regarding the objection and reconsideration are limited inlegislation, and lots of litigation rights can’t be protected timely in the course of theproceedings. Secondly, the allocation of the remedy is not rational. No remedies forcertain litigant rights，though some have excessive remedies，and the remedies areallocated casually，etc. Thirdly, the problem of "fragmentation" lies in the remedysystem construction. Such as the rough design of the remedy procedure and relevantrules are not consistent. In addition, the function positioning of various remedies turnsout to be unclear because of its overlap and un-exploitation; what’s more, lacking ofsystematic thought and macro-perspective has confined the means of remedy. Further,the relationship in the internal structure of the remedy is obscure, and there is nofiltering and connecting instruments among the ways of remedy. All defects mentionedabove led to a direct result of the bureaucratic remedy mechanism, the ordinaryapplication of the special remedy, enlargening remedy costs and the malfunction ofremedy mechanism.Ordinarily, a civil procedural legal system which proves to be mature must havelitigation rights remedy mechanism with complete content and rational form. As far as the operation mode of litigation rights remedy mechanism is concerned, there istwo-double–pyramid model represented by Germany and Japan, France as therepresentative of a unitary pyramid model. There are two sets of system for litigationrights remedy in the previous model. As for the latter mode, there is no orbit ofindependent remedy, so litigation rights and substantive rights share the same remedychannel.Remodeling of remedy mechanism of the litigation rights must follow theseindispensable jurisprudence, which is the basic guidelines to operation of remedymechanism, and the base of design to the remedy system, and the guidelines to litigationaction of subject. First, we must determine the remedy mechanism operating principles,including the principle of universal remedy, the principle of limited remedy, the principleof exhaustion of general remedies and the principle of proportionality remedy. Secondly,it is necessary to change the traditional concept of rights remedy in practice andlegislative, sunch as shifting from the traditional model to the cooperative system,achieving the transition from expanding litigation rights to focus on concerning aboutthe rights of remedy, attaching importance to the process of remedy shifts from a focuson the final remedy. Thirdly, it is necessary to achieve the transformation of China’sremedy mechanism operating mode. In this regard, according to the requirements of thedistinct remedy level, to build a solid remedy underside and remedy "top", and establisha two-track "pyramid" remedy system.Therefore, under the guidance of the fundamental principles stated above, it’sessential to enact a special legislation to realize formal rationality of the independentremedy mechanism, which should be established as a dominant position in civillitigation. Moreover, we must expand the application scope of the remedy mechanism,particularly in terms of the remedy during litigation including reconsideration andobjection, and the relationship between the range definition and exclusion of the remedyalso can’t be overlooked. In order to enrich the remedy arrangement, it’s necessary toclear function position of the various remedies, so as to achieve function distribution.Strengthening the procedure construction of various remedies in lawmaking, especiallyfacilitating the objection and reconsideration and determining their application scope,procedural requirements and the judicial accepting and judging mode. To avoid the splitof the various remedies, it’s necessary to clear up internal relationships and introducefiltering and connecting mechanism among various remedies.更多还原