民事共同诉讼制度研究

【作者】 王嘎利；

【导师】 李祖军；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 现代意义上的共同诉讼制度，由于法律制度的发展和人们对其的期望，其意义和价值已经超出了原来设计的目的：解决纠纷和实现法的秩序。共同诉讼是为了达到纷争的统一解决而设立的多数人诉讼制度，相对应于单独诉讼而言，其所涉及的当事人之间的关系更为复杂。同时，在我国群体性诉讼越来越多进而成为民众诉愿的一种特殊形式的背景下，共同诉讼制度理论研究的基础性意义更为凸现和必要。本选题的研究旨在构建初步的共同诉讼制度理论体系，相关研究的深化有助于廓清共同诉讼人的主体地位，并正确地指导司法实践；而对共同诉讼形态的类型化研究也会提升学术界的认识，与其他国家及地区相关理论的比较研究也将大大丰富民事诉讼基本理论。对共同诉讼制度的研究无论是在理论上还是在实践中都具有重要的意义。民事诉讼理论中的共同诉讼一般是将其纳入当事人的范畴加以观察，而本文则是从制度的层面进行研究。共同诉讼制度有整体的基本理论，同时在其制度内部又存在不同类型的共同诉讼，基于此，本文把共同诉讼制度分为概说和类型两个部分进行阐述，进而对其进行评析。在概说部分对共同诉讼制度的内涵和性质、历史以及内容和功能进行考察和分析，类型化分析部分则是在概说基础上深入共同诉讼的不同类型展开研究。由此观之，对共同诉讼制度总体的认识和把握以及不同类型共同诉讼的深入探讨便成为本文研究的方向；而第三章则转入对现时各国运用的共同诉讼制度的评析。在前面章节的基础上，第四章是对我国共同诉讼制度如何加以完善的分析，这种分析不仅仅是理论意义上的，更重要的是立法和实务层面上的。可以说，这种完善也构成本文研究的目的。第一章“共同诉讼制度概说”分为三节，第一节是对共同诉讼制度的含义和性质进行定位，因为不同的国家具有类似的制度，但定义却是不同，因而就需要对何为共同诉讼加以限定，以囊括所要论述的内容。本文中所认定的共同诉讼，是当事人一方或者双方人数为二人或者二人以上的诉讼；同时形式上的一诉和实质上的数诉构成共同诉讼的基本性质。第二节主要是考察共同诉讼制度在不同法系国家、地区以及这一制度在我国的发展历史。现今的观点都把共同诉讼等同于诉的主观合并，但是，梳理共同诉讼制度的发展历史即可发现，共同诉讼制度发展伊始和诉的主观合并并不同一，而是在不断地演进过程中才和诉的主观合并逐渐融合；并且，在这种发展进程中，共同诉讼制度不断扩张，从最初的固有必要共同诉讼扩张至必要共同诉讼。与理论上的发展相并而行的，是立法上对共同诉讼制度的引进，德国在1877年制定的民事诉讼法把关于共同诉讼的学说引入了立法规定，日本对德国的学习则把共同诉讼制度方面的立法规定加以继承和发展。而在我国，有关共同诉讼的立法规定于古代典籍中，特别是从清末到现代的百年法制学习进程中，这一制度更是在民国时期以及如今的台湾地区留下了深深地烙印。共同诉讼制度在各国确立的普遍性使得其不仅在大陆法系有历史发展的脉络，而且在英美国家也存在独特的发展曲线。当然，英美国家更多地是把共同诉讼制度称为当事人合并制度加以认识和处理，这种方式直接把这一制度纳入诉讼主体的范围，因而更多地见之于诉辩程序之中。从英国的普通法到衡平法再到两种法院的合并，从令状制度严格要求当事人合并到为了解决争议灵活处理，英国的司法制度正处于不断变革之中。而在美国，虽然是继受了英国法律制度，但其发展具有一定的独立性。在当事人合并制度方面，19世纪和20世纪对这一问题的认识是不同的，从1848年的Field法典到1938年的联邦民事诉讼规则，立法和实务虽然确立了不同的当事人合并制度，但其背后却在延续着争议，如何合并当事人仍是一道没有确定答案的难题。第三节简要论述共同诉讼制度所包含的内容和制度本身所具有的功能。虽然这一制度可能在各国民事诉讼立法和实践中的称呼不同，但在制度的设计和运用上共同诉讼制度还是有共通性的规律可循，而这就构成分析作为主体的共同诉讼人和共同诉讼制度功能的主要内容。因为本文并非主要是从当事人的角度来考察这一制度，因此只对共同诉讼人的范围通过与其他种类当事人的区分加以界定。共同诉讼制度根据不同的标准可以有不同的分类，各种分类也各有其意义所在。但无论何种共同诉讼，其成立都需要一定的要件，当然，各种类型的共同诉讼尚需更为细致的条件规定。作为一项具体的民事诉讼制度，其具有与其他制度相通的功能，最重要者乃是实现程序效益和实体公正。第二章“共同诉讼制度类型化分析”根据所采用的共同诉讼类型分为四节，主要是以大陆法系中的共同诉讼制度为重心展开研究，当然，作为借鉴和反思的对象，对英美国家的类似制度做些初步的考察也属必要。共同诉讼制度的种类划分上有不同界定标准，在此采取德国、日本及我国台湾地区常用的划分方式，即根据共同诉讼人与诉讼标的之间的关系而划分出的各种类型，大体包括必要共同诉讼制度、普通共同诉讼制度以及两种特殊形态的共同诉讼制度——主观预备合并之诉和主参加诉讼，从而对这一制度展开论述。第一节是对必要共同诉讼进行考察和分析。必要共同诉讼通常分为固有必要共同诉讼和类似必要共同诉讼，虽然说两者的历史渊源具有不同的性质，但是由于各自含义中的合一确定性而被归为一类。本节对两种类型的必要共同诉讼分别加以论述。固有必要共同诉讼的历史渊源颇为久远，在当事人的资格上很是强调必须合一确定性，如果共同诉讼人未能一起进行诉讼即造成主体不适格；因此，共同诉讼人之间的牵连性尤为强烈，也正因为这样，固有必要共同诉讼应限制其适用范围，这种限制不独大陆法系，在美国的民事诉讼中所对应的必不可少的当事人，法院也有限制的标准。类似必要共同诉讼与固有必要共同诉讼在当事人适格、内涵性质等方面都有所不同，学界对如何判断类似必要共同诉讼的核心内容，即诉讼标的对于共同诉讼人具有合一确定的必要性这一点上有不同的认识，并且形成不同的学说，然而仔细分析就可发现，各种学说也有其不足之处。而同样作为必要共同诉讼，两种类型又有共通的审理程序，如诉讼资料的统一收集、诉讼程序的划一进行上都遵循共同的规律。第二节简单探讨普通共同诉讼制度。与必要共同诉讼制度相比，普通共同诉讼人之间诉讼地位的独立性比较明显，但既然为共同诉讼，共同诉讼人之间的牵连性仍是存在，主要表现在主张和资料的共通性以及诉讼费用的负担方面。为了更为明确地阐释普通共同诉讼制度的含义，廓清容易混淆的共同诉讼类型，本节还讨论了数种实践中可能存在的情形。这种尝试采取举例的方式，使人更为明确普通共同诉讼的含义及其与其他类型共同诉讼制度的区别，进一步把理论认识推向深化，而每种情形的讨论并不一定有确定的答案，因为人们对具体情形的定性尚在不断的流动之中。第三节主观预备合并之诉是共同诉讼制度中比较特别的类型，适用于当事人无法确知应该将何人列为原告或被告，从而将当事人预备合并，以便获得胜诉判决的情形。对于此种诉讼形态，肯定说和否定说均有之，可谓种类繁多，而在日本和我国台湾地区，也有不同的判例存在。本文以为，否定说所主张的理由都可以通过一定的方式加以解决，而对主观预备合并之诉的性质和要件有必要重新加以认识，并探讨了此种诉讼形态下不同情况的处理方式。同时，需要注意的是日本1998年修订的民事诉讼法中规定的同时审判共同诉讼这种诉讼形态，似乎在昭示主观预备合并之诉的发展新动向。第四节主参加诉讼把这种诉讼形态也纳入共同诉讼制度的范畴，实际上是认为主参加诉讼属于特殊的必要共同诉讼。当然，对其性质的认定在学界尚存在一定的分歧。而在具体的主参加诉讼类型上，两种类型——一是“就他人间诉讼标的的全部或一部为自己有所请求”的主参加诉讼，一是“主张因其诉讼的结果自己权力将被侵害”的主参加诉讼——又具有不同的历史发展渊源。本节根据对主参加诉讼含义的界定，对其构成要件以及提起此种诉讼在诉讼法上的效果进行了考察。第三章“共同诉讼制度的评析”，是在前文对共同诉讼的历史和各种类型的探讨基础上所展开的。由于上述的考察基本上是以大陆法系的共同诉讼制度为重心，难免有偏颇之处，因此对这种一边倒的情形保持必要的批判甚为必要，这种批判一方面来自于共同诉讼制度本身，另一方面也是大陆法系的共同诉讼制度在发展中的倾向所致。基于此种考虑，本章进一步对英美国家现行的类似制度展开考察，而初步的考察也说明英美国家也同样重视共同诉讼制度的功能。同时，由于英美国家实用主义的法理不支持构建系统化的理论，在制度方面的运用也存在不少的问题，而其学界也不满足于现行的立法，并产生了不同的主张。需要注意的是，大陆法系在认识到共同诉讼制度本身可能存在缺陷的同时，其理论得到了进一步的发展，一方面是固有必要共同诉讼的弹性化，一方面是类似必要共同诉讼范围的扩张，而无论如何，对于共同诉讼人诉讼地位或许都要作出必要的调整。本文不满意于我国现行的共同诉讼制度，因而在本章最后一节从立法和实践两个角度对共同诉讼制度进行考察，对现行法律规定和实践做法作出诠释，从而大体把握当下共同诉讼制度所存在的优势和不足，以便为后文的完善进行铺垫。第四章着重提出完善我国共同诉讼制度的构想。这可以说是对完善我国共同诉讼制度所作的一个初步性的分析，目的是在明了我国现行制度中的问题的基础上，提出一些初步的设想。由于认识到对共同诉讼制度研究的不充分，本章首先勾勒出完善我国共同诉讼制度理论的原则，一是理论上的多元化，提倡在理论模型和研究方法上的多样。二是实务界的参与及其与理论界的互动，以使理论与实践的结合符合我国的国情。其次，在借鉴两大法系法律经验的基础上，完善我国共同诉讼制度在理论上应重新确定共同诉讼的分类，而在实践运用中，则是要甄别不同的诉讼类型，以便充分发挥各种诉讼类型所具有的功能。再次，单靠共同诉讼制度本身不足以应付越来越多的群体性诉讼，在完善当事人追加制度的同时，要想有效地解决纠纷，多数当事人诉讼制度体系有必要确立起来。本章还针对民事诉讼法修改建议稿提出批判，这一方面是为民事诉讼法的修改建言，另一方面也是提示我国共同诉讼制度发展的大致方向。更多还原

【Abstract】 Because of the development of legal systems and people’s anticipation for it, thesignificance of the system of joint action in modem times goes beyond the plannedobjects, namely resolving disputes and realizing legal order. Joinder of parties isestablished as a procedural system serving for the mass action. Compared with unitaryaction, it concerns with more complex relations among parties. It is more necessary tomake the research of joint litigation as the basis of mass action which is used by morepeople. The research is aimed to construct a preliminary theoretical system for jointaction, and the further study related to it helps to make the subject status of jointparties clear and direct judicial practice properly. At the same time, the study on thetypes of joint action will promote the academic ideas, and the comparative research onrelated theories of other countries and regions would also greatly enrich the principaltheories of civil procedure. In a word, the research on the system of joint action has itsown theoretical significant and practical imperatives.Generally speaking, joint action is classified by the category of parties in the theoryof civil procedure. However this paper carries out the research based on the categoryof system. Since the system has its own collective basic theory, and could be dividedinto several types by different standards, the paper is unfolded in four chapters. Ofthese four chapters the first chapter reviews the history and meanings of the system ofjoint action, and analyzes the basic jurisprudence of it. The second chapter is a closestudy of several types of the system. Based on the first two chapters, the direction ofthe paper is to understand the system comprehensively and take on deeper discussionof it. The third chapter is shifted to analyzing present system of joint action indifferent countries and regions. Based on the former chapters, the fourth chapterspecifically analyzes the perfection of the system in our country, not only from thetheoretical perspective, but also in the sense of legislature and judicial practice. Tosome degree, the perfection of the system is also one of the aims of the research.There are three sections in the first chapter. Above all the meanings of the systemshould be defined because it’s different in the same system of different countries, so in order to include the content which shall be studied it is necessary to define what isjoint action. In the first section, joint action is defined as the litigation including twoor more than two parties on one side or both side. Furthermore, the essential nature ofjoint action is consisted of one action in formal and several actions in reality.Section two mainly reviews the historical development of joint action in differentfamily of law, including China. In modem times people always think joint action assubjective joinder of action litigation, but after reviewing the history of joint action itcan be found that in the beginning of development these two concepts are not thesame things, and joint action merged gradually with subjective joinder of actionlitigation. Furthermore during the course of development the system of joint actionexpands from original inherent necessary joint action to necessary joint action.Moreover legislative provisions paralleled with theoretical development, in Germanythe 1877 code of civil procedure introduced joint action into legislature, and thenJapan learned from Germany about the system. As for China, some regulationsconcemed with the system appeared in ancient books and records, especially duringone—hundred—year course of civil procedure from the last stage of Qing Dynasty tomodem days the system left its brand in the republic period and the area of Taiwan.The system of joint action which is universal in different countries and regions leftits historical skeleton not only in civil law countries but also in common law countries.It is sure that in common law countries deal with joint action as system joinder ofparties, which directly brings it into the scope of litigant subject and is more familiarin pleading procedure. In England with the merge of common law court and equitylaw court, judicial system changes continually, which develops from demandingjoinder of parties strictly in writ system to deal with it for resolving disputes. However,in America the system develops independently although inheriting from England.People look on the question differently in nineteenth and twentieth century. FromField Code in 1848 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 different systemsabout joinder of parties are established in legislature and judicial practice, but thediscussion continues behind it, and how to join parties is still a problem which has notassured answers. The third section analyzes the content and the function of the system of joint actionbriefly. Although it has different names in legislature and judicial practice of civilprocedure in different countries and regions, there is common rule with the frame andthe management of the system, which makes up of principal content when analyzingjoint parties as the subject and the function of the system. Because the paper does notmake the research on the system from the perspective of parties, this chapter definesthe scope of joint parties through the difference from other types of parties. As aspecific system joint action shares the same function with other system of civilprocedure, above all fulfilling procedural benefits and substantial justice.According to different standards joint action can be classified differently andmeaningfully. However, no matter whatever type of joint action demands someestablishment conditions.Chapter two is divided into four sections, which carries on the research centered onthe system in civil law. And at the same time, it is necessary to review similar systemin common law as the object of reference. Regarding with different standards ondefining the classification of joint action, this part takes the popular standard in civillaw, namely according to the relation between joint parties and subject of mattersdiscusses it consequently.Section one reviews and analyzes necessary joint action which can be classifiedinto inherent necessary joint action and similar necessary joint action. These twotypes have different historical sources, whereas syncretic certainty in both conceptsmakes them as one type. This section discusses them separately.It has a long history about inherent necessary joint action, which stresses obligatorysyncretic certainty on party qualification. If joint parties do not institute proceedings,it will not be proper party. Therefore between joint parties it is quite intenseimplicative of each other, and because of this the application scope of inherentnecessary joint action should be limited. Not only in civil law the limitation standardin courts also is applicable to indispensable party in American civil procedure.Similar necessary joint action is different from inherent necessary joint action in theaspects of proper party, connotation and nature etc. As for how to judge the core of similar necessary joint action, namely for joint parties the syncretic certainty ofsubject of matters, people has different understandings in academic field and hasdifferent theories, however, it can be found that every theory has some shortagesthrough careful analysis.As necessary joint action, two types have common trial procedure with each other,such as uniform collection of litigant information and uniform progress of litigantprocedure.Section two discusses the system common joint action simply. Compared withnecessary joint action, the independency of litigant position between common jointparties is more distinguished, but since it is also a type of joint action, the implicationbetween joint parties still exists, which expresses such aspects as common propositionand information and the burden of litigation costs. In order to explain demonstrablythe meanings of common joint action and expurgate the types of joint action whichare easy to be confused, this section discusses several situations which could beexisted in practice. It is this illustrated manner that makes people understanddefinitely the meanings of common joint action and the difference from other types ofjoint action, which further advance the theoretical cognition. However, maybe thereexists no affirmatory answer for every situation, since how to determine the nature ofspecific situation is still in the continuous course.Section three introduces subjective-preparatively incorporative litigation as onespecial type of joint action, which is applicable to the condition that the litigant has noway to assure who should be classified into the plaintiff or the defendant, so makesthe parties preparative incorporation for acquiring recover judgment. It has differenttheories for or against this type of litigation, moreover there are different judicialprecedents in Japan and Taiwan of China. The paper thinks that the reasons against itcan be disproved through some ways, whereas it is necessary to recognize the natureand the condition of subjective-preparatively incorporative litigation again, anddiscuss how to deal with different situations about this type of litigation. Otherwise, itseems to declare publicly movement tendency of subjective-preparativelyincorporative litigation concerned with simultaneous trial joint action prescribed in Japan’s 1998 revised Civil Procedure Law.Section four discusses principal intervention litigation as a special type ofnecessary joint action. It is certain that there are some dissenters in academic field.However as for specific types of principal intervention litigation, there are two types,one as request for entire or partial subject of matters, the other as claim for rightsbeing aggrieved because of litigant result, which have different historical origins. Thissection reviews the composing condition and the effects in procedural law based onthe defmition of its meaning.Chapter three turns to comment on the theory of joint action system again on thebasis of above-mentioned analysis of its history and each type. In view of aboveresearch centered on the system in civil law, it is hard to avoid some one-sided partsso it is necessary to raise essential animadvert on the case, which comes from thesystem itself, but also from the development tendency of the system in civil law.Considering this, this chapter reviews similar system further in common law, andpreliminary review also accounts for value on the institutional functions in thesecountries. At the same time pragmatic jurisprudence in common law do not sustain theestablishment of systematic theory, which leads to some problems in the aspects ofinstitutional application, and present legislature cannot be satisfied by academic fieldso that different propositions produces.Through the comparison of similar system between two families of law, thischapter preliminarily prospects for the future of joint action, including the flexibilityof inherent necessary joint action and the expansion of similar necessary joint action.However it is probably necessary to adjust the litigant status of joint parties.Because this paper does not satisfy with the present system of joint action in ourcountry, last section of this chapter reviews the system from the aspect of legislationand practice, and explains the institutional sources, legal provisions and judicialpractice, so that the advantages and the disadvantages of the present system can beunderstand in general, which may be looked upon as a preliminary analysis ofperfecting the system.Chapter four focuses on the suggestions that will perfect our country’s system of joint action, which may be looked upon as a preliminary analysis of perfecting thesystem in order to keep track of the problems in the present system. Since beingconvinced of the inadequacy of the research on the system of joint action, this chapterfirstly outlines the principles of perfecting the theory of joint action in our country:one is theoretical diversity, including theoretical model and researching method; onedepends on the participation of practical department and the interaction withtheoretical groups, which makes the cooperation accord with the situation of ourcountry. Secondly, on the basis of using the experience of two families of law forreference it should confirm the classification of joint action in theory over again inorder to perfect our country’s system. In practice, however, it is necessary todiscriminate different types for exercising the functions of them adequately. Thirdly,only the system of joint action cannot deal with more and more mass actionsufficiently so that it is sure to establish the system of multi-litigant action whenperfecting the addition of litigant simultaneously in order to resolve the disputeefficiently. This chapter also criticizes the provisions of revision suggestionmanuscript of civil procedure law, which is to put forward legislative advices for therevision of civil procedure and the approximate tendency of joint action in ourcountry.更多还原