民事程序选择权研究

【作者】 王伟；

【导师】 李祖军；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 我之所以要确定程序选择权作为博士论文的题目,着实是一种多年来的夙愿清偿活动。在我硕士阶段与博士第一学年研读中,我不断对民事诉讼法的如下问题进行思索:首先,民事司法对于普通民众的作用究竟为何?我国学者在研究民事司法诸多问题的研究角度与进路通常可以概括为以下几个:针对司法实务中出现的问题进行研究,从而提出能够解决该问题的程序理论及实务操作设计;对于我国民事司法理论问题进行研究,从而指出完善我国民事诉讼理论问题与基本制度问题的看法与观点;对于民事诉讼中国内外前沿问题,通过对外域法的研究、分析与比较法探讨,提出理论与实务解决方案。通过以上研究方法与进路构建了我国自改革开放以来民事诉讼诸多思想、原则、制度、构架、模式、实务操作设计的宏大体系,共同组成我国民事诉讼大厦,而这些为我的学习提供了瀚海般知识海洋。但我认为以上的研究进路与角度从总体上来说是从国家、司法机关角度来研究的。换句话说,即这种研究角度或多或少存在着公权力本位的影像。当然我并不否认这也是一种研究角度与进路。只是在思考:在我国普通民众眼里,什么才是他们所需要、所渴望,真正属于“普通民众”的民事司法;普通民众如何自由、主动、象使用平常生活器具那样来运用民事司法或广义上的民事纠纷诸多解决机制来解决自己的民事纠纷?作者通过对市民社会理论、法治国家基本原则与制度研究后认为:在权利与义务已经或即将成为社会中人们之间关系全部内容的法治国里,只有通过赋予参与程序的主体在对程序知情情况下,通过对程序进行自由、自主的选择,我们整个民事司法的其他相关原则、制度构建才会获得最初的原动力。当然以上观点需要在文章中进行缜密的论证,而这一朴素的出发点成为作者决心将程序选择权问题研究作为博士论文题目的最初动因。其次,如何防止纠纷解决中的接近司法与滥用司法现象?在现代民主法治社会,公民解决民事纠纷的途径主要有私力救济、社会救济与公力救济三种方式,但基于国家担心私力救济与社会救济可能会对公民人权、国家基本制度及秩序、社会公序良俗造成侵害,因此这两种救济方式总是处于国家或多或少的限制当中,即使对仲裁这种“准司法”纠纷解决方式,国家也通过严格的审查监督程序来予以规范。因此,保障民众在民事纠纷解决方面“接近司法”,成为国家设计民事诉讼制度的重要目标。我国无论是从当事人诉权保障逐步完善、支持起诉制度的设计、还是从类型化程序设计完善等方面均可见一斑。但纵观世界各国民事审判发展现状,无论是西方发达国家、我国台湾地区、以及改革开放持续发展一段时间之后的我国,大量的民事纠纷均通过司法解决以及当事人在诉讼中对程序的滥用已经成为造成各国司法效能低下、当事人费用高昂、国家财政不堪重负的主要原因之一。因此各国随之而进行的司法改革措施无一例外地集中到以加强法官职能、防止民众对司法的滥用目标上来。而作者通过对该选题的初步研究认为:造成这种现象虽然有诸多原因,但重要的一点就是当事人之所以不愿意选择其他非讼方式来解决民事纠纷就在于虽然国家设立了多种纠纷解决方式,例如在我国就有仲裁、人民调解委员会调解、国家部分行政机关调解等方式,但制度设计体系中严重欠缺选择机制。具体来说,国家层面没有赋予这些程序“选择一效力”机制;纠纷主体层面欠缺对该种程序在权利层面的知情、在知情情况下的选择、在选择之后的自我约束能力。基于该理论问题的思考,催生了作者就程序选择权问题进行研究的渴望。作者在硕士阶段对具体个案进行的调查中发现:步入民事诉讼中的当事人对本案所抱有的目的很难用解决纠纷一言而概括之,其目的有的可能是为了尽快摆脱纠缠于争议中的混乱的生活状态,有的是为了通过诉讼维权,有的是为了通过形式化的诉讼解决以后行为的正当性问题等等。诉的类型从理论上被划分为了给付、确认与形成三种形式,但实务中往往难以周全,而且在当事人诉讼目的出现混合状态时,更现理论的不足。同时,作者还发现,我国民众中不同于西方民众的和谐、调解思想以及随之而来的诉讼观念更是使严格概念意义上的诉之类型理论难以解释。这种民事司法背后的文化、传统、思想因素在“西化”司法制度中出现的与西方诉讼诸要素的冲突也日渐凸现。因此,虽然西方发达国家近些年也在进行民事司法改革,也在通过建立多元的纠纷解决机制、赋予当事人多种解决纠纷的方法,但这种选择权从目的、内容、阶段、特征方面与我国民事纠纷解决中当事人的选择权应有相当程度的差异。因此从比较法的角度研究程序选择权的权利来源、权利存在的背景、目的、可能的制度保障就变的很有意义了。因此这也成为作者将程序选择权作为博士论文目的的原因。除序言与结语外,本文共分为六章,共19万字左右。总体上说,论文首先从各国如火如荼开展的司法改革为进路,分析了各国司法改革具体措施深处所隐藏的民事诉讼研究、制度的重大理论变革,并进而得出从从当事人角度为研究进路,探讨民事纠纷解决制度中当事人的参与、选择机制,并从实务操作层面进行精细化的制度设计,理应成为民事诉讼理论研究与制度之重要内容的意义论断。同时,作为引子的前言部分还重点阐述了程序选择权理论创生后,在与司法改革内容互动中所表现出的重大理论与实践意义。并且在本部分结束前,文章阐述了本文即将研究的几个主要问题。一、第一章是程序与选择的一般理论在本章的第一节,笔者先对程序的特征及分类进行了论述,并着重分析了动态角度洞察程序,其展现的若干特征。随后,笔者在将程序的发展基本理论限定在哈耶克的进化论理性主义基础上,指出程序法的演进规律为:从不可认知的程序法到可认知程序法、从当事人客体地位的程序法到当事人主体地位的程序法、从义务本位的程序法向权利本位的程序法的三大演化规律。而后,在以上分析及对选择行为进行简单概括的基础上,笔者着重论述了程序法的发展对当事人选择行为的重要作用,即在本节小结中提出的观点:“从历史角度看,程序法不断发展的过程,即是排除当事人自由选择障碍的历史;从发展结果看,现代程序法通过‘知情体系’及‘自由体系’的确立,为当事人提供了广阔在程序运行中自由选择的空间,在这个自由空间里,当事人在知晓程序规则的前提下,其行为无受非自己意志而施加强制的影响,自由地对规则不禁止的权利内容进行选择,并承担由此产生的后果”。本章的第二节理论建立在程序法经过漫长历史发展,演化为今时今日的现代程序法后,在其运行中展现出来的程序与选择的互动关系。现代司法程序为当事人提供了自由的对话与商谈环境,在这个话语场域里,当事人被分化为不同的角色、当事人的行为被限定为规范性交互行为。因此感性、冲动、甚至暴力的决择行为被程序规范约束后而嬗变为理性、有序的选择性行为。因此,现代意义上的程序法实际上是保障在其中行为主体选择行为理性的必要制度框架,如果没有现代意义上的程序法,则任何结果的出现都可以说缺乏必要的反映当事人真实意志催使下的选择行为的必要前提,从这个意义上说,该结果也缺乏合理性。而在程序规则下的当事人选择行为,由于选择的自然择优性而使程序克服了因规则的普适性而带来的僵化弊病,并且选择的群体性效应使程序力量中的合理性不断得到检验,资源不断得到优化配置,进而实现社会所有程序的不断地进化,无疑,选择此时对程序来说成为其效果的检验标尺、资源得到优化配置的依据、不断弃陈推新而进步的航标指示。所以,程序与选择所天然具有的互动关系,在此节得到较为完整的阐述,并成为程序选择权得以存在并发挥其功能的重要理论支撑。综上,本章从程序的演进对选择的作用启始,系统以历史的方法、比较的方法对程序与选择的一般关系进行了较为详尽的阐述,形成了全文的基础性理论框架:程序与选择的一般理论。二、第二章是民事程序选择权的本体论本章实质在于解决一个新兴理论必须回答的问题:什么是程序选择权?我们为什么要程序选择权?程序选择权的基本内容是什么?本章第一节首先解决程序选择权作为一种权利其产生的缘由何在,即笔者称之为的“程序选择权创生理论”。笔者指出:程序选择权作为一种权利体系,其产生于上个世纪中叶逐步开始的各国应对司法危机的思考。司法危机的发生,使民事程序法理论界与实务界对“接近正义”及“替代纠纷解决机制”理论与制度构建进行了深入的探讨与研究,而这些改革措施的最终结果在实现为主体提供尽量多的、合目的性纠纷解决方式的同时,也使程序主体权得以确立、程序主体权与审判权关系发生了质的改变。进而程序选择权成为这些理论变革的必然表现。本章第二节是从理论上对程序选择权的主体、对象进行详细总结与归纳。笔者对程序选择权的概念并非采用单纯的描述性的方法,而是在将其三个理论基础进行仔细分析基础上进行的较为系统的归纳。随后对主体进行分析后,笔者重点论述了程序选择权可能的几种对象的组合。除此之外,笔者还创造性地提出程序选择权行使的两个原则:诚实信用原则与成本相当性原则。最后,笔者在以上分析的基础上,提出程序选择权具有的社会性功能:第一,有利于社会纠纷解决机制的合理构建;第二,程序选择权是社会和谐私法秩序形成的重要条件。三、第三章及第四章为程序选择权实现的相关制度构建本章主要是在论证、分析我国目前基本纠纷解决程序一调解、仲裁与诉讼程序中阻碍当事人进行选择的诸多弊端为研究进路,提出构建以修正后的上述三程序为主要制度框架的程序选择权制度体系。并且论证分析了以上述三程序为基本选择程序的程序选择权实现模式。第一节,笔者首先论证了,纠纷发生后影响当事人选择适当纠纷解决程序的主要因素。即:我国历史发展中形成的、成为我国民众普遍意识的诉讼文化或司法文化、纠纷类型对当事人选择的影响及社会关系的性质分野对当事人选择的影响三大因素。并进而提出以上述三标准改造我国现有三大纠纷解决方式的主要观点。第二节是对调解体系重构的分析。在分析了阻却当事人选择调解解决纠纷主要原因的基础上,笔者指出:社区化、专职化并存的多元民间调解组织的建设、实现调解的技术性研究与完善,并建立一定的专职调解员遴选与培训制度,与完善调解效力的若干规定,加强调解协议的执行力的调解制度修正方案。第三节是对仲裁制度的改革。笔者通过实证调查、数据分析指出当事人无法选择仲裁的障碍在于:社会主体对仲裁知之甚少或诸多误解,造成仲裁的社会亲和力缺失、司法对仲裁的不当影响、仲裁价值的研究不足而导致的制度设计缺陷障碍、仲裁组织建设数量偏多、质量低下,导致仲裁结果对当事人而言缺乏信服力等四个原因。并提出修正仲裁制度的三个建议:整合仲裁机构,使仲裁机构及仲裁员专业化、建立和完善我国的临时仲裁体系、修正仲裁的司法监督制度。第四章为对我国诉讼制度的修正分析。笔者首先指出,诉讼作为纠纷解决手段与调解与仲裁不同点之一即在于,诉讼的提起是纠纷发生后任何一方当事人的法定权利—诉权行使的结果。即:在纠纷解决方式确定方面,诉讼不以当事人之间的选择作为其开始的必要条件。当事人在诉讼中,其选择表现为对程序部分制度、原则的选择,实现在纠纷解决的同时,使程序利益与实体利益得到均衡考虑与保护目标。因此,本节的诉讼制度的修正,即是在探讨如何改革诉讼程序内容,使当事人程序选择权更好地实现。在一审程序方面,笔者提出“大审前与精审判的”程序构造,而在二审方面,主要是提出完善我国的上诉权行使制度、完善我国上诉审对象及方式的协商、合意选择制度等立法改革建议。四、第五章为程序选择权的实现模式该章为程序选择权的实践模式分析。笔者首先对程序选择权的性质及其与诉权和处分权的区别进行了详细的论证,指出特殊的权利性质是导致程序选择权具有较为特殊的实现模式的重要原因。在此基础上,笔者指出,程序选择权在诉讼系属前与诉讼系属后的实践模式存在不同,系属前的实践模式为“诉讼契约”模式,通过系属前的诉讼契约,当事人达成对纠纷解决方式的合意性选择,而通过“合意的二重获得”方式最终使程序选择权功能得以发挥,纠纷得以解决。而诉讼系属后的模式除了“诉讼契约”模式外,还有“请求—裁定”的实践模式。本节我着重论述了,“请求—裁定”模式产生的特殊原因,以及其成为程序选择权方式的合理性所在。并最后阐述了这种模式的具体制度构建。五、第六章为民事程序选择权的保障论本章中笔者指出,对程序选择权的保障可以从两个方面进行。首先是通过激励手段促使当事人积极、理性地行使程序选择权,其次是通过惩戒手段,使怠于、非理性行使程序选择权的当事人程序利益受到一定程度减损,从而同样起到促使当事人积极、理性行使程序选择权目的。第一节、第二节为激励手段,即我国法律援助制度与法官心证公开制度的完善。在分析之后,笔者指出我国法律援助制度要从两个方面完善:第一为从组织上排除民间法律援助机构建立滞障,通过丰富民间法律援助组织,从总量上增加民间法律援助行为,从而使当事人程序选择行为得到专业上的帮助;第二为转换法律援助制度的行为重心,扩大非诉讼法律援助的内容,从而使诉讼系属前当事人即获得法律援助保障,进而其系属前程序选择行为即得到专业帮助。而我国心证公开制度,笔者指出应当破除法官心证公开只能在判决书中的模式,构建我国法官阶段性心证公开理论与制度构建,从而使法官在诉讼进行的若干阶段通过当事人请求或依职权公开心证,从而增强当事人对诉讼结果的预测性,进而促使当事人积极、理性行使程序选择权。第三节为通过惩戒机制促使当事人行使权利的分析,笔者首先论证,不能通过对实体利益的贬损促使当事人行使程序选择权,进而提出建立我国诉讼费用惩戒机制来保障当事人积极行使程序选择权的观点,即通过以下两个方面的费用制度完善来实现:建立阶段性案件受理费收费标准、移植英国诉讼费用评定制度,构建我国对当事人的诉讼费用惩戒措施。最后,在文章的结语部分,笔者指出程序选择权作为一种新程序法权利体系,其完善尚需充分的理论探讨与实践评估。并从若干方面为今后的研究方向进行了展望。更多还原

【Abstract】 The subject of my doctoral dissertation should be treated as long-cherished wish of me. The case study of my graduate student period shows that the aims of parties in civil procedure are very complex.By every personal litigation,wanting solve the disputation of the parties,bringing an accusation against somebody for the fights,via formalizing settlement making the following behaviors justice,maybe all the aims of every litigation of the parties.Traditionally,there are three sorts of the actions,the action of confirmation,the action of performance,the action of formation.But these are extremely not enough for the practical operation,especially when the aims of two parties are impure and comprehensive. Meanwhile,I found that the background of lawsuit between China and Hesperian is so different that it makes many factors of mental which can control the deeds of two parties profoundly are otherness two.The background factors mostly are the ideals of harmoniousness and intermediation preference.By the domination of these factors,the actual civil procedural system seems unsuitable to the parties’ complicated needs.Therefore, although the judicial reform of Hesperian include the same content as China,just as erecting the multi-system of civil dispute resolution,endowing the parties with the right to select the property manners beyond the litigation to solve the dispute between them.But in my opinion,the discrepancy between China and other counties is so great,so that we should think carefully about our judicial reform,especially we should emphases on the judicial reform background,and the corresponding systems should suit to it.For above reasons,I hereby make the optional right about civil procedure as the topic of my doctoral dissertation.Excluding the prologue and the epilogue,there are six chapters in the dissertation.And it is about eighteen-hundred thousand Chinese characters.In the mass,I first analysis the judicial reform of some countries,and then give the basic conclusion,that is,the direction of China’ judicial reform is to set up a dispute resolution truly for the people,based on the multi-demand,uppermost suit the parties’ needs.In a word,the reform direction is to erect an judicial and dispute resolution truly form the people,by the people and for the people. Based above conclusion,my dissertation investigates follow questions. THE ELEMENTARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROCEDURE & THE OPTIONAL DEEDThe first chapter,I research the elementary relationship between the selective deed and the procedure.The first section of the chapter,I analyze the procedure through dynamic fashion,and give some elementary theories about my dissertation,especially the evolution rationalism of Hayek.At the end of the analysis,I point the three laws of the gradual progress of procedure,from the unknowable to knowable,from the obligation standard to right standard,form the parties’ object-standard position to subject-standard position.And then,I give the important effect about the evolution of procedure to the parties’ selective deeds.Just as what I write in the section,"From the point of the history,the procedure has and is developing gradually.And the progress mostly is a course of eliminating the obstacles to the parties’ selective deeds.The result is the modern procedure has been developed the ’freedom system’ and the ’sensible system’ for the parties.And the above systems erect a room for the parties to select the relevant dement of the procedure with freedom.This not only makes the parties to be the true master of the procedure,but also makes the parties to be the subjects of more responsible."The second section,I investigate the interaction of the modern procedure and the selective deed of the parties.In my opinion,the modern procedure gives the parties a surrounding in which the parties can talk and bargain freely.The parties hereby are split up, and their alternant deeds are also kept in the criterion.So the parties’ formerly perceptual, impetuous or even forcible deeds at last change into rational,orderly selective deeds.So the modern procedure is the safeguard in which the parties can use their optional right rationally to solve their dispute.To the extent,without the modern procedure,then the parties haven’t the true optional rights,and the judicial result is inconsequence.But the above conclusion absolutely means not that the parties’ optional deed has no effect on the procedure.In my opinion,the selective advantage of the optional right can naturally overcomes the rigidity of procedure.And further more,the groupment effect of the optional deed can continuously examine the result of the procedure.These effects of the parties’ optional deeds not only can urge the procedure be made progress,but also can ensure the direction of the progress suit to the needs of the people maximatily.As stated above,there is natural interactive relation between the procedure and the optional deed.And the theory becomes the foremost base theory of my dissertation. THE ONTOLOGY OF THE OPTIONAL RIGHTThe second chapter of my dissertation tries to answer follow questions.The first is what is the optional right of the parties? Why we need the optional right in civil procedure? What is the elementary content about the theory?The first section of the chapter tries to explain the origin of the right.I think,as a system of private right,it came from the cogitation of the circle of practice and theory about the judicial crisis around the western countries.The judicial crisis makes the scholars thought carefully to solve corresponding problems.As a result of the investigation,the "access to justice" and the "replaceable dispute resolution mechanism" theories were given birth.All these theories and following measures make the parties having quite a few optional chances to determine their procedure themselves,and from another point of view, this made the parties get the subject-standard position in the dispute-resolve procedure.Just as I said in the section,the erecting of the parties’ subject-standard position mean that the parties’ optional right was erected too.So,the procedural option right theory maybe can be thought as the result of the judicial crisis around the world.The second section of the chapter is a detailed conclusion of the object,subject of the procedural option right.Not with the single descriptive method,I generalize the concept of procedural option right on the basis of analyzing three interrelated concepts.After the analysis of the subject of the right,I focal point the object and spread out several assembles of the object.After these,I point out the two principles of the procedural option right in a creative way,which is the principle of good faith and reasonable cost.At the end of the section,I point out the effects of the right.The first is do good to the construction of the social dispute resolution mechanism,and the second is the fundamental condition to the construction of the harmonious society.THE CORRELATINV INSTITUTION BUILDING OF THE PROCEDURAL OPTION RIGHTThe third and the forth chapters are the institution building of the procedural option right.The third chapter is used to analyze and demonstrate the China’ current dispute resolution procedures.In this chapter,I point out we should erect the procedural option fight institution,in which the intermediation,the arbitration and the litigation are the three main bodies.The first section,I investigate the elements which affect the parties’ selective deeds.In the conclusion,I point out three main factors which can profoundly affect the selective deed of Chinese.First of all is the lawsuit culture,which has been forming in the historical long fiver.And the second is the tapes of dispute.The last is the different social relation in given dispute.The second section is the analysis of the intermediation.After analyzing the hindrance factors which prevent the parties selecting the intermediation,I point out with emphases that establishing the fulltime,community-based organization,reforming and perfecting the technicality of intcrmediation and constructing the system of picking and training conciliator are the three important steps for the intermediation institution.After this,I also expound that in order to provoke the parties to select the intermediation to solve their disputes,we should strengthen the positive effect and the executive power of the reconciliation agreement.The third section is about the reform of the arbitration.According to my conclusion of the investigation,I think there are several reasons which block the people choose the arbitration to solve their disputes,when some sort of disputes rise.In the followings,I have written four blocking reasons.First,because the subject has no acquaintance with or only has misknowledge of the arbitration,so the appetency of the arbitration is disappearing gradually.Second,the judicial improper influence on the arbitration is one reason.Third is the shortcoming of the arbitration itself,which comes from the lacking of research.The fourth,though the quantity of the organization of arbitration in China is high,but the quality of the arbitration is low contrarily,so the subject of the dispute doesn’t believe the arbitration and also doesn’t believe the result of the arbitration.After these,I give three advises to change the corrupt practice in arbitration.In my opinion,in order to change the current problems we should integrate the organization,should turn the organizations and the arbitrators into professional ones,should prohibit the judicial put improper influence on the arbitration organizations or arbitrators.The fourth chapter is about the modification of the lawsuit system.Above all I point out that the difference of judicial between the intermediation or the arbitration is any party of the dispute subject has the legal right to bring a lawsuit against the other,whatever the other party agree or not.So we can make certain that about if to sue,the option right has little effect.But this absolutely doesn’t mean that there is on option right or option deed of the parties in the civil procedure.In judicial procedure,the option right can be registered as following deed through which the parties can choose part of the judicial procedure system or principle.And the parties can achieve the aim of grasping the procedure and material profit.According to the first instance,I point out we should start the "greater pre-trial procedure and more careful trial procedure" reform work.The second instance,I think we should complete the negotiation system for the appellants.The aim of the reformatory steps should be made to let the appellants can negotiate each other and make agreement freely.THE MODE OF THE IMPLEMENTATIONThe fifth chapter is the analysis of the mode of the implementation of the option right. First of all,I demonstrate in detail on the characteristic of the option right and the difference between option right and right of disposing.And then I point out the mode of the implementation of the option right should be divided into two periods.One is before the litigation started in which the "litigation agreement" mode is the implementation mode of the fight,and the other is after the litigation started in which except for the former mode, the "requesting & ruling" mode is the implementation mode of the right.Through "litigation agreement" mode,the parties come to an agreement to choose the resolution way for their dispute.And after "twice agreement",the parties can solve their dispute thoroughly. Because of the particularity of the second mode,I set forth with emphasis the generated cause of the mode.Meanwhile,the rationality of the mode and the idiographic construction of the institution are also the focal points of the chapter.THE SECURITY FOR THE CIVIL PRECEDURAL OPTION RIGHTIn my opinion,the security of the civil procedural option right can be constructed in two ways.The first is that we should use the excitation mechanism to encourage the parties using their right reasonable and timely.Second is the reprimand system which can punish the party who do not use the right in accordance with the law.I think these two methods should be the important security for the civil procedural option fight.The details of the first and second sections are about the excitation mechanism.There are two important mechanisms should be improved.The first is the legal aid system,and the second is the publicity of discretion of the judge system.According the current situation of legal aid of China,I think we should strengthen two points of our system.The first is we should rule out the barrier of the construction of the legal aid organization.This should increase the amount of the legal aid organization,and this also means the people can get more legal aid when the dispute emerges.The second way is to change the main part of China’s legal aid.Through the investigation,I found that the litigant legal aid is the main part of China,this is little suit to the need of the legal aid of the people.So I think we should enlarge the scope of the legal,especially the legal aid before litigation.These steps,I think,can help the parties choose the fight pattern rationally.The other system that we should complete is the publicity of discretion of the judge system.I think we should change the characteristic of the publicity of discretion of the judge system,from which the outcome goal to a phasic goal.We should plan that in several period the judge must open the discretion of the dispute,so that the parties can evaluate the dispute,and get the probability, and this can make the parties do the rational deed in the litigation.I think,all this can help the parties to choose the right procedureThe third section is about the reprimand system.I think we should not prompt the people to select the proper procedure,by punishing in material interest.Because of the delay or improperly using of the right is not the felicitous reason for use to take away from the material interest.I think we should construct the system of cost punishment to achieve the aim.In this section,I also inspect the institution of British litigation costs evaluation.I think we should adopt the institution to complete the corresponding system of China.At the end of the dissertation,as the epilogue,I point out that the civil procedural option right is a new system of right in civil procedure.All the measures what I said in the dissertation should be examined in the future.Including the system of the right itself and the institution of the implement of the right,there are many works we should do.更多还原