【作者】 杜丹；

【导师】 陈桂明；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文是一篇系统研究民事诉讼诚实信用原则的博士论文。作者作为一名从事民事审判工作十余年的实践者,在审判工作中常常为各种不诚信的诉讼行为所困扰,同时作为一名一直潜心于民事诉讼理论学习与探究的研究者,作者也常为我国民事诉讼法学界多年来未更多地将相关研究深入化系统化深感遗憾。理论研究的滞后,法律规定的匮乏,审判实践的尴尬,是促使作者对民事诉讼诚实信用原则进行研究的直接原因。作者希望将民事诉讼诚实信用原则的研究向前推进,以构建起“基本原则→具体制度→责任体系”这样一个完整的民事诉讼诚实信用原则系统,以期最终对审判实践走出困境有所裨益。这即是本文之目的。考虑到诚实信用原则是从一个道德原则发展为一个法律原则,同时又跨越了公法与私法多个法律部门,单一的研究方法是不足以对其进行全面透视的。因此,作者立足于审判实践,在使用传统的法学研究方法的同时,将伦理学、经济学、社会学的研究方法也运用其中,以期对民事诉讼中的诚实信用原则能够进行更为全面的分析。本文共六章,约二十三万字。第一章“概论”在对诚实信用的概念进行界定的基础之上,对诚实信用原则在民事诉讼法上的地位进行了论证。在民事诉讼法“原则—规则”的结构中,诚实信用原则显然是一个法律原则;在民事诉讼法“基本原则—具体原则”结构中,诚实信用原则是一个基本原则。而在民事诉讼法基本原则体系中,诚实信用原则与其他的基本原则,如平等原则、处分原则,尤其是辩论原则并非是对立的,互不相融的。一方面诚实信用原则对其他的基本原则发挥着补充和修正的作用,另一方面其他的基本原则对诚实信用原则的正确运用也起着不可忽视的作用。此外,本章对民事诉讼诚实信用原则的功能也进行了分析阐述。在第二章“诚实信用原则发展论”中,作者以古罗马法为起点,介绍了罗马法、民法、宪法、行政法、刑法、刑事诉讼法上的诚实信用原则的内容及发展,最后重点阐述了诚实信用原则在民事诉讼法上的确立。虽然在德国、日本及我国学术界是否应当将诚实信用原则引入民事诉讼法还存在着激烈的争论,但在理论上的论战尚未尘埃落定之时,各国已经纷纷在立法上对它予以了确认。只是立法仅仅解决的是实然性的问题,至于应然性的问题仍然是悬而未决。对此,作者从经济学、心理学、社会学、法理学及民事诉讼法学等多个角度进行补充分析,从而得出了诚实信用原则在民事诉讼法上出现是现实需要之结论。第三章“民事诉讼诚实信用原则比较论”采用比较分析的研究方法,从三对关系上进行了比较研究。第一对关系是道德诚信与民事诉讼法上的诚信的比较。作者认为,两者之间虽然存在共同点,但也在存在的基础、调整的逻辑起点及范围、违反的效果等方面具有不同之处。而且道德诚信与民事诉讼法上的诚信具有一种相互间的流动关系。立法使道德诚信法律化,而守法又使法律上的诚信道德化了。第二对关系是民法诚信原则与民事诉讼法诚信原则的比较。作者认为古罗马的诚信诉讼是两者共同的起源;对自由主义的反思是两者共同的观念基础;司法领域则是两者的紧密结合部。但是,法律关系是两者的分界线,两者在主体、内容、客体三个方面均存在相异之处。本章最后就大陆法系民事诉讼诚信与英美法系民事诉讼诚信的关系从观念、确立途径、表达方式三个方面进行了比较研究。一方面文章展示了诚实信用在两大法系的民事诉讼中呈现出迥然不同的形象,但另一方面作者也看到了两者之间相互借鉴,彼此靠拢,逐渐接近的现象。诚实信用原则从一个抽象的原则到一个具体妥当的判决,这中间的道路即是原则的具体化或制度化的问题。为了防止一般条款所带来的恣意与滥用,诚实信用原则更多的是通过具体的法律规范和判例适用于民事诉讼的实践。第四章重点介绍了针对当事人的诉讼诚信所建立的各项制度。具体而言包括:1、禁止恶意制造诉讼状态的制度;2、禁止矛盾诉讼行为的制度;3、禁止滥用程序权利的制度;4、禁止妨碍他人的诉讼行为的制度。第五章则重点讨论了法官及其他诉讼主体的诉讼诚信制度。法官是民事纠纷的最终裁判者,纵使其他所有的诉讼主体都诚信行事,如果法官缺乏诚信,对整个民事诉讼制度,乃至整个法治社会都将是毁灭性的打击。因此,作者在第五章中将大部分笔墨集中在了规范法官行为的诚信制度上,主要讨论了自由裁量制度、自由心证制度、防止突袭裁判的制度以及法院之间的诚信制度。此外,在其他诉讼主体中作者选择了证人为代表,探讨了证人诚实作证的制度。为了防止诚实信用原则沦为一个空洞的口号,建立对违反诉讼诚信的制裁措施是必要之举。第六章“民事诉讼诚实信用原则保障论”首先对违反民事诉讼诚信原则的程序性责任进行了梳理;其次从侵权法的角度对违反民事诉讼诚实信用原则的民事实体性责任进行了讨论;最后作者指出,在责任体系内部针对违反诉讼诚信行为的侵权诉讼与民事判决既判力之间,法官违反诚信的责任与司法豁免权之间,以及对违反诚信的责任追究与民事诉讼程序安定性之间均存在着一定的紧张关系。作者从诚实信用原则出发,寻找到了解决这三对矛盾的有效途径。更多还原

【Abstract】 This doctorial dissertation studies the principle of good faith in the civil procedure law. As a judge with 15 year civil court experience, the author has frequently been disturbed by various dishonest behaviors presented in the civil proceedings. At the same time, being a researcher focusing on theoretical and doctrinal development in civil procedure, the author also often feels pitiful that the scholars in the field have failed to pursue systematic and in-depth studies on the good faith principle. The underdevelopment of academic research, the deficiency of laws and the difficulties of trial practice have motivated the author to devote her dissertation to this subject. Through the research, the author endeavors to construct a comprehensive legal framework for implementing the good faith principle in China’s civil procedure. Such framework includes the basic principles, the special rules and the legal liability rules. The author hopes that establishing the new framework will contribute to the resolution of difficulties encountered in the trial practice.The good faith principle as a legal doctrine was originated from morality, and now implicates multiple areas within both private law and public law. As such, it is difficult to fully examine the subject from any single perspective. In conducting the research, the author has leveraged on her civil court practice experience, and also supplemented the conventional jurisprudence approaches with other methodologies borrowed from ethnics, economics and sociology.This dissertation contains six chapters, totaling approximately 230,000 words. Chapter One“General Introduction”defines the principle of good faith first and then discusses the doctrinal status of such principle in the civil procedure law. In the structure of“legal principles– legal rules,”the good faith principle is a legal principle; while in the structure of“basic principle– special principle,”it is a basic principle. Within the general framework of civil procedural principles, the good faith principle does not necessarily conflict with the other basic principles, such as the principle of parity and reciprocity, principle of disposition and in particular the principle of debate. Rather, it complements the other principles and such others also guarantee that the good faith principle plays a correct role in the practice. In addition, the chapter also analyzes the function of the good faith principle in civil procedure.Using the ancient Roman law as the starting point, Chapter Two“The Development of the Good Faith Principle”discusses the historical development of the good faith principle in the Roman laws, constitutional law, administrative law, civil law, criminal law, criminal procedural law, and in particular, the establishment of its basic doctrinal status in the civil procedure law. Despite the heated on-going academic debate over whether the good faith principle should be introduced into the civil procedure law, many countries have already stipulated such principle in their legislations. However, recognition by the legislation only reveals the law as it is, the academic controversy over how the law ought to be remains to be settled. After analyzing the issue from the multiple perspectives of economics, psychics, sociology, jurisprudence and civil procedure law, the chapter reaches a conclusion that introducing the good faith principle into the civil procedural law is of a practical necessity.Chapter Three“The Comparative Study of the Good Faith Principle in Civil Procedure”explores the principle by considering three sets of relationship. The first set compares the moral good faith principle with the good faith principle in civil procedure law. The author argues that while the two have some commonalities, they differentiate from each other in terms of the bases of existence, the logical origins and scopes of regulation, and the consequences of violations. In addition, there exists an interdependent and interchangeable relationship between the moral principle and the principle in civil procedure. On the one hand, legislation legalizes the moral principle; on the other hand, observing law vindicates the morality of legal good faith principle. The second set of relationship compares the good faith principle in the contexts of civil law and civil procedural law. The author argues that the two share the ancient Roman bonae fidei proceeding concept as their origins and the rethinking of liberalism as their ideological bases, and through judicial practice they are closely connected with each other. Nonetheless, the different legal relationships governed by the two principles clearly divide them up, as they have distinct subjects, contents and objects. The final set of relationship compares the civil procedural good faith principle embodied in the civil law system and in the common law system from three different angles: the idea, the establishment and the expression. While the principle presents itself very differently in the two systems, there also seems to be a trend of gradual convergence of the two systems in this respect by their drawing on experiences of each other.From an abstract principle to a specific reasonable judgment, we face the issue of how to institutionalize the principle to specific rules. In order to avoid the principle of good faith being abused, detailed statutory law and case law are required for appropriate application of the principle in practice. Chapter Four introduces the special legal rules that ensure the good faith behaviors of parties involved in civil proceedings. The special rules include those of: (i) prohibiting maliciously initiating civil proceedings, (ii) prohibiting conflicting actions, (iii) prohibiting abuse of civil procedural rights, and (iv) prohibiting obstructing others’proceeding actions. Chapter Five focuses on the rules regulating the good faith behaviors of judges and other participants in civil proceedings. Because judges make the final judgments, even if all other subjects in the civil proceedings act with honest, without the judges’good faith behaviors fair and just judgments would still be impossible. Therefore, judges’behavior in good faith is critical to the well function of the civil procedure system and to the rule of law in a country. As such, a significant portion of the chapter discusses the rules governing judges’trial discretion, free evaluation of evidence, preventing surprise judgments, as well as the good faith cooperation among the courts. In addition, the chapter also selects witnesses as the representative of other subjects in civil proceedings and analyzes the rules of ensuring witnesses’honest testimony in civil actions.To prevent the good faith principle from becoming an empty slogan, it is necessary to establish relevant legal liability rules for punishing violation of the principle. Chapter Six“Guaranty of the Good Faith Principle in Civil Procedure”first discusses the procedural liability resulting from violating the good faith principle in civil procedure, and then the substantive liability resulting from such violation taking the standpoint of the tort law. Finally, the author points out that there exist certain conflicts in the legal liability system relating to the behaviors violating the good faith principle, which include (i) tort lawsuits and res judicata of civil judgments, (ii) liability of judges’bad faith behaviors and their judicial exemptions, and (iii) the liability for violating the good faith principle and stability of civil proceedings. The author then tries to find an effective solution for such conflicts through the implementation of the good faith principle.更多还原