【作者】 张学武；

【导师】 肖金明；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 人类文明的发展是与权力的产生、发展同步的,与权力现象相伴随的,则是人类对于如何控制和约束权力的探索。诉讼是文明社会的重要现象,诚如前言,任何权力都需要监督制约,诉讼中的各种权力也不例外。在我国,人民检察院的宪法定位为国家的法律监督机关。在检察权所包含的权能中,诉讼监督无疑是重要的组成部分。从理论研究的角度看,国内就诉讼监督的研究近几年为宪法学和诉讼法学界所关注,而研究的焦点更是集中在检察院的诉讼监督制度上,尤其是关于民事诉讼的检察监督制度,针对这一制度的争论也从未间断,围绕民事诉讼检察监督的权力性质、权力范围、权力运行以及民事诉讼检察监督制度的正当性等甚至出现了一些针锋相对的观点。正是这样一种现实,使得我们的检察监督制度特别是民事诉讼检察监督制度在理论界饱守争议,与之相应的是我们的诉讼监督实践也只能在众多的褒贬之中蹒跚前行。这些年来,虽然学者们对这一命题的研究倾注了巨大的热情,但研究的深度和广度还存在不少的缺陷,零散的介绍和简单的总结居多、全面、深入的研究较少,已有的成果大多是站在普及知识的角度上进行论述,或是立足现状对现有制度进行修补式的完善,并大都体现出较浓厚的本位主义色彩,即对待这一制度大都有着鲜明的立场,要么是否定并废除,要么是肯定并加强。我们深知,任何一项制度的确立必须有坚实的理论基础作为支撑,否则它便有随时倾倒之虞。本文即是立足我国的宪政体制和中国法治本土资源,结合当前的民事诉讼检察监督实践,在综合分析理论与实务界已有成果的基础上,探析民事诉讼检察监督的制度价值并对其存在的正当性进行分析。同时,结合根据宪法规定推导出的应然制度与现行法律所确立的实然制度的差异,分析我国民事诉讼检察监督制度存在的问题与不足,并在比较分析国际、国内法律规定与历史发展的基础上,对我国现行民事诉讼检察监督制度的完善提出自己的意见。与已有的研究成果相比,本文试图站在整个诉讼过程的角度,从构建完整的民事诉讼监督体系的高度出发去研究这一制度,特别是对于民事诉讼检察监督在宏观层面面临的问题、民事立案监督、民事调解监督、民事诉讼检察监督的运行界限等学界鲜有论述的问题以及有关检察权的性质等学界颇有争议的问题进行了深刻阐述。同时,文章的创新之处还在于不但探讨了这一制度存在的价值,也指出了这一制度运行可能存在的问题,并探讨建立规范这一制度运行的体制性约束机制。在论文的写作过程中,本文不但注重基础理论的研究,更重视理论联系实际,主要运用比较分析法、历史分析法、实证分析法的方法对所涉问题进行深入研究。论文由导论,正文六章和结语共八部分组成,具体各章主要内容如下:导论。在导论中简要阐述了论文选题的背景、研究现状、研究目的、研究方法等。第一章民事诉讼检察监督的基本范畴。要对一项制度进行全面系统地研究,首先就要界定与这一制度有关的基本范畴,这里面既包括一些范畴的基本内涵、性质,也应包括它们的历史轨迹等等。本章全面阐述了包括诉讼与诉讼监督、检察与检察权、检察监督与民事诉讼检察监督等在内的,与民事诉讼检察监督有关的基本范畴,包括它们的辞源、内涵、性质等内容。在这其中,首先需要界定的便是诉讼的范畴。根据关于诉讼内涵的经典定义,诉讼被界定为“司法机关在当事人和其他诉讼参与人参加下,依法定程序,为处理案件而进行的活动。司法机关在诉讼中居主导地位,代表国家行使司法权,诉讼有刑事、民事和行政诉讼。以起诉、审判、执行为基本阶段,刑事诉讼中还包括侦查。”由此可见,检察机关对民事诉讼活动的监督必然要涵盖起诉、审判、执行等阶段,而与诉讼这三个阶段相关的立案、起诉、保全、审理、调解、裁判、执行等活动自然应纳入检察监督的范围。在与民事诉讼检察监督制度有关的基本范畴中,检察权自然是不能忽略的一个重要内容,特别是对检察权的性质这一与制度有关的核心问题更是需要进行重点论述,而关于这一问题的争论也是近年来司法改革进程中的热点话题之一。仅有代表性的学说就有包括司法权说、行政权说、双重属性说、法律监督权说、立法权说、双层属性说、多层属性说、多元属性说等在内的八种之多。而我们认为检察权作为国家权力中一个相对独立的、具有特殊性的权力,兼有行政、司法和监督等多重性质,是独立于行政权和司法权之外的一项权力,不能简单地将其归属于行政权或司法权,也不能将其归属于法律监督权而忽视检察权的行政与司法属性。在这种情况下,本文立足我国的宪政体制认为“检察权就是检察权”,是宪法确定的国家权力体系中一项独立的权力,是与行政权、司法权、军事权相平行的国家权力。论文在第一章还简要分析了包括法院监督、检察监督、人大监督、舆论监督、执政党监督、政协监督、社团监督、公民监督等现行的民事诉讼监督权力体系的架构。本章还着重对大陆法系和英美法系一些代表性国家的民事诉讼检察监督制度以及前苏联、东欧国家,以及我国现行民事诉讼检察监督制度的发展进行了考察,从而能够从整体上了解和把握民事诉讼检察监督制度的概况。第二章民事诉讼检察监督的理论基础。探究民事诉讼检察监督制度建构的理论基础,从而为这一制度的存在提供相应的理论支撑是本论文的出发点之一。长期以来,理论界与实务部门围绕检察机关对民事诉讼活动的监督问题进行了大量的研究。然而令人遗憾的是,绝大多数著作或文章都是围绕实践中存在的问题或理论上存在的争论进行批判论证或进行普法式教育,鲜有文章对这一制度建构的基础理论进行深入分析。本章试图通过对这一问题的关注来为这一制度的建构提供理论支撑,文章以民事诉讼检察监督制度的宪政基础为切入点,力图从宪政、法理学、法文化、认识论、实践论等视角出发深刻剖析我国现行的民事诉讼检察监督制度,以期能为这一制度的大厦建构坚实的“地基”。首先,对一种国家权力的考察必须关注其产生及运行的宪政体制背景。与西方国家三权分立的平面权力架构模式不同,我国根据自己的国情、历史和文化传统选择了以人民代表大会制度为根本政治制度的宪政体制。而根据这一宪政体制所确立的国家权力配置模式则体现为一种立体架构的模式,其中处于上位的是权力机关,处于下位的是行政机关、审判机关和检察机关。位于上位层级的权力可以监督下位层级的权力,但是处于下位层级的诸种权力都是在一个相对独立的系统中运行,它们之间并未刻意设计明显的制约措施,而正是这种按照议行合一的宪政体制构建的国家权力架构体系使得检察机关作为国家法律监督机关的设置成为必然选择。其次,一个国家法律监督体制的选择大都与该国的法律文化传统密切相关。与英美法系国家以经验主义为基础的政治法律哲学、以判例法为法律渊源的法律文化传统相比,大陆法系国家的政治法律哲学大都蕴含理性主义色彩,奉行制定法至上主义。英美法系国家正是由于传统法律文化的影响使得他们的法律体系以判例法为主,法官享有造法的功能,法律体系的创造和发展也是通过法官来进行的,在这种法官造法、法官判决就是法律的法文化认同下,认定法官判决与法律相冲突似乎在逻辑上就是矛盾的,对法官判决的监督和纠正自然也就难有生存的土壤了。而对大陆法系这种崇尚成文法的国家而言,最大的法治秩序就在于保证法律在全国的统一正确实施,要做的这一点,就必须有一个机关承担起法律监督的职责,这便为检察机关作为法律监督机关的产生提供了生存的土壤。在比较了两大法系有关检察监督制度生存的环境之后,要充分了解我国的民事诉讼检察监督制度产生的法文化基础,对我国古代的法律监督进行考察自然是必不可少的。考察中国古代封建司法制度几千年的发展历史,特别是古代以御史制度为代表以及在此基础上形成的法律监督文化,对现今中国检察制度的发展仍不乏积极的指导意义。纵观中国古代法律监督发展的脉络,会发现自秦朝始便在行使司法权的部门之外存在了制约司法权滥用的独立的部门,无论是中央的御史台、都察院、大理寺,还是地方的监司、刺史、提刑按察使司,都发挥着防止冤狱、纠正错案、制约审判权的功能。当代中国的检察监督制度正是在吸收了古代法律监督制度的精华并扬弃了其中的糟粕之后建立的。再次,从认识论的视角出发,虽然由于受各种主观或客观因素的影响,法院对案件事实的认定和对法律的适用存在不确定性。但是,这种或然的不确定性并不能作为否定检察监督制度的理论依据,那种打着法律真实的幌子而主张法院的审判活动不容监督的观点是站不住脚的。因为我们不否认法律真实,但反对绝对的法律真实,反对以法律真实为理由否认裁判中可能出现的错误,因为法律真实本身必不排斥客观真实,二者在本质上是一致的。最后,群众反映强烈的司法不公和上至最高法院大法官,下至基层法院书记员等层出不穷的司法腐败现象,以及检察监督工作取得的实实在在的成绩是民事诉讼检察监督制度存在的客观依据。第三章民事诉讼检察监督的制度价值。近年来,民事诉讼检察监督制度在理论界饱守争议,围绕这一制度的正当性甚至出现了一些针锋相对的观点。正是这样一种现实,使得探究民事诉讼检察监督的制度价值有了更深层次的意义。作为一项与我国宪政体制相适应、具有中国特色的制度设计,民事诉讼检察监督制度有自己特定的制度价值,这集中体现在促进公平正义在司法领域的实现、维护人民法院的审判权威、保障当事人在民事诉讼活动中的人权、推动构建社会主义和谐社会等方面。特别是对于维护司法公正和审判权威的制度价值,论文以实证分析的方法论证了民事诉讼检察监督是在我国的国情下监控法官自由裁量权、克服司法地方化以及在司法资源相对稀缺的条件下实现司法公正的理性选择,也是维护审判权威的重要举措。此外,由于当下学界对于人权保障的研究主要集中在刑事诉讼领域,而对民事诉讼活动中的人权保障则关注较少,特别是从实然的层面来考察民事诉讼中的人权保障问题时会发现当事人不能真正自由支配自己的诉讼权利以及法院不尊重当事人处分行为的现象比比皆是,诸如抢管辖权、回避制度形同虚设、强制调解与虚假调解大量存在、辩论原则流于形式、当事人欲诉无门、执行乱等,无不说明了这一问题,而民事诉讼检察监督制度存在的价值在克服这些问题的实践中也得到了充分体现。关于民事诉讼检察监督制度对构建社会主义和谐社会的价值,分析社会主义和谐社会所包含的民主法治、公平正义、诚信友爱、充满活力、安定有序、人与自然和谐相处等六个特征,会发现民事诉讼检察监督在社会主义和谐社会的构建中发挥着积极作用。第四章民事诉讼检察监督的制度构建。我国的民事诉讼检察监督实践之所以一直在夹缝中生存发展,是与其面临的各种困境密不可分的。其中既包括基础理论研究的薄弱、立法的不完善、也包括实践中面临的诸多制约性因素。本章首先从宏观层面上对民事诉讼检察监督制度的完善提出了建议,包括通过制定和修改法律以及相关司法解释,扩大民事诉讼检察监督的范围、增加监督的方式、明确监督者享有的权力、规范再审案件的审级、审限等。同时针对现行制度存在的不足,还要从微观层面即具体制度建设的层面对民事诉讼审前程序、审判程序、执行程序等不同阶段构建完整的检察监督体系,具体涉及对民事保全、民事立案、民事公诉、民事审判、民事调解、民事执行等活动的监督。第一,对于民事保全活动,检察机关一般不应过多干预,监督的重点应放在当事人借法院公权力来达到转移财产、获取利益等目的情形,实践中比较典型的就是恶意保全的案件。而对于错误保全,由于法律已经设计了相关的救济措施,因而大都不属于监督的范围。第二,对于民事立案活动的监督,迄今尚是一片空白。作为诉讼中一个独立的阶段,立案被视为诉讼开始的标志,是通过司法途径解决各类纠纷的先决条件。按照“司法最终解决”这一现代法治国家普遍遵循的基本原则,任何纠纷最终都可以、也应当通过或寻求司法途径解决,而在我国当前司法实践中,老百姓告状无门的现象时常发生,法院动辄以不属于法院管辖为由对某些案件不予受理,甚至以有关领导指示为由干脆拒收当事人的诉讼材料。建立民事立案检察监督制度,不仅是完善民事诉讼检察监督体系的必然要求,更是制约和纠正人民法院在民事立案中的恣意和保护当事人起诉权的迫切需要。第三,关于民事公诉制度的构建,近年来为理论与实务界广泛关注,特别是近年来国有资产流失、环境污染等危害国家利益、社会公共利益和公众利益的事件频频发生,更凸显了构建这一制度的重要性和紧迫性,文章通过对构建民事公诉制度现实必要性的实证考察和对制度历史演变的追溯对此进行了充分论述。而对于检察院之所以能作为提起民事公诉的应然主体,文章认为在社会主义中国,检察机关被视为国家利益和社会公共利益的代表,统一掌握和行使国家的公诉权,这种公诉权能涵盖了包括刑事、行政、民事在内的全部领域。因此,当发生侵害国家利益和社会公共利益行为且该行为还未达到要用刑法规制的时候,由检察机关运用公诉权将违反该行为诉至法院,请求法院启动审判程序进行实体裁决,是最合适不过的。第四,关于民事审判监督制度,我国现行的民事诉讼法已经确立了这一制度,但是对于这一制度在具体的制度设计上还存在很多问题。本部分所关注的主要是我国现行的审判监督权由法院和检察院分享的权力分配体制是否合理以及在实践中应如何选择及完善的问题。文章认为审判权和审判监督权是两种性质截然不同的权力,理应由不同的机关行使,在一个国家的诉讼制度上,设计两种审判监督程序是没有必要的,而且在法院专门设立监督自己审判的部门也是不科学的,它使得人民法院在再审启动程序和审理程序方面职责重叠,一定程度上存在“先定后审”等弊端,它的存在同时也破坏了检察监督权的完整性。而如果将启动再审的权力全部交由人民检察院行使,则不但符合法院与检察院之间权力配置和权限划分的制度设计机理,更有利于人民检察院和人民法院之间通过权力的监督和制约机制实现司法公正。第五,关于民事调解监督制度的构建,由于在当前的司法实践中调解被作为法院审理民事案件最重要的结案方式之一,其比例约占法院受理民事案件的70%—80%,而屡见不鲜的强制调解、虚假调解更是凸显了构建民事调解监督制度的重要性。但同时需要明确的是,对这类案件的监督应设置严格的限定条件。第六,针对当前实践中大量存在的“法律白条”现象以及执行难和执行乱的现象仍很突出的客观现实,在该章最后部分,论文还重点阐述了构建民事执行检察监督制度的必要性、理论基础,并在分析制约这一制度构建和开展的因素的基础上,就相关具体的制度设计进行了深入分析,以期构建完整的民事诉讼检察监督体系。第五章民事诉讼检察监督的制度运行。民事诉讼检察监督制度的价值在于维护公平正义、保障人权、维护司法权威、促进和谐社会建设等,但古人曰:“物极必反”,即凡事都要有度,也就是说,如果民事诉讼检察监督制度能在合理的限度内运行,它就能发挥其应有的作用,而若果超出了必要的度,则可能会产生相反的效果。因此,明确这一制度在实践中的运行界限就显得格外重要。在民事诉讼检察监督制度的运行过程中存在若干对矛盾,包括民事诉讼检察监督与审判独立、司法公正、既判力、诉讼构造平衡、当事人处分权、司法效率与司法权威等,围绕上述几对矛盾学界展开了有关检察机关对民事诉讼活动监督的正当性问题的争论,并形成了“立与废”两种截然不同的认识。以原最高法院副院长黄松有为代表的学者曾撰文就民事诉讼检察监督制度存在的不合理性进行了阐述,认为民事诉讼检察监督干涉了法院的独立审判权,动摇了司法独立的地位;损害了法院判决的既判力;侵害了当事人的处分权;破坏了民事诉讼构造的平衡;降低了诉讼效率、损害了司法权威等。由此可见,民事诉讼检察监督制度有效运行的过程实际上就是正确处理好上述几对矛盾的过程,故能否对这些矛盾以及它们之间的关系进行科学的把握,特别是对这一制度运行界限的正确把握,便成为影响这一制度能否有效运行的关键因素。本章以深入的理论分析和充分的实证分析对民事诉讼检察监督与上述几个方面的关系进行论述,在分析上述观点的同时就这一制度的运行界限和制度的正当性进行了深入思考。文章首先指出在任何法治国家,法院始终是司法运行的核心,审判独立应明确为民事诉讼检察监督制度运行的界限之一,那种以监督为名危及审判独立,甚至干预司法的做法不仅违背了法治的基本原则,而且是有害的。但同时也要明确的是审判独立与检察监督并非是天然相互排斥的,因为在任何国家都不存在不受制约的权力,因此我们强调审判独立的同时必须明确审判权同样应当受到其它权力的制约。审判独立本身不是目的,而是实现诉讼公正的手段,而检察监督权的行使从来也都是以保障司法公正为目的的,正是从维护司法公正的视角出发,检察监督与审判独立具有共存性。其次,关于民事诉讼检察监督与既判力的关系,文章既阐述了既判力理论的价值,并把维护法院裁决的既判力作为作为民事诉讼检察监督制度运行的界限之一,同时也指出大陆法系各主要国家在采纳既判力理论的同时,又设定了再审制度,以期能通过这一制度设计使存在重大瑕疵的错误判决得以纠正,从而弥补既判力理论天然和内在的价值缺陷。因为对诉讼活动而言,正义乃是其首要价值,对于一个非正义的判决,如果还要以种种理由为借口去维护它的既判力,其最终的结果必然是丧失人们对法律和法院的信任。再次,关于民事诉讼检察监督是否会破坏民事诉讼构造平衡的问题,文章指出检察机关在开展对民事诉讼活动的监督实践中,必须恪守中立的立场,因此维护诉讼构造的平衡应是该制度运行的界限之一。同时文章还认为检察机关通过国家公权力的行使对人民法院的错误裁判启动再审程序,其完全是出于维护司法公正的目的,而非站在当事人一方的立场反对另一方,当事人的诉讼权利并未因为再审程序是由检察监督启动而有任何增减。而且事实上,检察机关对民事诉讼活动的监督非但不会破坏诉讼构造的平衡架构,相反,当出现诉讼架构失衡的情形时,检察监督作为相对中立的、来自外部的力量,反而能够发挥矫正的作用,进而促使诉讼架构失衡的状态回归正常。最后,关于民事诉讼检察监督与当事人处分权的关系,先要明确的是当事人的处分权应当最大限度地得到尊重,不当的检察监督确有可能引发二者之间的冲突。但同时尊重并不代表处分权的绝对性,因为当事人处分权的行使必须遵循法律规定的界限,如果超出这一界限而损害国家、集体或他人的利益,国家就应进行适度干预,当然这种干预必须限定在严格的范围内,这种严格的范围限定便是民事诉讼检察监督制度运行的明确边界。第六章民事诉讼检察监督的体制性约束。在中国宪政体制框架内,检察机关、审判机关与行政机关共同由各级人民代表大会产生并对其负责。作为法律监督机关的检察机关,在履行职能的同时,由谁来监督和如何来接受监督正面临着包括法学界在内的社会各界越来越多的质疑。近年来,在司法改革的研讨中,以及在其他一些场合,经常会听到“谁来监督监督者”的议论。尽管在我国国家权力监督体系中,不乏对检察权监督的体系设计,但我们不得不面对法律技术的滞后同现代民主发展要求相比所形成的差距和不足,不得不正视在某些环节上对检察权的监督缺位对检察权正确行使的消极影响。所以加强对检察权的监督制约,保障检察权的有效行使,已是摆在检察机关面前的必然选择。在该部分,文章首先对国外检察权监督制约机制进行了考察。在内部监督制约机制上,大陆法系国家检察机关大都通过实行“检察一体化”的组织原则来实现上下级之间的监督制约,而英美法系国家,由于各个检察机构的内部组织在职能划分和部门设置上存在很大的差异,检察官享有很大的独断性的权力,因此,内部监督制约机制在英美法系国家体现的并不明显。在外部监督制约机制方面,国外的通常做法或是通过当事人的自我救济机制,实现以公民权利制约检察权力的目的,或是通过设置司法审查机制,或是设置一些特定的社会组织、专门机构来监督、制约检察权的行使。在比较分析国外做法的基础上,文章在该部分从内部和外部两个层面对建立我国规范民事诉讼检察监督权有效运行的监督制约机制进行了阐述。对于构建规范检察权运行的内部监督制约机制,文章总结了当前的一些有益经验,但同时指出在我国当前情况下,由于实行检察一体化的工作体制,检察长统一领导、指挥整个检察机关,因此这种内部制约即使不是流于形式,所起作用也有待商榷。文章论述的重点是关于检察权外部监督制约机制的构建上,通过构建包括人大、审判权、行政权等在内的外部权力监督制约机制和包括舆论监督、检察听证、人民监督员制度等在内的外部权利监督制约机制,使民事诉讼检察监督权的行使有了体制性约束机制,从而能够确保这一制度的规范有效运行。特别是对人民监督员制度这一目前唯一制度化和规范化的社会监督形式,文章指出其意义在于使检察机关第一次摆脱了在检察机关内部寻求完善监督机制的惯性思维,主动将外部监督力量引入检察权正确行使的监督环节,贯彻了程序正义的要求,提升了法律的公信度。对于这一制度建构的理论基础,论文通过对主权在民、以权利制约权力、人民司法、程序公正等理论的阐述,指出人民监督员制度是将宪法主权在民的基本原则在实践中的具体化,其制度设计的初衷在于意图借助社会公众的力量将检察权的行使置于社会监督之下,从而防止检察机关逾越权力的法定界限、滥用权力或其他不当行使权力的行为,它符合以权利制约权力的法治原理,符合民主社会的发展要求。更多还原

【Abstract】 The development of mankind’s civilization is synchronous with creation, development of power. Accompanying with the power phenomenon, how to control the power is the mankind always searching for. The litigation is the important phenomenon of civilized society, as above mentioned, any power all need to be balanced or supervised, hence, various power within litigation is no exception.In our constitution, the people’s procuratorates fixed the position of state organs for legal supervision. In procuratorial power inclusion, the litigation supervision constitutes one of the most important parts doubtless. See from the angle of theories studying, domestic researching of the litigation supervision is prosperous in the last few years, the focus concentration of the research in procuratorial supervision, especially in the procuratorial supervision on civil litigation. Issue that aims at this system also never interrupted, surrounding the power property, power scope, power circulation, etc. even appeared some standpoints of tit for tat. Just because of this kind of actuality, our litigation supervision practice is hobbling.We realize any system must have the solid theories foundation; otherwise it will collapse at any time. This text is have a foothold our country of constitutional government system, combining the current civil procuratorial supervision practice and refer to the fruit in the comprehensive analytical theories, discussing and analyzing the value of civil procuratorial supervision and it’s existent proper. At the same time, combine the deduction of rule according to the constitution and the system established according to the current law, analyze the problem and shortages of our civil procuratorial supervision system, then put forward own opinion on consummation of the system. Thesis including introduction, six texts and conclusion, the concrete each main content is as follows:Introduction: The synopsis elaborated that the background of the title selected. Then it introduces and evaluates the present research situation of the selected title. On this basis, it describes the contents of the dissertation, explains main research methods used in the dissertation.Chapter one: Basic category of civil procuratorial supervision system. If you want to study a system to study completely, you should definite the basic category of the system firstly, including the basic content, property of some categories and their history track etc. In this part, I elaborated the litigation and the litigation supervision, the procurator and the procuratorial power, the procuratorial supervision and the civil procuratorial supervision, including the source, content and property, etc. Among them, which need to be definited first would be the category of the litigation, according to the classic definition concerning the litigation content, it was definited as "under the litigant’s participation, the judicial organ handle the disputes according to the law procedure. As the deputy of nation, the judicial organ exercises the judicature and is in the predominant position in the litigation. The litigation is divided into three parts, such as the criminal, civil and administrative litigation. In a whole litigation, indictment, judge, and execution are the basic stages, and criminal litigation also including investigation." That shows the procuratorial supervision also covered the phase of indictment, judge, and execution, then as the mainly activity of the three phrase mentioned above are all under the supervision of procuratorate, including case registration, suit- bringing, property-preserving, trial, mediation, judge, execution,etc.Among all the concept mentioned above, one should never be ignored, that is the procuratorial power, especially about its property, and it is also a hot issue during the judicial reform progress. There are eight piece theory about the property of procuratorial power, but they all couldn’t describe it properly. We think that as a separate power in a country, procuratorial power has its own characters, none definition is accurate. In this kind of case, we think that’the procuratorial power is procuratorial power’, it is an independent power among the national power system, it is run the parallel with administrative power, judicature and the military power.This part also analyze the system including the court supervision, the procuratorial supervision, the supervision from people’s congress, the public opinion supervision, ruling party supervision, association supervision, etc. This chapter still emphasizes to see about the civil procuratorial supervision abroad and the law of our country ancient times, thus can hold the general situation of the system.Chapter two: Theoretical basis of civil procuratorial supervision system. Investigate the theory foundation that civil procuratorial supervision system set up, thus providing for the existence of the system it is one of the intention of this thesis. For long time, there is a great deal of learning productions on this field. However, the great majority work are all to practice around to carry on criticizing the argument or carrying on education of this issue, scarcely have the article to carry on the thorough analysis to the foundation theories that this system construct or purchase. In this chapter, we try to through discussing our national people’s congress system which our national political power organized form, the division and balance of state power which is the basic proposing of jurisprudence, with the ancient law that emphasize the statute law and have the Chinese special features which is the main content of our law tradition, the epistemology of Marxism, serious judicial injustice and corruption, etc. Through analysis upwards, we can find the ’solid foundation’of civil procuratorial supervision system.First, if we take an investigation any kind of national power, we must pay more attention to its constitutional government system background that it produces and circulates to. With the flat surface power structure mode of west’s sign separately dissimilarity, our country according to our own state of the nation, history, culture and the tradition-choosing, we take the people’s representative conference system as our basic political system of constitutional government system. But according to this kind of stereoscopic power structure, the power that locates the lower class are all move in an opposite and independent system, and there did not design an system to restrict each other, that is the proper reason which the procuraterate as the special supervise body became an inevitable choice. The next in order, a national power system is closely related with its country law culture. Compared with the common legal system countries which take empiricism as the basal political law philosophy and its law cultural tradition regards the case law as origin, the continent legal system countries ’ law philosophy contain the rationalism color mostly, carrying out to draw up the highest doctrine of method. In common legal system countries, because of their traditional law they make their law system regard case law as principle, the judge possesses the function of create the law, the creation of the law system and development also are to pass the judge to carry on, under this law traditional culture, affirm the judge verdict is conflict with law seem to be self-contradict at logical, to supervise the judge sentence and rectify it is naturally difficult to have the soil of existence. In continent legal system countries, it is most important to assure the law to be right implemented in the whole country, in order to do this, they must have an organization to undertake the job of supervising the law enforcement, thus provide the soil of the existence for supervision organization. In order to obtain the law culture foundation of civil procuratorial supervision system, carrying on an investigation to the law of our country ancient times seem to be essential. Investigation on Chinese ancient judiciary system for several thousand years of the development history, especially on the history of ancient imperial censor system, that still has positive meaning to today. The law supervision system of contemporary China is just build-up on absorbing the instructive experience and abandon the scum of our ancient supervision system. Thirdly, we do not deny the law reality, but we appose the absolute law reality and we also appose those who take the law reality as the reason to deny the mistake that an judgment may emerge. At last, more and more judicatory injustice, more and more judicial corrupt phenomenon, and the actual success which our procuratorial supervision practice achieved, are the solid foundation of the civil procuratorial system in our country. Chapter three:Value of civil procuratorial supervision system. Investigates value of the system is core part of the thesis, although there are a great deal of research have been carried on, however researching on foundation theories of the system are still scarcely. This chapter try to through the concerning on the value of the system, such as power balance and supervision, fair justice and human rights guarantee, etc. to deeply analyzed our current civil procuratorial supervision system. Especially on the maintaince of judicial justice and authoritative of judgement, through the angle of demonstration, the article expounded the value of civil procuratorial supervision system. Furthermore, the studying on protection of human rights mostly focus on criminal litigation, and that on civil litigation are scarcely. But as we all know, the invasion of human rights on civil litigation is very serious in practice, such as snatching jurisdiction, nominal eviction system, compulsory mediation and false mediation, formal debation principle, chaos of execution, ect. The positive value of civil procuratorial supervision system is full embodied during overcoming the matters mentioned above. As for the value of civil procuratorial supervision system to set up the harmonious society, analyzing the characters of harmonious society, including the democracy rule of law, fair justice, trustworthiness and love, etc. We will find that our civil procuratorial supervision system exerting positive effects during the process of harmonious society come into reality.Chapter four: Establishment of civil procuratorial supervision system. Our civil procuratorial supervision practice always in crack is inseparable with various predicaments that it faces. Among them include the foundation theories to study weak, lawmaking of not perfect, many hindrance to face, etc. So discovers the hindrance factor that system development faces, such as theories, legal system and fulfillment etc, and then resolve the above-mentioned problem, is very necessary for promoting this system to develop healthily. First this chapter put forward the suggestion from the macroscopic level, including the scope of supervision, the way of supervision, the power of supervision, etc. Then from microscopic level to set up a wholly system of civil procuratorial supervision system, including the civil case registration supervision, civil case public prosecution, civil case judgment supervision, the civil case intermediation supervision, civil case performance supervision, etc.The first, to the action of property preserving, the procuratorate shouldn’t be excessive to interfere, the emphasis of supervision should put on those by dint of property preserving action to transfer the property and obtain the benefits. As to those wrongly preserving, they are not belong to the scope of the supervision mostly. Secondly, the supervision on civil case registration is still a vacancy. As an independent stage of a whole litigation, registration is considered to be the start of dispute-solving through a judicial path. According to the widespread basic principle for modern country, any dispute is ultimately can, also should pass or look for the judicial path to solve, but in current judicatory of our country practice, the phenomenon which people have no door to take a sue often take place. Just because of the reality like this make it an important and urgent work to build up the supervision system on civil case registration. The third, concerning the set up of the civil case public prosecution system, pay attention to extensively for the theories and the actual situation fields in recent years, especially the state-owned property runs off, pollution of the environment etc. Such incident endangers the affairs of the national interest, social public benefits and public benefits to take place again and again, those are all show the importance and urgency of this system’s setting up. In socialism China, the people’s procuratorate is considered as the deputy of the national interest and the public benefits, unifying to control and exercise the national public prosecution power, this kind of public prosecution power ought to cover the pertaining to crime, administration, civil case at inside of all realm. The fourth, concerning the civil procuratorial supervision system, the current code of civil procedures of our country has already established this system, but there are still a lot of problems in the concrete system. What this part mainly concern is the current supervision system which is divided into two parts, this kind of power allotment is reasonable or not. We think that the difference between the power of judge and the power of supervision is obvious and certainly should be enforced by different organizations, it is unnecessary to design two different supervision system in one country and our current system has many abuse. If we hand over the whole supervision power only to the peoples procuratorate, that not only match the prime purpose of system designing, but also in favor of realizing the justice. The fifth, concerning the set up of the supervision system on civil case mediation. Because of in current judicatory practice the mediation was the most important method to handle a lawsuit, it covers about 70%-80% that the court accepts the civil case, and compulsive mediation, deceitful mediation is frequently take place among them, that also elaborated the necessity of supervision system on civil mediation practice, but what need to be explicit at the same time that the supervision should be strictly limited. At the end of this section, the article discuss the issue of establishing the supervision system on the execution of civil case, so that we can set up a whole civil procutatorial supervision system.Chapter five: Running of civil procuratorial supervision system. In recent years, around some problems that the system exists during its running, especially with the judgment independence, Res judicata, the party disposing power, litigation structure balance etc. Some scholars depend on this put forward various query to the civil procuratorial supervision system, including the procuratorial supervision interfere the independent judicature, endangered the judicial independent position; violated the disposition power of the party; broke the balance of the civil litigation structure; lowered the litigation efficiency and injured judicial authority etc. Aim at the above-mentioned standpoint, this chapter discussed the relation above-mentioned, put forward the movement boundary of civil procuratorial supervision system. But at the same time, the civil procuratorial supervision and above-mentioned relation is not an absolute opposition, they are the relation of dialectical unification. For example, the article point out that at any country under the rule of law, the court is the core of the judicial movement, the judicial independence should be set as the boundary of procuratorial supervision movement definitely, those interfere the judicatory not only disobeyed the basic principle of the rule of law, but also is harmful. But it also should be point out that at any nations there no power can be out of supervision, so we emphasize the judgment independence and at the same time we must definitely confess that the judicature should be restricted by other powers.Chapter six: Institutional restriction of civil procuratorial supervision system. As the state organs for legal supervision, the people’s procuratorates also faces the restriction by whom and how to accept. Though at national level, we don’t lack positive designation, we still have to face the margin and shortages of the law technique compare with modern democracy development requests. In this part, the article discussed the restriction of civil procuratorial supervision itself, from two levels of inner part and exterior to the establishment of the restriction mechanism, and emphasize on the exterior restriction mechanism, including the exterior power and the exterior right, thus can insure the valid movement of the system. Especially to the people supervisor system which is the unique and systemized form currently, the article point out that it is the first time to cast off inertia thinking to look for the supervision mechanism and lead exterior supervision power into the system, this action carry through the request of the procedure justice and promote the public’s trust of the law. For the theories foundation that this system construct on, the thesis passes the basic principle to the sovereignty at people, right supervise power, people judicatory and procedure justness etc. By a stretch of authority or other not appropriate exercise the power, it matches with the rule of law principle of the right supervise power, meeting the development request of democratic society.更多还原