【作者】 屈文生；

【导师】 何勤华； 李秀清；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 法律史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 令状制度、陪审团制度或许还有巡回审判制度是学者们在考察普通法诞生或形成时必定考察的对象。在西方法学史中,早在中世纪时期,就有一大批著名法学家如格兰威尔、布拉克顿、科克等人曾对令状制及相关问题有过深入细致的研究。近代以后,许多法学家如布莱克斯通、梅因、波洛克和梅特兰等人,也均对令状制度研究青睐有加。20世纪以后,霍兹沃斯、甄克思、普拉克内特、哈默、密尔松、贝克及霍尔特等英国法学家在令状研究领域曾有过丰富的研究成果。此外,比利时著名法学家卡内冈也是这一研究领域的代表性人物。令状制度是法律史学者无法绕开的一个重要问题。本文在各西方法学大家对这一问题论证的基础上,试图阐明令状的概念及其沿革、令状的起源及嬗变、令状的分类、行政令状的司法化、令状与程式诉讼的交互关系、人身保护令状的历史与现状以及令状的制度作用与历史价值等问题。全文围绕的一条主线是：令状经历了一个从行政化到司法化、从国王特权到保护人权的发展过程,且它在这一发展过程中无意孕育出了普通法注重程序的气质。令状以及相应的程式诉讼大都在完成了它们的使命后,遵照事物的发展规律退出了历史的舞台。然终究如梅特兰所言,“我们已经埋葬了程式诉讼,但它们仍然在坟墓中统治着我们”,令状制度的幽灵仍萦绕着英美法。本文第一章为令状发展的法律背景——1873年前英国法院体系概况。该章讨论令状在诞生、发展直至废除等时期所处的法院体系背景。英国历史上主要有三种司法权,即公共司法权、封建司法权和国王司法权；三种司法权分别通过三套不同的法庭组织得以实施,即包括郡法院、百户区法院和村镇法院在内的社区法院,由领主法庭和庄园法庭组成的封建法院,以及被称作“库里亚”即王廷的国王法庭。国王法院主要有普通诉讼法院、王座法院以及财政诉讼法院。第二章主要记叙了令状的概念、起源及主要发展时期。文章认为普通法上的令状不同于罗马法上的令状。英国的令状可以追溯至盎格鲁—撒克逊时期,具体而言,大约在9或10世纪时期。令状的起源可追溯至诺曼征服前(1066年以前),诺曼王朝的威廉一世与威廉二世时期(1066-1100年)仍属于令状的萌芽时期；令状在诺曼王朝的亨利一世、斯蒂芬时期(1100-1154年)得到很大的发展；在安茹王朝的亨利二世时期(1154-1189年)最为繁荣；此后,在安茹王朝的理查德一世、约翰和亨利三世时期(1189-1272年)中,令状仍保持了快速的发展,到安茹王朝的爱德华一世时期(1272-1307年)逐渐定型。从安茹王朝的爱德华二世到汉诺威王朝的威廉四世时期(1307-1833年)令状逐渐衰退并被逐步废止。第三章为令状的分类。该章详细论述了令状的分类；令状主要分为行政令状和司法化令状,也常分为权利令状和非常令状。权利令状又有严格意义上的权利令状和带有权利令状性质的令状之分。严格意义上的权利令状主要包括未密封权利令状和直属封臣指令权利令状。带有权利令状性质的令状主要有保证合理份额的权利令状、恢复圣职推荐权令状、寡妇地产权利令状、取得亡夫遗留地产令状以及限嗣土地受赠人令状。权利令状还可分为起始令状和司法令状；其中,起始令状主要包括指令令状、过错请求状、侵害令状及类案侵害令状。非常令状则主要有人身保护令状、训令令状、调卷令状、禁止令状、权利开示令状等。第四章为令状的司法化及中央集权的实现。该章详细论述了亨利二世法律改革与令状的司法化。亨利二世法律改革的几大新举措主要包括颁布法令或命令如《克拉伦登宪章》、《克拉伦登敕令》、《新近侵占土地条令》、郡长大调查令、《北安普敦敕令》、《武器敕令》等敕令。亨利二世通过设立由职业法官组成的专门性的法院、发展令状制度、建立巡回法院制度及引入陪审制等四大行动实现了中央集权。由此可见,司法化的令状是国王治理国家的主要手段。第五章为司法化令状与程式诉讼。该章认为一国的程序制度或者属于有严格诉讼形式的程序制度,或者属于无严格诉讼形式的程序制度。英国的诉讼制度无疑有着严格的诉讼形式。程式诉讼在英国的发展经历了五个历史时期。第一时期是在1066-1154年；第二时期是在1154-1189年；第三时期是在1189-1272年；第四时期是在1272-1307年；第五时期是在1307-1833年。程式诉讼可分为不动产诉讼、对人诉讼与混合诉讼等三大类。英国法律史上主要有十大重要程式诉讼,分别是金钱债务之诉、请求返还扣留财物之诉、违反盖印合同请求赔偿之诉、收回非法扣留动产之诉、明示简式契约之诉、默示简式契约之诉、侵害之诉、类案侵害之诉、驱逐之诉及非法侵占之诉。第六章为人身保护令状。该章论证了人身保护令状的概念、起源与嬗变；人身保护令状的价值,其中《人身保护令法》被誉为另外一部《大宪章》；人身保护令状诞生的法律背景及初步发展等问题。人身保护令状被英国殖民者带到美国后,在美国得到了确立和发展,它还成为写入《美国联邦宪法》的唯一一种普通法令状。人身保护令状写入美国联邦宪法的渊源有英国的人身保护法实践、第一届大陆会议上发表的《告魁北克人民书》、早期制定的州宪法、1787年《西北准州地区条例》、殖民地宪章及法学家著述。纵观美国历史,杰斐逊、杰克逊、林肯及布什等昔日总统均试图或切实中止过美国公民享有的人身保护令宪法性权利。作为权力制约与平衡传统的产物,人身保护令状在今日美国反对恐怖主义战争的现实和行政权力庞大的事实下,正面临死亡的命运。2008年联邦最高法院对“布迈丁诉布什案”的判决作为一剂“强心针”暂时挽救了人身保护令状的生命。第七章为令状的历史价值。本文认为,令状制度对程序法的形成有积极意义,它要求特定的诉讼形式和正当的诉讼程序,强调程序的重要性,对程序法的发展特别是程序先于权利的观念形成具有一定的积极意义。令状制度还对实体法的发展(特别是现代合同法、现代侵权法、财产法及继承原则)也产生了重要影响。令状的发展轨迹是一个从具体到抽象的过程,诉讼程式即是例证。除此之外,令状制度的历史价值还体现在它对于法律职业阶层形成、审判机构体系的完善、司法中央集权的确立、限制王权的传统和司法独立的理念以及独具特色的英美法学教育的形成等产生过的影响之上。更多还原

【Abstract】 The writ system, jury system, and perhaps assize system are the milestones of the birth or building of English common law. In western legal history, there were a large group of legal historians and jurists who had devoted to the studies of the common law writs. Among them there were famous medieval jurists Glanvill, Bracton and Edward Coke. Other scholars in the early modern period include Blackstone, Sir Henry Maine, Sir Frederick Pollock, and Frederick William Maitland. From 1900 onwards, Sir William Holdsworth, Edward Jenks, Theodre Plucknett, Florence Harmer, Milsom, Sir John Baker, and James Holt have all had great achievements in the research field of common law writs. Besides, the Belgium distinguished jurist R. C. van Caenegem is another important scholar in this research area. As Caenegem once said, anyone who studies English institutions at any time from the reign of Aethelred II to our own day is bound to come across the writs and the writ system.This dissertation is a study of the common law writs. It attempts to clarify the Definition, Origin, Evolution, Classifications, and the judicialization of the wirts. It also discusses the interrelationship between the writs and forms of action, the history and present of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the function or the historical value of the English common law writs. The paper is to argue that the common law writs had gone through development processes from the executive writs to judicialized writs and from the extraordinary privilege to human rights. And the common law spirit which values procedure over substantive rights was formed unobservedly in these processes. When their mission had been fulfilled, the writs and the corresponding forms of action must disappear. However, like Maitland once said:"The forms of action we have buried, but they still rule us from their graves", the Anglo-American law is still haunted by the writ system and the forms of action.Besides the introductory part, the dissertation falls into seven parts. In the first part the historical background of the common law writs is outlined with special reference to the law courts. There used to be three categories of judicial power in England, viz. communal judicial power, seigniorial judicial power, and royal judicial power; these three kinds of judicial power are carried out separately by three different court systems, the communal courts, the feudal courts and the royal courts. The communal courts are mainly comprised of the county court, the hundred court, and the frankpledge. The feudal courts are composed of the seigniorial court and the manorial courts. The royal courts or King’s Courts, also known as the "curia regis", are divided into three courts, namely the court of common pleas, king’s (queen’s) bench and the exchequer.The second part deals with the definition, origin and the several phases of the English writs. This article concludes that the common law writs are different from the interdictum in Roman law. The formal origin of the English writs can be traced to the Anglo-Saxon period, approximately the 9th or 10th century. The old Anglo-Saxon writs continued to be used in the reigns of the Conqueror William I and the William II (1066-1100); Writs were greatly developed in the reigns of the reigns of Henry I and Stephen (1100-1154); and the writs were in their blossom in the reign of the Henry II (1154-1189). The English writs were continued to be developed in the reigns of the RichardⅠ, John and HenryⅢ(1189-1272), and they got into shape and became fixed in the reign of EdwardⅠ(1272-1307). From the reign of EdwardⅡ(1307-1327) onward, the writs became decadent and were gradually repealed.In the third part, the divisions of the common law writs were examined. The writs can be either roughly divided into executive writs and judicialized writs or divided into the writs of right and the prerogative writs (extraordinary writs). The writs of right include the Writs of Right Proper and the Writs in the Nature of Writs of Right. The Writs of Right Proper can be further divided into the Writ of Right Patent and the Writ of Right Praecipe in Capite. The Writs in the Nature of Writs of Right mainly include the Writ of Right de rationabili parte, the Writ of Right of Advowson, the Writ of Right of Dower, the Writ of Dower Unde nihil habet, and the Writ of Formedon. The writs of right can also be divided into the original writs and the judicial writs. The original writs can be best represented by the Praecipe Writs, Plaints of Wrong, Trespass and Trespass on the Case. Lastly, the prerogative writs are comprised of the following writs:the writ of habeas corpus, the writ of mandamus, the writ of certiorari, the writ of prohibitionquo warranto, the writ of Ne exeat, the writ of Scire facias, and the writ of procedendo.The fourth part is to argue that the judicialization of the writs plays a key role in the realization of the centralization in England. This chapter fully explains the legal reforms of Henry II. The several innovative means employed by Henry II included the enacts or the edicts passed by the King, e. g. the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Assize of Clarendon, the Assize of Novel Disseisin, Inquest of Sheriffs, the Assize of Northampton, and the Assize of Arms. In addition, through the use of professional courts composed of the professional lawyers, the development of the writs system, the assize system and the jury system, Henry II successfully established a centralized nation. The paper concludes that the judicialization of the writs was of primary importance in the governance of the county in England.The Part V is about the practical usages of the writs. In this part, the author mainly focus on the forms of action. The article concludes that the procedural system of a county either belongs to a formulary system of procedure or a non-formulary system of procedure. Undoubtedly, the English procedural system was strongly characterized by its strict forms of action. The forms of action in England went through five historical periods. The first period,1066-1154; the second period,1154-1189; the third period,1189-1272; the fourth period,1272-1307; and the fifth period,1307-1833. The forms of action were classified into three forms, and they were real actions, personal actions, and mixed actions. There were 10 most important actions in the English legal history, (1) Debt, (2) Detinue, (3) Covenant, (4) Replevin, (5) Special Assumpsit, (6) General Assumpsit, (7) Trespass, (8), Trespass on the Case (9) Ejectment, and (10) Trover.The Part VI pays particular attention to the most important prerogative writ, the writ of habeas corpus. This chapter examines the definition, origin, and the development of the habeas corpus. Habeas Corpus Act in the English legal history can be compared with the Magna Carta of 1215. When the habeas corpus was brought to America by the colonists, it took root in the U. S. A. and became the only common law writ written in the U. S. Constitution. The sources of this constitutional clause include its practice in England, Address to the People of Quebec, early state constitutions, Ordinance of 1787 for the Government of the North-west Territory, the colony charters and doctrinal writings. In U. S. history, Jefferson, Jackon, Lincon and George W. Bush all attempted to suspend the habeas corpus. As the outcome of the tradition of the separation of powers and the checks and balances, habeas corpus naturally faces its fate as the executive power dominates in the U. S. A.. The Boumediene v. Bush of 2008 temporarily saved the life of habeas corpus.The Part VII (concluding part) deals with the historical value of the English writs. The paper concludes that the writ system is of affirmative significance to the formation of the procedural law. And since the writ system requires specific forms of action and proper procedures while strengthening the priority of the procedure of the substantive rights, it plays a key role in the birth of the doctrine of "remedies precede rights". The English writ system is also crucial to the development of the substantive law, practically the modern contract law, tort law, property law, and inheritance law. The path of the writs shows a process from the specific to the abstract, and this is well illustrated by the forms of action. In addition, the historical functions or influences of the English writs can also be found in the following aspects, the formation of the legal profession, the perfection of the court system, the establishment of the centralization, the limitation of the monarchical power, the independence of judicature, and the Anglo-American legal education with its unique characteristics.更多还原