【作者】 杨艺红；

【导师】 章武生；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 进行民事诉讼制度建设和改革是一项精细、复杂的系统工程。对民事诉讼价值体系的认识，应当从多角度去分析和理解，才能使其具体制度的设计更加科学、合理、富有成效，其理论体系才能更加充实、完善。笔者注意到由于诉讼公正、效益理念的深入，如诉讼模式、证据制度、审级制度等已经成为司法改革的热门话题。而对于诉讼突袭的分析和研究却相对比较薄弱，在国内诸多民事诉讼相关著作与论述中，虽偶有涉及，却始终缺乏从整体上的系统性阐述。笔者认为发端于80年代台湾诉讼法界关于诉讼突袭的讨论，对我国现行民事诉讼制度，特别是审判制度改革具有十分重要的理论指导和实践借鉴意义。诉讼突袭，理论上违背了现代民事诉讼的基本法理，与诉讼公正、效益观念背道而驰，不利于程序正义与实体正义的实现，当事人主体尊严和自主意志得不到承认、尊重与保障，并对社会产生消极的导向作用。实务中造成诉讼迟延、诉讼成本增加。使其不能尽充分的攻击与防御手段，无法了解法院对于事实认定的推理过程，无权就法律适用发表意见，缺乏对裁判的充分参与，以至无法影响法官裁判内容的形成，并对其加以有效的监督与约束；同时，对当事人滥用诉权、诉讼欺诈也无法进行有效的预防与控制；审理中，法官对当事人的程序主体地位未给以充分尊重，恣意行使审判权，使事实认定、适用法律的不可预测性加大，无法保持中立者的地位，进而造成法院裁判的权威性、严肃性大大降低，既判力频频处于不稳定之中，判决书难以执行。本文试图在整个民事诉讼制度改革的背景下，以主体划分为标准，从民事诉讼法理的视角对诉讼突袭及其法律控制进行宏观上的理论化分析，进而通过对国外相关诉讼制度的比较研究，就如何依靠制度建设对诉讼突袭进行防范与控制，由点到面，再由面到点作一较系统的阐述。最终，论证以构建‘法律制度体系’作为对诉讼突袭进行有效控制的方法与手段，并提出了一些具体的改进方案和制度模式。在结构上，本文分为引言、正文、结语三大部分：引言：通过对诉讼突袭这一问题产生的社会背景和研究现状作一简要交代，<WP=5>点出本文就该问题进行探讨的理论与实践意义，进而引出整个文章的主题，即从主体的角度划分为来自当事人之突袭与来自法院之突袭展开论述。本文的正文分为五部分，现分述如下：第一部分：以对诉讼突袭进行主体划分为基础，分别对两种诉讼突袭形式的概念、法律构成要件、司法实践中之具体表现及对整个诉讼制度的影响进行了较系统的分析，使诉讼突袭以一个较清晰的‘自我形象’展现出来。第二部分：对诉讼突袭的成因进行了细致的分析。第三部分：在具体论述的基础上，提出诉讼突袭的概念，从程序公正 、程序经济、程序安定的视角，围绕‘对诉讼突袭进行法律控制’这一中心议题，进行法理性分析。论证对诉讼突袭进行有效法律控制的必要性、合理性、正当性、可行性，指出这一探讨具有的对司法实践的重大指导意义。第四部分：通过对英美法系和大陆法系相关诉讼制度与程序运作方式的全面考察，就国外诉讼制度中对诉讼突袭进行法律控制所采取的具体措施与制度体系进行了比较研究。希望从中探询我国可资借鉴的制度性因素。第五部分：结合我国司法实际状况，就我国如何建立一个对‘诉讼突袭’进行有效法律控制的制度体系进行了初步探讨。在结语中，对本文进行简要总结，表明自己对诉讼突袭总的结论性观点,提出完善诉讼制度体系，从制度层面上对这一诉讼现象加以有效地控制。更多还原

【Abstract】 The construction and reform of the civil litigation institution is a delicate and complicated systematic project. A proper understanding of the value system of the civil litigation institution can be achieved only by an all-round analysis, which in turn can bring about a substantial theoretical system. We have noticed that, due to the wide acceptance of litigation impartiality and litigation benefit, procedure pattern, evidence system and civil action level system have become hot issues in legal system reform. But the analysis and study of Litigation Surprise has been far from sufficient. It has been touched, but not systematically elucidated, in the current domestic literature concerning civil litigation. We hold that, the inchoative discussion on Litigation Surprise in the 1980s in Taiwan has provided important theoretical guidance and practical reference for the reform of the current civil litigation institution, especially the current court trial system.Litigation Surprise, which theoretically violates the fundamental legal principle of modern civil litigation, runs counter to litigation impartiality and benefit. It goes against the realization of procedural justice and substantive justice, against the acknowledgement, respect and guarantee of the litigation’s self-esteem and independent volition. It in practice has a negative impact on the society and is the cause of litigation retardation, cost increase. It makes the litigation agent unable to take full advantage of its offence and defense; unable to know the reasoning procedure of the court. It deprives the litigation agent of its right to voice it’s opinion to the law application, to participate in the judgment, to exert any influence on the formation of the judgment, and to supervise and restrict the operation of the judge. Meanwhile it also makes it impossible to prevent or control the abuse of litigation action or fraud in litigation. It may also cause the judge’s abuse of jurisdiction and ignorance of litigation agent’s status as procedural main body. Litigation Surprise increases the unexpectedness of law<WP=7>application and evidence verification, and reduces the authority of the judgment of the court. Hence the judgment is hard to be carried out.Based on a main-body classification, this article, written in a period of civil litigation reform, attempts to make a macro and theoretical analysis of Litigation Surprise and it’s legal control from a civil perspective; it consequently tries to systematically elucidate, through a comparative study of the foreign litigation systems, the prevention and control of Litigation Surprise by means of establishing an efficient institution; and finally, it argues to effectively control Litigation Surprise via the establishment of a legal institution system, and provides some concrete improvement and system patterns.This article is divided into three parts:Introduction: This part provides a brief account of the social background and current study of Litigation Surprise, and introduces the theoretical and practical significance of the discussion. It presents the theme of this article, i.e. discussing the Litigation Surprise via a main-body classification, namely, Surprise from the litigation agent and from the court.The main body of this article can be divided into five parts, just as the following:Part Ⅰ : Based on the main-body classification, we make a systematic analysis of the concept of the two kinds of Litigation Surprise, its legal components, actual display, its cause, and its impact on the whole litigation institution, thus provide a clear picture of Litigation Surprise, making a preparation for further discussion.Part Ⅱ: we make a systematic analysis of the cause of the two kinds of Litigation Surprise.PartⅢ: This part makes an analysis of how to exert a legal control over Litigation Surprise from the perspective of legal principles. Viewing from procedural impartiality, procedural economy, and procedural stability, we discuss the necessity, rationality, and feasibility of the le更多还原