【作者】 巢志雄；

【导师】 廖中洪；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 司法制度， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 “诉”(Actio)是罗马法中的重要概念，是罗马法诉讼程序的核心，也是现代民事诉讼理论中“诉”的理论和“诉权”理论的共同起点。尽管现代大陆法系民事诉讼理论（尤其是德日民事诉讼理论体系）已经将“诉”的理论和“诉权”理论分开，作为彼此独立的两种理论系统，但是从“诉”的产生及其发展演变的历史角度上看，现代大陆法系“诉”的理论和“诉权”理论都与罗马法“诉”的理论有着密不可分的联系。罗马法“诉”的理论是由市民法之诉和裁判官法之诉共同构成的理论系统。罗马人不喜欢为创造而创造，而是一直注意着法律体系所产生的具体影响，并根据这些影响，以温和而符合逻辑的方式对法律体系进行完善。罗马人从来不偏离与具体案件和具体的法律生活所保持的和谐关系。在一个法律体系里，裁判官法之诉与市民法之诉共存。罗马裁判官通过在个案中否决当事人的诉权或者授予当事人一项诉权的方式在司法实践中回避或者改变了市民法，但表面上市民法并不受损害，因为罗马市民法本身仍表现为一种自在的和包罗万象的法律制度。裁判官的干预以裁判官的“治权”以及他在行使司法权时所拥有的自由裁量权为中心。罗马法“诉”的理论以解决“当事人因何可以提起诉讼”作为其设置的前提。原则上，“市民法之诉”遵循“有权利即有诉”的逻辑。但在某些情况下，当事人享有实体权利也未必能够诉诸法院，即“有权利未必有诉”。因为罗马裁判官有权剥夺当事人根据罗马市民法而享有的诉权。“裁判官法之诉”独立于“市民法之诉”。“裁判官法之诉”主要体现为“无权利亦可有诉”的逻辑结构。当市民法出现了立法空白，罗马裁判官通过行使“司法权”来赋予当事人一项诉权，使当事人的利益诉求能够获得司法保护。罗马法“诉”的理论是现代大陆法系民事诉讼理论体系的起点。罗马法“诉”的概念经过19世纪近代法学家的提炼与分解，演变为大陆法系民事诉讼理论中的“诉权”概念。大陆法系的“诉权”概念的发展先期是以“当事人因何向法院提起诉讼”，以及实体法和程序法关系的视角展开的。但是，在近现代权利观念的影响下，现代德国法和日本法的“诉权”概念已经跳出了传统的实体与程序关系的研究范畴，演变成为了公民应当享有的一项基本的宪法权利，可以说现代诉权理论的发展已经背离了最初的发展起点。不仅如此，在现代德国法和日本法中，“诉权”的原来功能已经被“诉”的理论替代，并发展出一套成熟的“诉”的理论体系。即现代德国法和日本法是以“诉的要件”理论来统摄诉的利益、诉讼标的、当事人适格等“诉”的理论内容。现代法国法的“诉权”理论走向与德国法有着不尽相同的发展方向。现代法国法的“诉权”概念并未将诉权抽象为一种客观的权利，它延续了罗马法“诉”的概念和特征，并以解决“当事人因何向法院提起诉讼”问题，以及协调实体法和诉讼法的关系作为其理论研究的基点与起点。可以说，法国现代民事诉权立法和民事诉权理论较为全面地体现了罗马法“诉”的原理。本文首先以《十二表法》、《裁判官告示汇编》、盖尤斯《法学阶梯》、优士丁尼《法学阶梯》和《学说汇纂》等罗马法原始文献的法文译本为基础，结合欧陆地区中世纪以来法学家对罗马法诉讼程序和诉讼理论的研究成果，对罗马法“诉”的理论进行了较为体系化的研究。其次，在罗马法“诉”的理论研究基础上，本文从学术发展史的视角观察、研究罗马法“诉”的理论向大陆法系现代民事诉讼理论的转变过程。最后，本文对如何完善我国诉的理论提出若干探讨和建议。文章结构安排如下：第一篇“诉”的历史考察：对罗马法“诉”(Actio)的解读。该篇主要是从罗马法“诉”的角度研究了罗马法“诉”的理论构成，具体内容分为：罗马法“诉”的程序构造；罗马法“诉”的体系形成；罗马法“诉”的概念解析；罗马法“诉”的法律渊源；罗马法“诉”的晚期重构等五章内容。第一章，罗马法“诉”的程序构造主要探讨的是罗马法“诉”的法律审和事实审二阶段程序构造，并且研究了负责法律审的“罗马裁判官”和负责事实审的“罗马法官”所享有的“司法权”。第二章，罗马法“诉”的体系形成是对于不同时期罗马法“诉”的类型及其沿革过程的研究。第三章，罗马法“诉”的概念是通过对于罗马法“诉”的三层内涵的研究，即诉讼程序、诉权和主观权的这三层含义的研究，解读了罗马法“诉”的概念。第四章，罗马法“诉”的法律渊源主要研究的是“诉”的两个来源，即“市民法之诉”和“裁判官法之诉”，说明了这两种“诉”的类型分别代表着不同的“诉”的理论。第五章，罗马法“诉”的晚期重构主要研究的是优士丁尼改变了由古罗马法学家精心建构的“诉”的体系，以及这种改变带来的正面和负面影响。第二篇“诉”的历史演变：罗马法“诉”(Actio)之理论发展。这一篇主要是从“诉”的历史发展的视角，来研究罗马法“诉”的理论与现代大陆法系民事诉讼理论体系的关联性，并从比较研究的视角来分析现代民事诉讼理论中的德日体系和法国体系之间的联系与区别。罗马法“诉”的理论经过近代以来德国法学家和法国法学家的发展，已经形成了德国民事诉讼理论体系和法国民事诉讼理论体系。德国民事诉讼理论以“诉与诉的要件”为中心来建构其理论体系，并解决“当事人向法院提起的诉讼能否被受理”的问题，而法国民事诉讼理论体系则以“诉权与诉权要件”为中心来建构其理论体系，并以诉权理论来解决“当事人向法院提起的诉讼能否被受理”的问题。第三篇“诉”的现代发展：我国诉之理论的完善。该篇主要研究了罗马法“诉”的理论，以及在罗马法“诉”的理论基础上发展起来的大陆法系民事诉讼理论对我国民事诉讼理论的参考与借鉴意义。并提出了我国诉之理论研究应当从“诉的要件”理论角度来强化其体系性，以“诉的要件”来统帅诉的概念、诉的利益、诉讼标的、当事人适格等民事诉讼理论板块，使之成为一个联系紧密的有机整体，并且为了从理论上构建我国“诉的要件”的审查程序，本文提出了与诉的理论相关的起诉制度、审前准备程序和诉权保障制度的改革与完善。更多还原

【Abstract】 "Actio" is an important concept in Roman law. It is at the heart of the proceedings ofRoman law. It is the common starting point of the modern theory of action and the right ofaction. Although the modern theory of continental civil procedure (particularly the theory ofGerman-Japanese Civil Procedure) made a distinction between the theory of action and theright of action, as two distinct theories, from the historical point of view of its origin anddevelopment, theories of action and the right of action of modern continental law areinextricably linked with the theory of action in Roman law.The theory of action in Roman law is a theoretical system which is constituted by civillaw and the law of judge. Among the features that distinguish the Roman law, the moststriking is the intimate relationship we discover everywhere between thought and form,between the idea and its realization exterior. In a legal system, the honorary action and thecivil action coexist. In order to deny parties’ rights of action or to grant them the right ofaction, the Roman magistrate prevents or alters the civil law in practice. However, in terms ofsurface, the civil law is not subject to damage, because the civil law itself is always expressedas an independent legal system and all-inclusive. The intervention of a judge basis on hispower of governance and expressed by his judicial discretion.The theory of action in Roman law aims to answer "why the party may bring an action".In principle, the civil action follows the formula that "there is a right, there is an action”. Insome cases, the substantive rights of the parties may not be able to access to justice, that "theparty can not always have the right of action even if he has a substantive right", because theRoman magistrate has the right to deprive parties the right of action which is based on civillaw. The honorary actions are independent of the civil actions. The honorary action mainlyfollows the formula that "no substantial rights can also have the right of action.” Whenlegislative gaps appeared in civil law, Roman magistrate gives the parties a right of action byexercising his right of jurisdiction, so that the interests of the parties are under the protectionof the justice.The theory of action in Roman law is the point of departure of the theoretical system ofcontinental civil procedure law. The concept of action in Roman law has been refined anddecomposed by the lawyer of the19th century; it was transformed into "the right of action" in the theory of civil procedure of modern continental law. At first, the notion of action focusedon "why the party may bring an action" and focused on the relationship between substantivelaw and procedural law. However, under the influence of the modern trend of civil rights,German and Japanese studies on the concept of action have diverted their point of departure,which is the relationship between substantive law and procedural law. The concept of the rightof action has been converted to a constitutional right. In addition, German and Japanesestudies have developed the modern system of action, which support the theoretical function ofthe right of action. It is the theory of the conditions of action in modern German and Japaneselaw, which controls the interests of action, the subject of action, the qualification of the parties,etc.For the modern French law, the theory of "right of aciton" has a somewhat differentdirection than German law. The right of action in French law is not abstracted to the highdegree of an objective right. It inherits the characteristics of the notion of action in Romanlaw; it focuses on the question "why the party may bring an action" and focuses on therelationship between substantive law and procedural law. We can say that French law andFrench theory of “right of aciton" broadly reflects the theoretical principles of the notion ofaction in Roman law.Firstly, based on The Law of the Twelve Tables, the edicts of the Roman magistrates,Institution of Gaius, Institution and Digest of Justinian and other documents of the Frenchtranslation of the Roman law, referred to studies on the notion of action of Roman law sincethe Middle Ages, this thesis focuses on a systematic study of the theory of action in Romanlaw. Secondly, based on the theoretical concept of the action of Roman law, from theacademic perspective of history, this thesis examines how the theory of action in Roman lawchanges to the theory of action in modern continental civil procedure law. Finally, this thesismakes some discussions and recommendations to improve the theory of action in Chinesecivil procedure law. This thesis is organized as follows:The First Article: A historical survey on the notion of action: The interpretation of Actionin Roman law(actio). This article focuses on the composition of the Roman theory of action,is divided into five chapters: the procedural structure, the formed system, the conceptualanalysis, the formal sources, and the reconstruction of actions in Roman law. The first chapter,the structure of procedural actions Roman studies the two phases of the structure of Romancivil procedure, and examines the different jurisdictions separated from the Roman magistrate and the Roman judge. The second chapter, the system of action in Roman law studies theactions in different periods, especially in their historical developments. The third chapter, theconceptual analysis of the meanings of action studies three senses of the notion of action inRoman law, these are the proceedings, the right of action and the subjective right. The fourthchapter, the formal sources of actions examines their two sources: the honorary actions andcivil actions. Different actions represent the different theories. The fifth chapter, thereconstruction of actions investigates the changes of the action system in Roman law made byEmperor Justinian. These changes have resulted in both positive and negative effects.The Second Article: The historical evolution of the concept of action: The developmentof the theory of action in Roman law. This article is primarily a research of action from theperspective of history. It examines the theoretical linkages between the theory of action inRoman law and the theory of action in modern civil law, and the relationships and distinctionsbetween the Germany-Japanese theory of civil procedure and the French theory of civilprocedure from the comparative perspective. By German jurists and French jurists, the theoryof action in Roman law has transformed into the theoretical system of Germany civil procedureand the theoretical system of French civil procedure. The theoretical system of Germany civilprocedure established “Action and the conditions of action" as the two main concepts to build itstheoretical system and resolve the issue of “Admissibility of action”. The French theoreticalsystem of civil procedure has established "right of action and elements of the right of action" asthe two main concepts to build its theoretical system and resolve the same issue.The Third Article: The Evolution of the notion of action: Improving the Chinese theoryof action. This article mainly studies the reference value of the theory of action in Roman lawand the theory of action in continental civil procedure law, which are profitable for theChinese theory of action. At the same time, this article suggests that the theoretical study ofaction should enforce "the conditions of action" that can strengthen the integrity of thetheoretical system of action, and the theoretical study of action should reinforce the conceptof "the conditions of action" that controls the interests of action, the subject of action, thequality of parts, etc. To establish the judicial review procedure of "the conditions of action",this paper proposes some reforms and improvements concerning the form of access to Justice,the procedure before trail, and the institutional protection of the right of action.更多还原