诉讼突袭及其法律规制

【作者】 杨艺红；

【导师】 常怡；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 程序法定主义要求民事诉讼立法对诉讼行为的成立要件与生效要件予以明确、统一的规定,其应严格按照法定的条件、方式、步骤在程序运作中次序展开。显然,这一进路试图以“格式化”的设计将所有诉讼行为纳入预置“轨道”,并提供客观的标准:只要行为在形式上符合法律,就可以视为达到程序法定的要求。但诉讼程序终究是由诉讼行为交织构成的动态过程,鉴于成文法的刚性、抽象性、非完善性,即便是再为缜密的法典也无法就所有诉讼行为及行为本身以明确规定。而这无疑为诉讼行为的实施预留了可以回旋的“空间”。基于权利/力、义务配置的不同、实施行为目的的差异、行为方式的选择性以及利益考量、境遇判断、大众诉讼观等诸多因素影响,诉讼主体某些行为的实施效果并不必然有利于解纷功能的实现,甚至影响程序高效、稳定的运作,这一点已为司法实践所证明,而诉讼突袭就是典型的一种。对民事诉讼行为外在形式的关注并不意味着在其内涵中完全回避实质正义的要求。诉讼行为的实施不但要促进权益维护,还应具备善意、合理之目的;不仅要确保纠纷公正解决,更应实现整个解纷机制的高效运作与秩序稳定。目前,就民事诉讼行为,学界多停留于概念层面的界定与注释,缺乏深入、细化的探究,对诉讼突袭更是局限于单一视角的涉猎和“捎带性”的阐释,少有系统的考察与分析。而面对实践中的问题,诉讼突袭应成为今后诉讼法学有关诉讼行为理论研究的重要课题。本文是一篇系统研究诉讼突袭的博士学位论文。在近年来学者们涉及该问题的零星研究成果基础上,首次对诉讼突袭的内涵、本质、构成要件、特征、类型划分等基本理论展开阐述,就其成因从多角度予以解析,论证应对其进行规制的法理依据,透过两大法系的比较考察,创新性的提出以法律规制为手段,围绕制度完善与规则设置,构建应对诉讼突袭的强制性机制、矫正性机制、制裁性机制、激励性机制,使其在可预期的范围内,低频率和低烈度的发生,保障纠纷在诉讼程序高效、稳定、次序的运作状中得以公正解决。全文由引言和正文六章组成,共计15万余字。在“引言”部分,论文交代了选题背景。之所以选择诉讼突袭作为博士论文选题,是鉴于目前学界对诉讼行为理论有限的研究及司法实践中出现的实际问题。论文提出了选题意义,即对该问题的探讨在民事诉讼法学领域还是一个较新的课题,有其重要的理论价值与实践意义:该选题有利于深化和拓展我国民事诉讼行为理论的研究;有利于我国民事诉讼立法的完善;有利于在司法实践中对诉讼突袭行为以有效的法律规制。论文从国内外两方面进行了文献综述,展示了文章的研究方法:即实证分析的方法、比较分析的方法、经济分析的方法。第一章为“对诉讼突袭的实证考察”。该章首先从个案观察视角对诉讼突袭的形态以形象化“勾勒”,点出论文的核心议题。其次,就展开实证调研所采用的方法和被调研对象的基本情况予以介绍。第三,根据调研资料归纳出初步的观察结果,即:诉讼突袭在当前民商事案件审理中一定程度的存在;诉讼寒袭给程序运作带来了负面和消极影响,有悖于对公正、效率、秩序价值的追求;诉讼突袭恶化了诉讼机制的运作环境,在导致程序不稳定、非均衡的状态中限制了诉讼解纷功能的提高;诉讼突袭扭曲了诉权与审判权的合理行使,造成诉讼迟延、成本高昂、案件审理复杂化及程序进程与结果的不可预期性加大,司法裁判的可信赖度和接受度大为降低;诉讼突袭的存在既源于现有制度设计和规则设置的体制化缺陷,也有经济发展、诉讼观念、诉讼心理等方面的诱因;诉讼突袭的行为主体是当事人与法院。第二章为“诉讼突袭的基本问题”。该部分研究内容有四个方面:第一,诉讼突袭的内涵。文章认为在诉讼这一特定制度运作环境中,诉讼突袭是指诉讼主体积极或消极实施的为取得诉讼上法律效果,并引发本应稳定、次序运作的诉讼程序在程序进程或程序结果上发生不可预期的突发性变更状态的诉讼行为。第二,诉讼突袭的本质。文章通过回顾诉讼行为理论的演变,阐述了诉讼突袭与诉讼行为之间的关系,指出从诉讼主体与民事诉讼法律关系的层面看,诉讼突袭的本质是一种诉讼行为。第三,诉讼突袭的构成要件与特征。文章认为诉讼突袭的主体要件是指诉讼突袭是由何人实施的。鉴于对程序启动、进程和方向的决定性作用及行为引发的诉讼法律效果。诉讼突袭的行为主体应是当事人和法院。诉讼突袭的主观要件是行为人内在心理活动的反应,它说明行为主体是以怎样的心理状态实施突袭行为。其主要分为两类:一是故意实施诉讼突袭。即明知行为会导致突袭的法律效果,但希望或放任这一结果发生;二是过失实施诉讼突袭,即不具备故意的意志因素,在应当预见到行为将导致突袭性法律后果的情形下,因疏忽大意没有预见到。诉讼突袭的客体要件,在宏观层面是指诉讼突袭背离了诉讼对公正、效率、秩序价值的追求,妨碍了程序的高效运作,使诉讼解纷功能和社会效果大为降低;在微观层面,诉讼突袭不仅给当事人权益造成侵害,更使案件审理的复杂性、不可预期性加大,运作成本不必要的攀升,有碍诉讼效率的实现。诉讼突袭的客观要件是指应当实现的法律价值和应当保护的诉讼关系或利益在怎样情况下受到了突袭行为的侵害,受到了何种程度的侵害。文章认为诉讼突袭具备四个特征:一是行为主体的特定性。即诉讼突袭的行为主体只能是当事人与法院,而非其他诉讼参与人;二是行为目的的特殊性。就法院而言,是在不完善的诉讼规则和制度下过于强调审判权主导下审理在程序意义上的终结,缺乏对当事人程序主体地位的保障,使其无法在充分的攻击与防御中参与诉讼进程;从当事人讲,是利用立法疏漏和争讼的对抗性,通过技巧达到拖延诉讼、提高成本、增大审理复杂程度与不可预期性以获得利益或减少损失;三是行为形式的合法性与非预期性。即诉讼突袭外在表现为诉权和审判权的行使,而鉴于对诉讼突袭进行识别、防范、规制的权利/力结构和制度条件尚存缺陷,其发生具有很大的不可预期性。四是行为结果的消极性。诉讼突袭不但导致审理的停顿与无序,在高成本中消解诉讼的解纷能力,使司法资源的合理配置和有效利用在对立情绪中无法实现,也使当事人在不能就案件事实和法律问题展开充分攻击与防御中实质意义的参与诉讼,并切实影响法官心证形成和判决作出。第四,诉讼突袭的类型。文章以主体划分为标准将诉讼突袭划分为来自法院之突袭与来自当事人之突袭。指出来自法院之突袭主要归结为突袭性裁判的作出:即法院没有积极履行诉讼上之释明义务,以在当事人未就案件事实和法律问题展开充分攻击与防御及必要陈述之情形下得出的案件事实和法律见解为依据,作出的出乎当事人就案件在通常情况下可以合理预期的裁判。来自当事人之突袭是指当事人为获得诉讼利益,非基于诉讼本身之目的,在相对方当事人未就案件事实或法律问题进行充分攻击与防御情形下实施的导致其利益遭受突袭性侵害,并引发原本稳定而次序运作的诉讼程序处于突发性变更状态的诉讼行为。此外,依主观划分为标准,诉讼突袭还可以分为故意之突袭与过失之突袭。第三章为“为什么会存在诉讼突袭”。该章从主体划分视角力图在立体层面对诉讼突袭的成因给予相对完整的解析。文章认为来自法院突袭之原因有四个方面:其一,法官对诉讼目的的解读。即法官对诉讼目的的理解往往是内含心理上对责任的敏感,在避免引发责任承担意义上的纠纷解决,这使法官在审理中对案件事实和法律问题话不多、态不表,偏重于程序在审判权主导下的完结,而忽视当事人的诉讼主体地位。其二,现行诉讼制度的设置缺陷。如诉答程序的价值被忽视,立法条文数量少,内容不具体、不完善,造成原被告义务负担失衡,被告不提交、不及时提交、不适当提交答辩状成为常态。而鉴于粗放型的证据交换规则与争点整理,审前程序在案件数量重压与法官“临机化”操作下实际缺位,有限的诉讼信息使法官无法对案件以合理预期。加之立法对心证公开条件、方式、范围、效力缺少细化规定以及法律责任的阙如,“你辨你的,我判我的”状况依旧。其三,法官心证过程的封闭性特征。由于心证是一个内在的心理过程,往往与法官对案件所涉证据和事实的认识、感悟、判断以及分析、归纳、类比、推理等逻辑思维相关联,其本身就很难使当事人知悉。其四,官本位的角色意识。基于官本位的角色认同,法官往往形成审判权权威下对当事人的心理优势与封闭心态,不愿公开心证过程与结果。文章将来自当事人突袭之原因归纳为六方面。其一,市场经济下的诉讼观与利益观。文章认为基于冲突的时代特征,一旦纠纷诉诸法律,当事人就视诉讼为利益判定与分配的一场竞技,并以此指导自己的行为,而自身利益最大化下突袭行为的利己效果促使其成为当事人的行为选项之一。其二,现行诉讼规则设置的缺失。文章指出鉴于我国程序规则数量的不足与原则性,使立法存在一定的疏漏与“盲区”。举证期限、管辖权异议等具体制度不仅无法通过自身运作消解突袭行为,却给其发生预留了选择空间。其三,信息不对称下的道德风险。文章认为由于诉讼中案件信息不对称的分布状态以及行为选择与收益之间的关系,当事人在对行为的判断和调整中存在道德风险下以诉讼突袭获得不当利益的逆向行为选择。其四,成本与收益的考量。文章指出由于诉讼行为的选择性与信息不对称状态使当事人无法在理性层面进行成本收益的核算,更多是在关注自我利益下的行为决策。一旦诉讼进程和结果存在不确定性,其行为预判就会在利益最大化中引发诉讼突袭的发生。其五,投机性的诉讼心理。文章认为当事人的心态在诉讼规则与自身境遇受到不确定因素影响时会发生变化,利用程序规则设置的交叉与“盲区”获得利益的投机心理必然滋生,实施诉讼突袭就是具体的反映。其六,律师在诉讼中的作用。文章指出律师虽以维护公正为己任,但其执业终究无法回避经济目的。在行业竞争和当事人追求胜诉结果的双重压力下,实施可以带来实际效果且形式合法的诉讼突袭就成为律师执业相伴而随的“副产品”。第四章为“对诉讼突袭进行规制的法理分析”。本章在五个层面阐述了应对诉讼突袭予以规制的法理基础。第一,从信息不对称下规制诉讼主体行为选择的维度。文章指出诉讼制度应给予诉讼主体充足、明确的共享信息,以增强程序运作的稳定性,降低不确定性,在审判权与诉权相互制约中保持程序的动态平衡。通过有效沟通引导诉讼主体在可选择的环境中作出符合制度设置目的的行为决策,进而预测和把握程序进程与结果,抑制机会主义动机,“压缩”诉讼突袭发生的空间。第二,从诉讼公正的维度。文章认为应保障当事人的信息获悉权,在互信机制中促进诉讼信息的顺畅传递,规则化的展开充实、有效的攻击与防御,消解程序运作的不可预期性。应在当事人适时、适式提出资料、陈述意见中确保其能够预判法官的心证过程与结果,实质意义的参与诉讼并影响裁判的形成。文章指出应确立接近实质正义目标下法官诉讼指挥权之行使。以适当方式、在合理范围调整诉讼信息的不对称状态,建立沟通交流的平台,对行为选择进行预判和矫正,降低程序运作的不可预期性。第三,从诉讼效率的维度。文章提出为促进纠纷的一次性解决,应确立集中审理下当事人之具体义务和真实义务,保障攻击与防御的充分、有效,减少无意义成本支出。同时应明确以心证公开为中心的法官促进诉讼义务,通过当事人实际意义的参与法官心证,使法官行为在可预期下为当事人所接受,打消其通过不当技巧获取诉讼利益的动机。第四,从维护诉讼秩序的维度。文章认为诉讼程序应具备可预期性与可信赖性。可预期的程序环境不仅使诉讼信息得以充分沟通,规则设置与程序推进的环节、步骤、结果保持次序和稳定,而且诉讼主体可以对自身行为在预判中做出理性选择与调整,抑制机会主义的行为倾向,激发诉讼过程中的诚信意愿,促进解纷过程的效率优化。而诉讼程序的可信赖性要求建立起主体间秩序化的互动关系,对不可预期行为以限制和惩罚。在赋予充分攻击防御的机会与健全心证制度中使当事人在心理上接受程序过程和结果,产生实施积极、有效诉讼行为的主观动因,防止突袭。而通过对心证过程与结果的合理预期,可以使法官的判断更为接近案件真实,作出值得当事人信赖之裁判。第五,和谐社会下当事人应有的诉讼观。文章认为程序是规则之治下的有序状态,公民应在平等对抗中认识到:诉讼不能被单纯的理解为“纯粹的竞技”,它必须制度、责任化的运作和充分、有效的利用。第五章为“两大法系应对诉讼突袭的策略选择”。本章从观念演进和策略选择两个视角展开两大法系间的比较研究。鉴于判例法传统,对诉讼突袭,英美法系并没有系统的理论阐述,而这一问题引起关注的原因在于诉讼爆炸下当事人滥用诉权给程序运作带来的诉讼迟延、成本高昂等实际问题。对此,英美法系国家是以正当程序理念对当事人实施突袭性诉讼行为在滥用诉权意义上予以界定。在司法层面,其更多倾向于依托制度设计与规则设置,通过诉答、证据开示、审前会议这三个既相互独立又紧密联系的程序设计对突袭行为以法律控制,并注重强化法官的自由裁量和案件管理权,强调当事人的诉讼促进义务,构建诉讼主体间进行充分、有效信息沟通的“平台”,增大诉讼进程与结果的可预期性。走法律规范化的大陆法系国家对诉讼突袭的关注,起始于民事实体法对权力滥用问题的重视,发展于诉权独立地位的确立和诚实信用原则在民事诉讼中的拓展,而诉权的正当行使和诉讼行为的诚信要求成为大陆法系国家规制诉讼突袭行为的理论基础。随着社会本位法学理论下法律保障的重心由个人向社会与个人利益并重方向发展,当事人对诉权的滥用逐渐被关注,并具有了程序法上的独立意义。日本诉讼法学界也是从当事人对诉权滥用的视角对诉讼突袭这一诉讼行为予以论述的,即如果当事人享有诉权,却本着恶意或其他不正当意图而行使,将被认为是违背诚信原则而导致法律的规制。在司法层面,大陆法系一方面强化法官诉讼指挥权,通过释明保障程序运作的高效和具针对性,以心证公开加大法官诉讼促进义务,力图构建协同主义的诉讼模式;另一方面,通过确立诚信原则及其法律后果,促使当事人履行促进诉讼的义务,通过失权制度、责任费用、审前程序规范当事人的诉讼行为,减少突袭发生。第六章为“如何对诉讼突袭进行法律规制”。文章认为完善的诉讼制度应通过构建权利义务均衡配置的规则体系引导诉讼主体的行为选择,借助沟通机制在相对完备信息下促进诉讼主体行为的认知、判断及意志力与立法目的相符合,消解程序进程与结果的不确定性。而面对有限的司法资源,将诉讼突袭控制在一审程序,于低烈度下尽可能降低其发生频率,在最大限度“压缩”其负面效应中隔断其延展的空间。对此,文章提出三方面的制度构想:一是建立应对诉讼突袭的强制性机制。通过完善诉答程序,要求当事人于诉状中全面提出自己的主张与诉求,详细陈述所依据的事实理由;被告以书面答辩状进行答辩的必须在庭审前进行,并针对起诉状逐一予以回应。通过书面、开庭辩论、法官主持会议三种程序设置细化证据交换和争点整理,明确开庭审理前上述程序应进行完毕,当事人不得再提出新的攻击与防御方法。而争点整理结果产生拘束当事人、法官的效力,对于当事人没有争议或遗漏争点责任应由负有主张责任的当事人承担。二是建立应对诉讼突袭的矫正性机制。将告知与释明作为法官义务予以明确,规定法官应将当事人权利义务、合议庭构成人员、面临的诉讼风险及程序性事项等以适当方式适时向当事人予以提示和说明;在法定条件下对诉讼请求、事实主张、证据采信、法律观点进行释明,通过提示和询问,对可能的突袭行为予以矫正。在不违反当事人真实意思的合理期待范围内,法官应根据当事人是否有律师代理以不同方式审慎公开心证的过程、结果及理由,并使应胜者胜诉,应败诉者败诉。此外,判决书中还应增强就案件事实与法律问题的说理。三是建立应对诉讼突袭的制裁性机制。即立法中应明确诉讼主体一旦实施诉讼突袭将承担的法律后果,以权益丧失或减损制约诉讼主体实施诉讼突袭的发生。如对被告无正当理由未作答辩或未在答辩期限届满前提交书面答辩的,法官予以释明后仍拒绝答辩的,可酌情裁定被告承担因迟延答辩给原告造成的诉讼费用。而对法官释明不当或不予释明的,如当事人提出异议成立,程序应恢复至法院应履行释明义务时的状态。此外,庭审中应将法官行使释明权的内容、方式记入笔录。四是建立应对诉讼突袭的激励性机制,使积极促进诉讼的当事人和积极公开心证与适当行使诉讼指挥权的法官获得正面收益与评价,使放弃实施诉讼突袭成为诉讼主体在程序运作中的自愿选择之一。更多还原

【Abstract】 The procedures legal ideology requires in the civil procedure law a clarified and unified prescription of the sine qua non of the tenability and effectiveness of litigation activities, which should be conducted orderly and in strict accordance with the condition, manner and steps provided by the law. Obviously this is in an attempt to "format" all the legal procedures in a prescribed "track" and to provide an objective standard: should it be formally in line with the law, the action is to be considered legal. However, the litigation procedure is a dynamic intertexture, all of which, due to the imperfectness, abstractness and rigidity of statute law, cannot be definitely prescribed even by the most meticulous code. As a result, litigation maneuver is nevertheless possible. Because of the diversity in the configuration of rights and obligations, in the objectives of the litigation, and in the choice of litigation manners, as well as of the differences in the benefit consideration, situation judgment and the common litigation viewpoint, some behaviors of the litigation subject may not necessarily lead to the realization of dispute-solving function. Moreover, as has been proven by the legal practice, it may even hinder the effective and stable operation of the procedure, of which, a typical instance is litigation surprise.Attention to the formalities of civil litigation does not mean the complete ignorance of substantive justice in its content. The litigation procedure is not only a defense of the legal rights of the citizenry, but also a demonstration of goodwill and reason. It is not merely to ensure a fair solution of dispute, but also to keep an efficient mechanism and a stable order. Currently, the academic circle is mainly focusing on the conceptual aspect of civil litigation. Deep and detailed research, especially the research into litigation surprise is far from sufficient. However, legal practice calls for a theoretical study of litigation surprise, which should be an important subject in the science of law.This doctoral dissertation aims at a systematic study of litigation surprise. Base on the sporadic studies conducted by scholars in this respect, this dissertation gives an expatiation upon the content, the essence and the components of litigation surprise. With a causal analysis from a variety of perspectives, it expounds and proves the legal principles in exercising control over litigation surprise. Through a comparative study of the two legal systems, this dissertation proposes to adopt legal constraints to deal with litigation surprise. By perfecting the system and establishing certain rules, a coercing, rectifying, sanctioning and encouraging mechanism can be constructed to ensure the low frequency and low intensity occurrence of litigation surprise, and consequently to ensure a efficient and stable procedure of litigation process to provide justice in dispute solving. The dissertation consists of an introduction and six chapters, approximately 150,000 words.The Introduction part provides the reasons for the choice of the subject. Relevant problems in legal practices and the insufficient current studies conducted by the academic world in this respect have attached great importance to the research into litigation surprise, either in theoretical or in practical sphere. Such a research will deepen and widen the theoretical study of civil litigation in China. It will also contribute to the perfection of China’s law-making practice in civil litigation as well as to the effective legal constraints on litigation surprise. The dissertation makes a literature review of both domestic and foreign sources and applies the methodology of empirical analysis,comparative analysis and economy analysis.Chapter One is entitled "Empirical Research into Litigation Surprise". It firstly "outlines" the different forms of litigation surprise from the perspective of case study, and thereafter points out the core subject of the dissertation. Secondly, it makes a brief introduction of the research subjects and the methodology applied. Thirdly, it sums up the result of the empirical research, which demonstrates the existence of litigation surprise in current civil or business lawsuits. Litigation surprise brings negative and destructive influence on the operation of civil procedures and is contrary to the pursuit of justice, efficiency and order. Litigation surprise deteriorates the environment of litigation mechanism and results in instability and unbalancedness, which hinders the dispute solving function of the litigation mechanism. Litigation surprise distorts the exertion of the right to file lawsuit and the right of jurisdiction and results in the delay of the litigation, the rise of the cost, the complication of the process and the unexpectedness of the outcome, which degrades the credibility and acceptability of the judgment. The existence of litigation surprise is due to the system deficiency of institution configuration and rule making, as well as the economic, ideological and psychological factors. The subject of litigation surprise includes the party and the court.Chapter Two is entitled " Major Issues of Litigation Surprise", which consists of four parts. Part one is about the content of litigation surprise. The dissertation holds that in the specific environment of litigation, litigation surprise refers to the litigation subject’s intentional or unintentional action that results in any unexpected change of the litigation procedure, which would be otherwise stable and orderly. Part two is about the essence of litigation surprise. The dissertation recalls the theoretical evolution of litigation and expatiates on the relation between litigation surprise and litigation activity. It points out that the essence of litigation surprise is, from the perspective of the relation between litigation subjects and relation of civil procedure law, a kind of litigation activity. Part three is about the characteristic and significant factor of litigation surprise. The dissertation proposes that the main factor of litigation surprise is its subject. Considering the initiating, processing and its consequent litigation result, the subject of litigation surprise should be the party and the court. The subjective factor is the psychological reaction of the action in the mind of party, which shows the subject’s psychological status when conduction litigation surprise. There can be two major types. One is deliberate conduction of litigation surprise. The subject is aware of the consequence and expects it to happen. The other is unintentional litigation surprise, in which case the subject overlooks the possible consequence. The objective factor, in the macro perspective, refers to the activity’s deviation from the pursuit of justice, order and efficiency, which hinders the effective operation of the litigation and lowers its dispute solving function and social effect. In the micro perspective, litigation surprise not only harms the rights and interests of the party, but also results in the complication and unexpectedness of the lawsuit, which increases the cost of the litigation procedure. Litigation surprise violated the proper relation or interests which should be legally protected. The dissertation points out that there are four characteristics of the litigation surprise: (1) it has specific agent, which is either the party or the court; (2) it has specific aim, with regard to the judge, litigation surprise means the judge’s over-emphasis on the decisiveness of jurisdiction power, which is a result of imperfect litigation rule or system and which deprives the party of his/her full participation in the process; with regard to the party, it refers to the maneuver of legislation loopholes and litigation controversies to delay the process, raise the cost, and increase the complexity and unexpectedness so as to seek gains or reduce losses; (3) it has formal legality and unexpectedness, which exhibits a proper conduct of legal right or jurisdiction operation that is hard to be identified, prevented or constrained due to the imperfectness of the current system. (4) it has negative consequence, which means the litigation deadlock, disorder and high cost, resulting in hostility that deprive the party of their full participation, and the judge, their free proof. Part four is the types of litigation surprise. The dissertation classifies the litigation surprise according to its subject type, namely, litigation surprise from the court and litigation surprise from the party. It points out that the former mainly refers to abrupt judgment which is made without carrying out the obligation of elucidation and which is not in accordance with the facts of the case and relevant laws. The latter refers to the party’s behavior resulting in abrupt changes in the otherwise stable litigation procedure. Besides, litigation surprise can also be classified according to the subjective motive into deliberately and fault litigation surprise.Chapter Three is entitled " Causes of Litigation Surprise". It attempts at a relativelycomplete analysis of the factors that cause the occurrence of litigation surprise from theperspective of subject types. The dissertation holds that litigation surprise from the courthave four causes: first, the judge’s understanding of the litigation purpose, which isusually a sensitiveness and fear of responsibility that will lead to the judge’s overemphasis of the final decisiveness and ignorance of the major role of the agent concernedin litigation process. Second, the imperfectness of the current litigation system, whichignores the pleading process with insufficient legislation and the imbalance obligations ofplantiff and defendant. It has become a common phenomenon that defendant does notsubmit or delays to submit or improperly submits written answer. The pre-courtprocedures are always ignored and the limited information makes it impossible for thejudge to have a reasonable expectation of the suit.the absence of the system of publicity ofjudge’s free proof. The current legislation has no specifications about the publicity of thejudge’s free proof in terms of its condition, manner, scope and effect. Seldom does thejudge publicize his proof. Third, the closedness of judge’s free proof. Due to the fact thatthe judge’s free proof is a psychological process which is related to the judge’s cognition, comprehension and judgement of the facts involved in the case and to the judge’s logical analysis, induction, analogy and deduction, it is hard to be perceived by the party. Fourth, the self-position of the government official. Influenced by the official ranking consciousness, the judge frequently has a superior self identity thus unwilling to publicize the process and result of his proof. The dissertation analyzes the litigation surprise from the party as having six causes. Firstly, the viewpoint about lawsuit and interest in a market economy. The dissertation holds that due to the characteristic of the current era, once the dispute is put on court, the party sees it as a competition to determine and allocate certain interests or benefits. Guided by such a principle, litigation surprised aimed at maximize the gains becomes one option for the party. Secondly, the absence of the necessary rules in the present system. The dissertation holds that there exist in China’s legislation certain blind area. The rules concerning time limit of testification and objection of jurisdiction cannot eliminate litigation surprise. Thirdly, moral risk under information asymmetry. The dissertation holds that due to the asymmetrical distribution of the litigation information and the relation between behavior option and gains, the party may make converse choices to seek improper gains. Fourthly, cost and effect consideration. The dissertation points out that due to the optional characteristic of the litigation conduct and the asymmetrical distribution of information, the party cannot make rational cost and effect calculations. Once the procedure and the result exhibit any uncertainties, litigation surprise is to be motivated by the maximization of gains. Fifthly, the psychology of the party. The dissertation proposes that litigation surprise is a reflection of the party’s speculating psychology in an attempt to seek gains by taking advantage of the loopholes or blind areas in the system. Sixthly, the impact of the lawyer. The dissertation points out that though the lawyers are to maintain justice, but they cannot avoid economic purpose. Under the pressure of competition and their client’s desire to win, formally legal activities such as litigation surprise is to be undertaken by the lawyers.Chapter Four is entitled "Legal Principles about the Constraints of Litigation Surprise." This chapter expounds the legal principles that can be applied in the constraints of litigation surprise. Firstly, the dissertation proposes that sufficient and clarified information should be provide for the litigation subject so as to promote the stability and reduce the uncertainty of the process and keep a dynamic balance. Effective communication should be achieved to guide the litigation subject to make decisions in accordance with the system so as to control the motive of speculation and reduce the possibility of litigation surprise. Secondly, the dissertation proposes that the party should have the right to get information. The information should be transmitted efficiently in a mutual-trust system so as to conduct sufficient and validate defense and offence, eliminating the uncertainties of the procedure. The party should be enabled to predict the process and result of the judge’s proof, so as to ensure a substantive participation in the lawsuit and influence of the final judgment. The dissertation points out the judges directing function should be established aiming at the goal of substantive justice. The asymmetric information distribution should be adjusted in a reasonable scope in order to ensure communication and to predict and rectify the litigation option, and consequently to reduce the uncertainties. Thirdly, the dissertation proposes the obligation of the party should be clarified so as to ensure a one-time solution of the dispute. The effectiveness and the completeness of the defense and offence should be guaranteed, and the meaningless cost should be avoided. Simultaneously, the judge’s obligation to promote the litigation should be clarified centering on the publicity of judge’s free proof. The judge’s action should be expected and accepted by the party so as to eliminate the motive of seeking improper gains. Fourthly, the dissertation holds that litigation procedure should have expectability and credibility. An expectable procedure can not only enable sufficient information transmission, rule making, procedure advancement and order and stability, but also enable the litigation subject to make rational choices and adjustments, control speculation tendencies, inspire honesty and improve the efficiency of dispute solving. The credibility of litigation procedure should be based on the interactive relation between the litigation subjects. Unexpected behaviors should be limited and punished. The party should be given sufficient opportunity in the defense and offence process to inspire their active and effective litigation behavior. Reasonable expectations of the process and result of the judge’s proof will enable the judge to make their decision closer to truth and more reliable. Fifthly, the dissertation proposes that the party in a harmonious society should not view the litigation process as a pure competition but as a institutionalized and obligatory activity that must be conducted sufficiently and effectively.Chapter Five is entitled " The Two Legal Systems’ Strategic Choices Concerning Litigation Surprise", which makes a comparative study between the two legal systems from the perspectives of concept evolution and strategic choice. Due to the case law tradition, the common law system does not have any systematic expatiation of litigation surprise, which is now focused on because of the practical problem it caused such as delay in litigation procedure and increase of litigation costs.In this respect, countries of the common law system define litigation surprise from the party based on the idea of procedure propriety. With regard to the judicatory sphere, system planning and rule making are applied to control litigation surprise. The three separate but interdependent procedures of pleading, discovery and pretrial conference are used to exercise legal control over litigation surprise. The judge’s discretion and administration of the cases are enhanced and so is the obligation of the party to promote the litigation. A "platform" is set up for the litigation subjects to conduct sufficient and effective information exchange so as to make the litigation procedure and result more predictable. In countries of the civil law system, concerns of litigation surprise starts from the civil entity law’s recognition of power abuse. The independence of litigation right and the expansion of honesty principle in the civil procedure have enhanced such concerns. The theoretical base for the constraint of litigation surprise is the demand of a proper and honest conduction of litigation right. As the focus of legal protection turns in the direction toward an equal attention to individual and social interests under the legal theory of social standard, the abuse of litigation right is gradually attracting attention and acquiring independent meanings in procedure law. The Japanese litigation study circle also dissertates litigation surprise from the perspective of abuse of litigation right, i.e. if the party has litigation right but conducts with malice or other improper intention, he/she will be regarded as dishonest and will be subject to legal constraints accordingly. In the judicature sphere, the civil law system enhances, on the one hand, the directing function of the judge to establish a cooperative litigation module via the efficient and pertinent procedure of legal elucidation and the publicity of judge’s free proof. On the other hand, it encourages the party to fulfill the obligation of promoting the litigation via the establishment of honesty principle and relevant legal consequences. It attempts to reduce the occurrence of litigation surprise by standardizing the litigation activities through the system of proof- right - losing, duty charge, and pre-court procedure.Chapter Six is entitled "Legal Constraints of Litigation Surprise". The dissertation holds that a perfect litigation system should guide the litigation subject in its choice making through the establishment of a balanced configuration of rights and obligations. Relatively complete information supply through a communication mechanism should be ensured to make the cognition, evaluation and determination of the litigation subject to tally with the legal purpose, hence to eliminate the uncertainties in the process and result of the litigation. The litigation surprise should be confined to the trial of first instance with low frequency and low intensity. Its negative influence and its impact scope should be reduced. The dissertation makes three proposals with regard to this: One is the mandatory mechanism in reply to litigation surprise. Through the perfection of the pleading procedure, the party is required to present in the written petition complete appeal and detailed account of relevant evidences; defendant reply should be conducted before court procedure in written form and should be responded to accordingly. Written answers, court debate and meeting presided by the judge should be adopted to elaborate the evidence exchange and issue arrangement. All these procedures should be completed before the court session, and the party is not to propose new measures of defense and offence. Issue arrangement should have constraint over the party and the judge. The proposing party should be responsible for any skip of the issue arrangement. A second proposal is the establishment of rectifying mechanism in reply to litigation surprise. The judge’s obligation of legal elucidation and notification should be pinpointed, which requires the judge to inform the party of their rights and obligations, the composition of the court, the risk of the litigation and other issues related to the procedure. The judge should also elucidate the litigation appeal, evidence proposal and admittance, and the legal standpoint in accordance with the legal conditions. Possible litigation surprises are to be rectified through questioning and reminding. The judge should also, within the reasonable expectation scope of the party, prudently publicize the procedure, result and reason of his free proof, making sure that the winner is the right one and the loser deserves to lose. Apart from this, the verdict should provide explanations on the relation between the case fact and the legal provisions. A third proposal is the establishment of punitive mechanism. The legal consequences of conducting litigation surprise should be clearly defined so as to restrict the litigation subject’s motivation to adopt litigation surprise. For instance, if defendant not to give reply or to submit written supply before the time limit, the judge should give legal elucidation. If defendant still refuses to reply , defendant can be taken economical sanction. With regard to the judge’s failure in elucidation or improper elucidation, once the objection by the party is recognized, the litigation procedure should be resumed to the stage where the court should provide legal elucidation. Besides, the court should make a written record of the content and manner of the judge’s legal elucidation. A fourth proposal is the establishment of an encouraging mechanism, which gives positive benefit and appraisal to the party who positively promote the litigation and the judge who actively publicizes his free proof and properly carries out his directing function, hence makes the litigation subjects willing give up the choice of litigation surprise.更多还原