论文部分内容阅读
当事人对审判权在承担社会冲突解决方面的能力期望过高,这与审判权干预社会的依据不足存在矛盾,由此导致司法实践中法院对某些纠纷是否应予立案受理缺乏明确客观的依据,纠纷不被受理的当事人对法院存在误解,学术界对此也颇有诟病,司法实务界也比较头疼。针对民事审判权作用范围界定标准不客观导致的问题,学术界除探讨在立案审查方式上进行改革外,主要仍是从传统的抽象法律思维角度试图对概念进行完善,并提出以“诉的利益”为标准界定民事审判权的作用范围。但是,从抽象思维角度对概念的完善仍存在其难以避免的不明确性。本文根据司法实践中确需考虑民事审判权作用范围界定标准的实际情况以及法律发展的规律,尝试运用个案类型化的思维方法去解决民事审判权作用范围界定标准不明确的问题。从个案类型化的权威性以及法律适用的统一性角度出发,在个案类型化的具体实施方面,笔者建议在民商审判线分两级实行新类型案件报告制度。本文还对笔者承办的涉及离婚纠纷但被告下落不明、环境侵权纠纷以及关注的起诉要求继续履行合伙协议的纠纷等个案,尝试运用类型化的方式进行分析。
There is a contradiction between the parties’ expectation on the ability of judicial power to undertake the social conflict resolution, which is contradicted by the fact that the judicial power interferes with the social basis. As a result, the court lacks a clear and objective basis for whether or not some disputes should be accepted in judicial practice. The parties to the disputes are not misunderstood about the courts. The academic circles are also quite criticized for it. The judiciary circles are also more headache. In view of the problem that the criterion of the scope of civil jurisdiction is not objectively caused, the academic circles, apart from discussing the reform on the way of filing the case, still try to perfect the concept from the perspective of the traditional abstract legal thinking and propose that “ Interest ”as the standard definition of the scope of civil jurisdiction. However, the perfection of concepts from the perspective of abstract thinking still has its unavoidable uncertainty. This paper tries to use the case-type thinking method to solve the problem that the definition of the scope of the civil jurisdiction is not clear according to the fact that the judicial practice does need to consider the actual situation of defining the scope of the role of civil jurisdiction and the law of legal development. From the perspective of individuality of cases and the uniformity of applicable law, in the concrete implementation of case types, the author suggests that a new type of case reporting system be implemented in two stages in civil and commercial trial lines. This article also tries to use the type of analysis to the case that the author contravenes divorce disputes but the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, the environmental infringement dispute and the concern about the prosecution request to continue the dispute of the partnership agreement.