论文部分内容阅读
一、民事诉讼的统一性与多样性一般认为,民事诉讼是为了在适正公平与迅速救济之间协调地达成制度理想,并基于立法者的努力确立的最好(最理想)的程序。当如此来把握民事诉讼法中的具体化程序时,强烈意识到的是其统一性格或宪法基础(正当程序),而对多样化则抱以强烈的抵触。对于小额裁判,是上述这种抵触民事诉讼程序多样化极为鲜明的一例。一直以来,小额裁判中展现的程序简易化与灵活化,往往被指责为粗糙的裁判或者二流的裁判。这种批判究竟是一种基于小额裁判现状做出的客观认识,还是因民事诉讼程序统一性格被破坏而产生的抽象的反对情绪?对此有必要冷静地展开思考。民事诉讼程序的目的不在于程序自我满足,而应当是一种旨在实现国民所期待正义的程序。程序的公平性不应抽象、划一地予以决定,而应当对应当事人(原告与被告)特性以及案件的特性发生变化。
First, the unity and diversity of civil litigation It is generally believed that civil litigation is the best (ideal) procedure for achieving the institutional ideal between fairness and prompt relief, and based on the efforts of lawmakers. When we grasp the specific procedures in the Civil Procedure Law, we are strongly aware of their unifying character or constitutional basis (due process), while strongly opposing diversity. For small referees, it is an extremely clear case of the diversification of such contradiction civil proceedings. All along, the procedure shown in the small referee simplification and flexibility, often accused of rough referee or second-rate referee. Is this kind of criticism an objective objection based on the status quo of the small referee or abstract opposition caused by the unification of the civil procedure? It is necessary to start thinking calmly. The purpose of civil procedure is not to be self-satisfied with the procedure, but to be a procedure aimed at realizing the justice the nation expects. The fairness of the procedure should not be decided abstraction and uniformity, but should be changed according to the characteristics of the parties (plaintiffs and defendants) and the nature of the case.