论无行为能力人离婚起诉之代理问题

发布时间：2017-12-31 21:02

本文关键词：论无行为能力人离婚起诉之代理问题　出处：《华东政法大学》2009年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 原告为无民事行为能力人,其法定代理人可否提起离婚诉讼的问题,理论界尚无系统研究的学术成果。同时,由于我国亲属法立法的滞后,理论界和实务界对此问题在解释论的层面并未达成共识。这进一步导致司法裁判的矛盾,适用法律的混乱和说理的匮乏与谬误。本文以对“身份行为不得代理”原则的辨析为论证起点,引入法学方法论的方法对现行法规进行分析、论证。并在保证社会妥当性的前提下,参照契约法规则对“婚姻目的”进行类比分析,为原告法定代理人起诉权的确定提供新的注脚。进而建立以原告法定代理人起诉权为中心的二次评价体系,还原无行为能力人离婚救济的本真面貌和应有理念,合法、合理、有效地保护双方当事人的利益。本文分为六个部分,以“发现问题——原则探讨——方法论研究——实质论证——体系构建——结论”的路径展开。第一部分,通过比较最高法院公布的两例典型判例,引出本问题在司法界的矛盾现状。进而通过梳理理论界的研究现状和外法域的立法实例,归纳出矛盾的根源,也就是我国亲属法相关立法的滞后,导致本问题需要解释论层面的深入研究和论证。而细化到现行法,其矛盾焦点应该是对于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的意见》第94条(以下简称《意见》第94条)的理解。第二部分,针对“身份行为不得代理”的原则进行详细论证。还原其本来的内涵和适用的方法、步骤。再将之带入本文问题,进一步澄清本文问题的矛盾所在。也就是《意见》第94条的内容是否应理解为对于原告法定代理人的特别法律授权。第三部分,运用驳论的方法,针对否定论学者的观点进行检视。论证《意见》第94条是否应进行目的性限缩。首先确定否定论学者的观点导致的方法论上的结果,也就是目的性限缩的运用。进而引入阿列克西关于目的性限缩的论证体系,通过对使用目的性限缩手段的内部论证和外部论证,检视对于《意见》第94条进行目的性限缩的合理性。并得出,在外部论证方面,目的性限缩的充分性和必要性不强,其合理性不足的初步结论。第四部分,运用正面论证的方法,对原告监护人法定代理权的合理性进行实质性论证。针对婚姻的契约性特点,引入离婚与契约解除的对比分析,通过对于婚姻目的的研究,探讨给予原告法定代理人起诉权对于无行为能力人的利弊,通过利益衡量,检视第三部分得出的初步结论。其间,运用大量的法经济学、法社会学、伦理学的方法,力求论证的合理性和全面性。最后得出在婚姻目的不能达成的情况下,给予监护人程序性的起诉权实为妥当的结论。第五部分,体系检视方法的运用,兼含立法论层面的探讨。通过对比各国及地区的法律制度,讨论给予原告法定代理人起诉权后所引出的相关司法问题,并论证对《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第183条进行目的性限缩的可能。最后笔者提出了在现行法基础上建立以原告法定代理人起诉权为中心的二次评价体系的设想。第六部分,本文的结论部分。通过方法论论证、实质论证和体系论证,本文得出的结论是,我国现有立法虽存在疏失,但是在解释论的层面,不需超越法律的续造依然可以解决无行为能力人作为原告的离婚起诉问题。但是,原告法定代理人起诉权的获得仅仅是一个正确的开始,其需要正确的司法理念和合理的配套评价体系的共同协作,才能合理保护各方权益。而真正解决本文问题,则需要立法层面的修正。
[Abstract]:The plaintiff is a person without capacity for civil conduct, the legal representative can divorce proceedings problems, there is no systematic research on the theory of academic achievements. At the same time, due to the lag of our family law legislation, theory and Practice on this issue did not reach a consensus in the interpretation of the level. This leads to further conflict and lack of judicial adjudication, the fallacy of confusion of the applicable law and reasoning.
Based on the analysis of "identity behavior can not substitute" principle for the demonstration starting point, introduced the methodology of law analysis of the existing regulations and demonstration. Under the premise of ensuring social rationality, according to contract law rules for "the purpose of marriage" analogy analysis, provide a new footnote for determining the plaintiff prosecution legal agent right. And the establishment of the two evaluation system to the plaintiff legal agent right of prosecution as the center, to restore a person without capacity and should be the real face of divorce relief concept, legal, reasonable, effective protection of the interests of both parties.
This article is divided into six parts: "the discovery problem - the principle discussion - the methodology research - the substantive argument - the system construction - the conclusion".
The first part, through the typical case in two cases according to the Supreme Court, leads to the problem in the contradictory situation of judicial circles. Then through the legislative example research combing theoretical circles and the status of international law, summed up the origin of the contradiction, which is China's family law related legislation lag, resulting in the need to explain further problems research and demonstration on the level. And to refine the current law, the contradiction between the focus should be to "the Supreme People's Court on the application of the" People's Republic of China civil procedural law views > ninety-fourth issues (hereinafter referred to as the "opinions > ninety-fourth) understanding.
The second part, a detailed argumentation on "identity behavior can not substitute" principle. Reduction of its original connotation and applicable method. Then this paper steps into the problem, this paper further clarify the contradiction problem. < > ninety-fourth views is whether the content should be understood as the legal representative for special legal authorization.
The third part, using the split method, for negation of scholars. Examine the argument < > ninety-fourth views whether should carry on the limit of aim. Firstly, a negative determination methodology of scholars caused on the results, it is to limit the application. Then the introduction of Alexy about the limit of aim the demonstration system, through the use of purposive restrictions means the internal and external demonstration demonstration, examine for < > ninety-fourth views a reasonable limit of aim. And that, in the external argument, necessity and sufficiency of the limit of aim is not strong, the lack of the rationality of the preliminary conclusions.
The fourth part, using the method of positive analysis, the guardian legal agent right the rationality of the substantive argument. According to the characteristics of the contract of marriage, divorce and introduction of comparative analysis of the contract, through the research for the purpose of marriage, to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the plaintiff legal agent for the prosecution of a person without capacity through interest the measure, the third part draws the preliminary conclusion view. Meanwhile, by using the method of economics, sociology of law, ethics, and strive to demonstrate the rationality and comprehensiveness. Finally reach the purpose of marriage can not in the case of the prosecution procedure to the guardian is the proper conclusion.
The fifth part, system view method, and from the perspective of legislation on legal system. Through the comparison of different countries and regions, to discuss the relevant judicial problems give the plaintiff legal agent leads to prosecution after, and demonstrates the objective limit of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China may < > 183rd. Finally, the author puts forward the establishment of the two evaluation system to the legal agent right of prosecution as the center in the current on the basis of the method.
The sixth part, the conclusion of this paper. Through the method of argument, argument and system demonstration, we can draw a conclusion that the existing legislation of our country, although there are errors, but in the interpretation level, does not need to be continued beyond the law made still can solve the incompetent person as the plaintiff sued for divorce. However, for the legal agent right of prosecution is only a start in the right direction, it needs the cooperation of the right of judicial idea and supporting reasonable evaluation system, in order to protect the interests of all parties. But the real problem is solved in this paper, needed to revise the legislative level.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D923.9;D925.1

【参考文献】