间接禁反言制度研究

发布时间：2018-02-28 07:40

本文关键词： 间接禁反言争点法律效力判例法　出处：《中国政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：各国民事诉讼理论与实践普遍承认法官对诉讼标的或请求的生效裁判具有既判力或相类似的排除效力,但是判决书中关于除诉讼标的或请求以外的事项的判断应具有何种效力,各国规定不一。以美国为代表的英美法系国家通过间接禁反言规则来解决争点的法律效力问题,符合一定条件的争点将产生确定的遮断效力,当事人不得对相同争点再行争议。间接禁反言制度在英美法系国家发挥着节省司法资源、维护纠纷解决的终局性和司法裁判的一致性的重要作用。我国的争点法律效力制度尚未构建起来,学术界近年来对其展开了热烈的讨论,并希望从国外的优秀制度中得到启示与借鉴。然而移植不同法系国家的制度困难重重,首先需要以充分了解为基础。本文对美国的间接禁反言制度进行介绍与评析,探究我国移植这一制度的困难所在和该制度对我国的启发。希望对更深入的理论研究有所帮助。本文从间接禁反言制度的概念入手,梳理了间接禁反言的概念及其相关概念和类似原则,并从适用主体、适用条件和分类等方面对间接禁反言规则进行了详细阐述。本文着重分析了间接禁反言制度的特点及其与英美法系相关理念和制度之间的关系,并将我国与美国进行比较,从观念和制度层面深入讨论我国移植间接禁反言制度可能面临的障碍,同时从间接禁反言制度中得出启示,对我国的制度构建提出建议。第一章将间接禁反言置于美国民事诉讼的框架内,首先介绍美国的判决效力、既判事项理论、直接禁反言等相关概念,明确了间接禁反言在美国民事诉讼中的地位和作用。然后介绍了与间接禁反言相类似的英美法系原则,如遵循先例原则,分析该等原则与间接禁反言的联系与区别,更加清楚地呈现间接禁反言的意义和功能。第二至第四章着重梳理了间接禁反言的适用规则。间接禁反言规则在很大程度上是法官造法的产物,在漫长的发展过程中产生了复杂的规则并历经了重要的变化。第二章分析间接禁反言规则的主体,介绍了交互性原则、共同诉讼规则和受间接禁反言约束的利害关系人。第三章介绍了间接禁反言的三大适用要件和为法院所普遍承认的例外情形,以及其他制约因素。第四章按照美国通行的分类方式,分别介绍了攻击性间接禁反言和防御性间接禁反言在实践中的适用情况。第五章对间接禁反言制度作出评析,肯定其在节省司法资源、维持判决终局性和防止矛盾判决方面的积极作用,并指出其存在的问题。文章通过分析得出间接禁反言具有平衡效率与公平、追求程序正义、规则灵活、依赖法官自由裁量等特点,并进一步分析得出英美法系采用这一制度与其高成本的诉讼制度、根深蒂固的程序正义观念、深入的事实探究、充分的程序保障和判例法的制度传统有密切关联。第六章在分析我国争点法律效力理论与实践的基础上重点探讨移植间接禁反言制度的可行性和从这一制度得到的启示。在上一章分析的基础上,本章比较了我国与美国在观念和制度上的诸多区别,得出我国尚不宜全面移植间接禁反言制度的结论,并指出制度移植存在的障碍,和间接禁反言对我国的争点效力规则构建可资借鉴的地方。
[Abstract]:Civil procedure theory and practice generally acknowledged that the judge of the subject matter of litigation or request the effective judgment of res judicata or similar exclusion effect, but the judgment in a lawsuit or request outside matters in the book should have what effect of the rule is. In the United States as the representative of the Anglo American law system countries to solve the problem of legal disputes through indirect estoppel, meet certain conditions of the dispute will produce certain effect on the same trip, the parties shall issue to the dispute. The collateral estoppel system in common law countries play an important role in saving judicial resources, maintaining the consistency of the dispute settlement finality and judicial adjudication the China issue legal system has not been set up, the academic circles in recent years on the warm discussion, and hope to get inspiration and borrowed from abroad in the outstanding system Kam. However, different law countries difficult transplant system was first need to fully understand the basis. To introduce and evaluate the collateral estoppel system, inspired to explore China's transplant this system is difficult and the system of our country. I hope for more in-depth theoretical research help.
This article from the concept of indirect estoppel of combing the concept of anti ban indirect words and related concepts and similar principles, and from the main application, the applicable conditions and classification and other aspects of the detailed elaboration to the collateral estoppel rules. This paper analyzes the relationship between collateral estoppel system and its related characteristics and the Anglo American philosophy and system of our country, and will be compared with the United States, from idea and system level in-depth discussion of China's transplant collateral estoppel system may face obstacles, and draw inspiration from the collateral estoppel in the system of our country's system construction are proposed.
The first chapter will frame the collateral estoppel in American civil procedure, first introduced the effect of judgment, res judicata theory, direct Estoppel and other related concepts, defined the indirect ban status and role of Estoppel in civil proceedings. And then introduces the common law principle of estoppel is similar and indirect no, such as the principle of precedent, the analysis principle and the relationship between indirect ban estoppel, clearly showing no indirect meaning and function of estoppel.
The second to fourth chapter combs the indirect forbidden rules apply estoppel. Indirect estoppel is a product of the judge made law to a great extent, in the long process of development has complicated rules and experienced great changes. The second chapter analyzes the main indirect ban estoppel rule, introduced the principle of interaction joint action, rules and Estoppel by indirect constraints of stakeholders. The third chapter introduces the three major exceptions can indirectly applicable elements of Estoppel and is generally recognized by the court, and other factors. The fourth chapter according to the classification of the passage, respectively introduces the offensive and defensive collateral estoppel collateral estoppel in practice application.
The fifth chapter makes comments on the collateral estoppel system, certainly in the save judicial resources, maintain the finality of judgment and prevent the positive role contradiction decisions, and points out the existing problems. Through the analysis of the collateral estoppel has the balance of fairness and efficiency, the pursuit of procedural justice, flexible rules, rely on the judge's characteristics discretion, and further analysis of the Anglo American law system adopted this system with the high cost of litigation system, ingrained concept of procedural justice, explored facts, sufficient procedural protection and the system of case law tradition are closely related.
The sixth chapter based on the analysis of China's legal argument theory and practice focus on the feasibility of transplantation of collateral estoppel system and obtained from this system in China. In the last chapter of this chapter on the analysis and comparison between China and the United States in the idea and system of the many differences, come to our country it is not appropriate to complete transplant of collateral estoppel system conclusion, and points out the obstacles of system transplantation, estoppel in China preclusive effect rules of construction can learn from local and indirect ban.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D915.2

【参考文献】