我国代表人诉讼制度研究

发布时间：2018-06-24 10:46

本文选题：群体诉讼 + 代表人诉讼　；参考：《山东大学》2009年硕士论文

【摘要】： 随着我国改革的深入和市场经济的快速发展,社会成员之间的联系更加广泛和紧密,纠纷形态也呈现出与一些发达国家相类似的特点,逐渐向大型化和复杂化方向发展。为应对此种大型化的群体性纠纷,1991年颁行的民事诉讼法典,在总结司法实践经验,借鉴美国集团诉讼和日本的选定当事人制度的立法经验的基础上,确立了我国群体性诉讼制度,即代表人诉讼制度。但我国代表人诉讼制度并没能发挥应有的解决群体纠纷,维护社会稳定的作用,在实践中的运行效果与立法者、法学家和社会的预期差距较大,尤其是人数不确定的代表人诉讼制度,很少被法院启用,立法资源有被严重浪费之嫌。当然这种局面是在多种因素的作用下形成的:一方面,我国代表人诉讼制度立法过于粗疏简单,存在严重的缺陷,从根本上制约了该制度功能的发挥;另一方面,我国社会转型时期利益关系复杂,涉及民事、行政等众多领域的群体性纠纷也远远超出了代表人诉讼制度的功能范围;加之我国法院内部不合理的管理模式和司法独立的缺失,让代表人诉讼制度在实践中更是举步维艰。为此,本文运用比较分析法和实证分析法,在剖析我国代表人诉讼制度立法和司法实践和考察国外几种典型群体性诉讼制度的基础上,结合我国的国情和实际情况,提出了完善我国代表人诉讼制度的具体建议。全文共分为以下三部分: 第一部分,我国代表人诉讼制度的分析。首先,对我国代表人诉讼制度的立法背景、相关法条、程序构成、概念和制度特点进行详细归纳和总结;其次,结合司法实践,简要概述我国代表人诉讼制度在实践中的运行状况;最后,对我国代表人诉讼制度的缺陷和相关制度环境进行反思,总结出我国代表人诉讼制度无法实现其制度预期的根本原因。第二部分,国外群体性诉讼制度研究。对国外几种典型的群体性诉讼制度,包括美国的集团诉讼制度,德国的团体诉讼制度和日本的选定当事人制度进行剖析,对其概念内涵、制度特点、运行现状进行简要总结,从而为完善我国的代表人诉讼制度和建立相关配套制度提供有价值的立法借鉴。第三部分,完善我国代表人诉讼制度的设想。在前两章的基础上,提出完善我国代表人诉讼制度的具体构想。
[Abstract]:With the deepening of China's reform and the rapid development of the market economy, the relationship between the social members is more extensive and close, and the form of disputes also shows similar characteristics with some developed countries, and gradually develops towards the direction of large-scale and complicated. In order to deal with such large-scale group disputes, the Civil procedure Code enacted in 1991, on the basis of summing up the judicial practice experience and drawing lessons from the legislative experience of the United States group litigation and the Japanese system of selected parties, Established our country group lawsuit system, namely representative action system. However, the representative litigation system in our country has not been able to play its due role in resolving group disputes and maintaining social stability. The operational effect in practice is quite different from that of legislators, jurists and society. In particular, the uncertain representative litigation system is seldom used by the court, and the legislative resources are seriously wasted. Of course, this kind of situation is formed under the action of many factors: on the one hand, the legislation of representative litigation system in our country is too careless and simple, and there are serious defects, which fundamentally restrict the function of the system; on the other hand, In the period of social transformation, the interest relationship is complex, involving civil, administrative and other areas of group disputes far beyond the functional scope of representative litigation system, coupled with the lack of unreasonable management model and judicial independence within the courts of our country. Let the representative litigation system in practice is more difficult. Therefore, this paper applies comparative analysis and empirical analysis, on the basis of analyzing the legislative and judicial practice of representative litigation system in our country and investigating several typical group litigation systems in foreign countries, combined with the national conditions and actual conditions of our country. The author puts forward some concrete suggestions on how to perfect the representative litigation system in our country. The thesis is divided into three parts: the first part, the analysis of representative litigation system in China. First of all, the legislative background, relevant laws, procedural components, concepts and system characteristics of the representative litigation system in China are summarized and summarized in detail; secondly, combined with judicial practice, This paper briefly summarizes the running situation of the representative litigation system in our country in practice, and finally, reflects on the defects and related institutional environment of the representative litigation system in our country. Summarize the fundamental reason that our representative litigation system can not realize its system expectation. The second part, the foreign group litigation system research. This paper analyzes several typical group litigation systems in foreign countries, including the class action system in the United States, the group action system in Germany and the selected party system in Japan. Thus, it provides valuable legislative reference for perfecting representative litigation system and establishing relevant supporting system in our country. The third part, perfect our country representative lawsuit system assumption. On the basis of the first two chapters, the author puts forward the concrete idea of perfecting the representative litigation system in our country.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D925.1

【引证文献】