【摘要】：答辯是當(dāng)事人自然擁有的訴訟權(quán)利，具有獨(dú)立的程序價(jià)值。但是，答辯在我國(guó)現(xiàn)行訴訟制度中并未受到重視，立法對(duì)于答辯權(quán)的行使缺乏剛性約束，不利于被告積極行使答辯權(quán)。現(xiàn)代民事訴訟越來(lái)越強(qiáng)調(diào)訴訟正義的效益化因此，為了實(shí)現(xiàn)集中審理，當(dāng)事人應(yīng)當(dāng)積極迅速地提出攻擊防御方法，這對(duì)我國(guó)傳統(tǒng)民事訴訟審理答辯制度提出了更多的現(xiàn)實(shí)要求。筆者在此文中首先對(duì)答辯狀的內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行了界定。筆者認(rèn)為所謂答辯狀，就是被告和被上訴人針對(duì)起訴的事實(shí)和理由或上訴的請(qǐng)求和理由進(jìn)行回答和辯解的文書(shū)。它是與訴狀和上訴狀相對(duì)應(yīng)的文書(shū)。答辯狀應(yīng)當(dāng)重點(diǎn)答辯事實(shí)的認(rèn)定、法律的適用和程序的合法等三個(gè)方面。筆者支持新權(quán)利說(shuō)對(duì)提交答辯狀的性質(zhì)中的觀點(diǎn)，認(rèn)為提交答辯狀依然是被告的一項(xiàng)權(quán)利，但是需要對(duì)其權(quán)利行使加以約束。同時(shí)，筆者對(duì)答辯狀的功能進(jìn)行了分析，提出了答辯狀具有明確爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)、防止訴訟突襲、證據(jù)開(kāi)示程序的準(zhǔn)備、法官裁判的基礎(chǔ)等四項(xiàng)功能。解決了答辯狀是何物，答辯狀有何用問(wèn)題。接下來(lái)，筆者從答辯失權(quán)之界定、答辯失權(quán)制度的法理基礎(chǔ)兩個(gè)方面，對(duì)答辯失權(quán)制度的基本理論進(jìn)行了梳理。再介紹了英國(guó)、美國(guó)、法國(guó)、臺(tái)灣等國(guó)家和地區(qū)，，目前法律中關(guān)于對(duì)答辯失權(quán)制度的一些規(guī)定，對(duì)這些國(guó)家和地區(qū)答辯失權(quán)制度的評(píng)析。并從立法、司法兩個(gè)方面對(duì)我國(guó)目前的答辯失權(quán)制度的運(yùn)行狀況進(jìn)行了介紹，分析了認(rèn)為，我國(guó)目前不完善的答辯制度是由于立法的不完善、傳統(tǒng)訴訟文化的影響和訴訟策略考慮的結(jié)果，并提出了一些反思。最后，筆者提出了我國(guó)民事訴訟答辯失權(quán)制度的構(gòu)建的可行性進(jìn)行了分析。并從適用范圍、適用主體、答辯期間的規(guī)定，答辯狀內(nèi)容的具體要素，以及不答辯的后果，答辯失權(quán)的例外適用、不應(yīng)訴判決的救濟(jì)途徑等方面對(duì)我國(guó)民事訴訟答辯失權(quán)制度提出了具體的構(gòu)建。文章最后，筆者提出了保障答辯失權(quán)制度實(shí)施的在我國(guó)民事訴訟法中確立誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則等四項(xiàng)保障措施。
[Abstract]:The defense is the litigant's natural right, and has the independent procedure value. However, the defense has not been paid much attention in the current litigation system of our country, and the legislation lacks rigid restriction on the exercise of the right of reply, which is not conducive to the defendant's active exercise of the right of reply. In order to realize the centralized trial, the parties should actively and quickly put forward the defense method of attack, which puts forward more practical requirements to the traditional defense system of civil litigation in our country. In this article, the author first defines the connotation of the reply. The author holds that the so-called rejoinder is an instrument by which the defendant and the appellant answer and defend the facts and grounds of the suit or the request and reason of the appeal. It is an instrument corresponding to the pleadings and appeals. The reply should focus on the recognition of the facts, the application of the law and the legality of the procedure. The author supports the view of the nature of the filing of the reply, and holds that the filing of the reply is still a right of the defendant, but the exercise of the right should be restricted. At the same time, the author analyzes the function of answering pleadings, and points out that the reply pleadings have four functions: clear points of contention, prevention of litigation raids, preparation of evidence discovery procedures, and basis of judges' adjudication. The question of what the rejoinder is and what is the use of the reply has been solved. Next, the author combs the basic theory of the system of the loss of the right of reply from two aspects: the definition of the right of reply and the legal basis of the system of the loss of the right of reply. Then introduces the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Taiwan and other countries and regions, the current law on the system of the loss of the right of defense provisions, to these countries and regions of the system of comment. And from the legislative and judicial aspects, this paper introduces the current operation of the system of the loss of the right of defense in China, and analyzes that the imperfect defense system of our country is due to the imperfect legislation. The influence of traditional litigation culture and the result of consideration of litigation strategy are put forward. Finally, the author analyzes the feasibility of the construction of the system of civil action loss of defense. And from the scope of application, the subject of application, the provisions of the defense period, the specific elements of the contents of the reply, as well as the consequences of non-reply, the exception of the loss of the right of reply applies. The article puts forward the concrete construction of the system of the right of defense in our country in the aspect of relief ways of non-responding judgment. At the end of the article, the author puts forward four safeguard measures, which are to establish the principle of good faith in the civil procedure law of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 金永恒;關(guān)于我國(guó)建立答辯失權(quán)制度的思考[J];山西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年05期

2 伍賢華;;答辯失權(quán)制度若干問(wèn)題探析[J];中共云南省委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

3 何頌;;引入答辯失權(quán)制度的理性思考[J];河北科技師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期

4 湯惠安;;蘇共失權(quán)的終極根源[J];學(xué)習(xí)月刊;2008年21期

5 齊雪云;單美玉;;論答辯失權(quán)制度[J];商品與質(zhì)量;2010年S6期

6 虞殿昌;;群體性失權(quán)問(wèn)題探析[J];滁州學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

7 王琦;;答辯失權(quán)制度在我國(guó)的構(gòu)建[J];貴州社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年03期

8 王茂兵;;論答辯失權(quán)制度[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

9 劉翔光;;據(jù)失權(quán)與有償補(bǔ)證[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2013年21期

10 河北省歷史周期率課題組;;對(duì)蘇共失權(quán)的民主反思[J];內(nèi)部文稿;1998年08期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前6條

1 尹淵博 羅世鵬;“放權(quán)”不失權(quán)，“讓位”不缺位[N];中國(guó)國(guó)門(mén)時(shí)報(bào);2013年

2 曹家東;我國(guó)民事訴訟中答辯失權(quán)制度的設(shè)想[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

3 湖南懷化市精神病院副教授　蔣改蘇;老局長(zhǎng)的“失權(quán)綜合征”[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2003年

4 本版編輯 張娜 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、博士生導(dǎo)刊;我國(guó)民事訴訟不宜引進(jìn)“答辯失權(quán)”[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

5 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 王亞新;再談“答辯失權(quán)”與“不應(yīng)訴判決”[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

6 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 湯維建;答辯失權(quán)是大勢(shì)所趨[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉錦龍;答辯失權(quán)制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

2 于t;當(dāng)事人程序違法責(zé)問(wèn)失權(quán)制度研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2010年

3 魯芳芳;民事訴訟答辯失權(quán)制度研究[D];河南大學(xué);2011年

4 周密;答辯失權(quán)制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

5 劉學(xué)平;破產(chǎn)失權(quán)制度研究[D];河南大學(xué);2003年

6 張曙;民事訴訟失權(quán)制度研析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2004年

7 陳玲;論民事訴訟中的答辯失權(quán)制度[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

8 徐澤;民事訴訟失權(quán)制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

9 馮慧;論民事訴訟中的失權(quán)制度[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2002年

10 曹建波;論股東失權(quán)制度[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

本文編號(hào)：2294629