論小額程序中的訴權(quán)保障
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-26 20:05
【摘要】：小額訴訟作為一種訴訟制度，它固有的問題和悖論及其造成的弊端雖然無法從根本上解決，，但可以通過各種途徑和采用各種方法對其弊端予以抑制或消除。 小額訴訟程序作為追求司法和訴訟效率的程序設(shè)置，其在訴權(quán)保障上存在悖論它主要體現(xiàn)為實(shí)現(xiàn)公正卻又可能妨礙公正實(shí)現(xiàn)；注重效率卻又可能增加成本；優(yōu)化資源配置卻又可能造成資源濫用。 從制度自身的兩面性、訴權(quán)行使中的人性自私論、司法資源分配不均的絕對性、訴權(quán)保障的復(fù)雜性這幾個(gè)方面可以探討其產(chǎn)生的原因。人性是自私的，人們懷著各自的目的和面對同一樣事務(wù)或?qū)嵨�，卻只能看到各自所需的利益，對于和自己利益相沖突的方面則不管不顧，這也是其他諸多訴訟程序也會產(chǎn)生悖論的原因。公正和效率是我國民事訴訟法所追求的兩大基本價(jià)值。公正和效率相互矛盾又相輔相成。實(shí)現(xiàn)程序效益最大化和降低司法成本之間就是這樣一個(gè)客觀存在的矛盾統(tǒng)一體。訴權(quán)保障深陷悖論從根本上說也是公正和效率互相牽扯之結(jié)果。訴權(quán)保障問題不是一個(gè)孤立的問題，是與訴訟制度的設(shè)計(jì)、司法獨(dú)立、權(quán)利意識以及法律程序等問題糾結(jié)在一起的，這就決定了其復(fù)雜性。 雖然悖論會產(chǎn)生弊端，但弊端是可以被消除的。文章通過程序正義觀念在傳統(tǒng)文化中的缺失和小額程序現(xiàn)實(shí)適用狀況的不理想兩個(gè)方面對抑制小額程序中訴權(quán)保障悖論弊端的必要性進(jìn)行分析，通過我國的司法環(huán)境現(xiàn)狀對消除小額程序中訴權(quán)保障的弊端進(jìn)行可行性分析。 為了促進(jìn)小額程序中訴權(quán)保障的良性發(fā)展，我們可以通過一系列措施完善小額程序中的訴權(quán)的保障，抑制或消除其悖論的弊端。文章從原則性措施和程序性措施兩大方面進(jìn)行了闡述，其中原則性措施有完善小額程序的獨(dú)立性、注重經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展實(shí)效性、注重地方差異性三個(gè)方面；程序性措施有賦予當(dāng)事人一定的程序選擇權(quán)、增加程序轉(zhuǎn)換靈活性、實(shí)現(xiàn)再審程序便捷化三個(gè)方面。
[Abstract]:As a kind of litigation system, the inherent problems and paradoxes and the drawbacks caused by it can not be solved fundamentally, but they can be suppressed or eliminated by various ways and means. As a procedure setting for the pursuit of judicial and litigation efficiency, there is a paradox in the protection of the right of action, which is mainly reflected in the realization of justice but may hinder the realization of justice, and the emphasis on efficiency may increase the cost. Optimizing the allocation of resources may cause abuse of resources. From the dual character of the system, the private theory of human nature in the exercise of the right of action, the absoluteness of the uneven distribution of judicial resources, and the complexity of the protection of the right of action, the causes of its emergence can be discussed. Human nature is selfish, people with their own purpose and face the same affairs or things, but can only see the interests of each other, regardless of their own interests conflict with the aspects, This is also the reason why many other proceedings will produce paradoxes. Justice and efficiency are the two basic values pursued by our civil procedure law. Justice and efficiency are contradictory and complementary. Realizing the maximization of procedure benefit and reducing judicial cost is such an objective unity of contradiction. The guarantee of right of action is deeply involved in the paradox of justice and efficiency. The protection of the right of action is not an isolated issue, but intertwined with the design of litigation system, judicial independence, consciousness of right and legal procedure, which determines its complexity. Although paradoxes have drawbacks, they can be eliminated. This paper analyzes the necessity of restraining the paradox of procedural right protection from two aspects: the lack of procedural justice concept in traditional culture and the unideal state of practical application of small sum procedure. Through the current situation of judicial environment in our country, this paper analyzes the feasibility of eliminating the malpractice of the protection of the right of action in the small amount procedure. In order to promote the benign development of the protection of the right of action in the small amount procedure, we can perfect the protection of the right of action in the small amount of procedure through a series of measures, restrain or eliminate its paradoxical malpractice. The article expounds from two aspects of principle measure and procedural measure, among which the principle measure has three aspects: perfecting the independence of small amount procedure, paying attention to the actual effect of economic development and paying attention to the local difference; Procedural measures include giving the parties a certain choice of procedure, increasing the flexibility of procedure conversion, and facilitating the retrial procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1
本文編號：2359498
[Abstract]:As a kind of litigation system, the inherent problems and paradoxes and the drawbacks caused by it can not be solved fundamentally, but they can be suppressed or eliminated by various ways and means. As a procedure setting for the pursuit of judicial and litigation efficiency, there is a paradox in the protection of the right of action, which is mainly reflected in the realization of justice but may hinder the realization of justice, and the emphasis on efficiency may increase the cost. Optimizing the allocation of resources may cause abuse of resources. From the dual character of the system, the private theory of human nature in the exercise of the right of action, the absoluteness of the uneven distribution of judicial resources, and the complexity of the protection of the right of action, the causes of its emergence can be discussed. Human nature is selfish, people with their own purpose and face the same affairs or things, but can only see the interests of each other, regardless of their own interests conflict with the aspects, This is also the reason why many other proceedings will produce paradoxes. Justice and efficiency are the two basic values pursued by our civil procedure law. Justice and efficiency are contradictory and complementary. Realizing the maximization of procedure benefit and reducing judicial cost is such an objective unity of contradiction. The guarantee of right of action is deeply involved in the paradox of justice and efficiency. The protection of the right of action is not an isolated issue, but intertwined with the design of litigation system, judicial independence, consciousness of right and legal procedure, which determines its complexity. Although paradoxes have drawbacks, they can be eliminated. This paper analyzes the necessity of restraining the paradox of procedural right protection from two aspects: the lack of procedural justice concept in traditional culture and the unideal state of practical application of small sum procedure. Through the current situation of judicial environment in our country, this paper analyzes the feasibility of eliminating the malpractice of the protection of the right of action in the small amount procedure. In order to promote the benign development of the protection of the right of action in the small amount procedure, we can perfect the protection of the right of action in the small amount of procedure through a series of measures, restrain or eliminate its paradoxical malpractice. The article expounds from two aspects of principle measure and procedural measure, among which the principle measure has three aspects: perfecting the independence of small amount procedure, paying attention to the actual effect of economic development and paying attention to the local difference; Procedural measures include giving the parties a certain choice of procedure, increasing the flexibility of procedure conversion, and facilitating the retrial procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 熊躍敏;日本民事訴訟中的小額訴訟程序概述──兼論我國小額訴訟程序的構(gòu)建[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年05期
2 胡劍波;小額訴訟程序之比較與借鑒[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年08期
3 許尚豪;朱呈義;;我國臺灣地區(qū)小額訴訟程序述評及啟示[J];法律適用;2006年09期
4 范愉;;世界司法改革的潮流、趨勢與中國的民事審判方式改革[J];法學(xué)家;1998年02期
5 王宏彬;齊楠;;日本的小額訴訟制度——兼論我國小額訴訟程序的構(gòu)建[J];法制與社會;2007年09期
6 王亞新;;民事司法實(shí)務(wù)中適用小額程序的若干問題[J];法律適用;2013年05期
7 袁春蘭;兩大法系小額訴訟程序的比較分析[J];河北法學(xué);2005年04期
8 鄒郁卓;;英國小額訴訟程序改革的最新進(jìn)展及其啟示[J];江西社會科學(xué);2007年01期
9 張晉紅;訴訟效率與訴訟權(quán)利保障之沖突及平衡[J];西南民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2002年08期
10 范愉;小額訴訟程序研究[J];中國社會科學(xué);2001年03期
本文編號：2359498
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2359498.html
最近更新
教材專著
