言词辩论终结研究

The Study on the Termination of Oral Arguments

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

王磊

导师:

李龙

导师单位:

法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

言词辩论终结;再开辩论;延展辩论;辩论更新

摘要:

学理上将狭义的辩论主义和处分主义比喻作现代民事诉讼运行的两个车轮。而言词辩论集中反映了这两个车轮运行的状态。尽管随着民事诉讼法学理和实践的不断演进,在释明权、诉讼促进义务、真实义务等理论的推动下,辩论主义不断得到修正。但言词辩论始终是民事诉讼的内核。本文的主题是,在修正的辩论主义的前提下,讨论言词辩论具体内容及在我国民事诉讼规范的制度环境下,讨论言词辩论如何确定,在此基础上为如何完善相关的法律规范提出建议。本文首先简要地介绍了言词辩论、言词辩论终结这两个紧密联系的概念。接着从学理上通过逻辑分析和价值分析的方式,阐明言词辩论终结在民事诉讼理论中的重要地位。以此为背景,考察了外域关于言词辩论及其终结的民事诉讼规范,归纳出言词辩论的具体内容,结合学理讨论确定言词辩论终结的标准和程序。在此基础上,比对查找我国诉讼法规范上存在的不足,提出改进和完善相关制度的具体建议。第一章:通过学理分析,以逻辑演绎的形式,指出言词辩论终结是诉讼标的、诉权与审判权、主张责任、自由心证、举证证明责任、既判力学说在民事诉讼活动中现实展开的凝聚点,言词辩论终结这一时点在学理上不可或缺。通过价值分析,指出言词辩论终结时点前后,民事诉讼规范的三种价值理念的权重发生了重大的变化,程序效率、程序经济的地位相对提高,民事诉讼规范的效果逐渐体现,言词辩论终结这一时点在规范价值上十分重要。第二章:辩论作为西方社会的传统文化的一部分,自发地成为西方民事诉讼活动的内核,于我国文化传统而言无疑是一种异质的存在。归纳大陆法系不同国家或地区关于言词辩论的民事诉讼规范,得以详细了解言词辩论的概貌。第三章:通过归纳外域民事诉讼规范,全面了解言词辩论的具体内容,了解言词辩论得以存在的条件。只有认识到言词辩论为何物,方能讨论如何确定终结。第四章:在此基础上,本文着手以民事诉讼规范的学理分析和价值分析为途径,讨论确定言词辩论终结的条件和例外情形。第五章:理论分析的目的在于解决现实的问题。以前文得出的结论为基础,以外域民事诉讼法规范为参照,总结归纳我国民事诉讼规范及司法实践关于言词辩论终结的现状与不足。第六章:结合我国民事诉讼发展的前景,在我国民事诉讼日益回归大陆法系传统的趋势下,提出建立言词辩论终结制度的立法建议,并以此为核心建立或完善配套的举证时限制度、失权制度、新证据认定制度、裁判公示时限制度、既判力基准时制度、裁判记载制度等。文章最后的结语,概括性地揭示了笔者的行文思路,尝试从司法实践的问题出发,从规范层面、学理层面分别进行立法论和阐释论的思考,将实践问题上升为理论问题,以阐明理论为基础,进而检讨规范之不足,进而解决实务中存在的问题,满足司法实践的需要。

学科:

诉讼法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

王磊. 言词辩论终结研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2018.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 言词辩论终结研究
  • dc.title
  • The Study on the Termination of Oral Arguments
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20150301060429
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 王磊
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2018
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 李龙
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 言词辩论终结;再开辩论;延展辩论;辩论更新
  • dc.subject
  • determination of oral arguments;reopen the debate;extension
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 学理上将狭义的辩论主义和处分主义比喻作现代民事诉讼运行的两个车轮。而言词辩论集中反映了这两个车轮运行的状态。尽管随着民事诉讼法学理和实践的不断演进,在释明权、诉讼促进义务、真实义务等理论的推动下,辩论主义不断得到修正。但言词辩论始终是民事诉讼的内核。本文的主题是,在修正的辩论主义的前提下,讨论言词辩论具体内容及在我国民事诉讼规范的制度环境下,讨论言词辩论如何确定,在此基础上为如何完善相关的法律规范提出建议。本文首先简要地介绍了言词辩论、言词辩论终结这两个紧密联系的概念。接着从学理上通过逻辑分析和价值分析的方式,阐明言词辩论终结在民事诉讼理论中的重要地位。以此为背景,考察了外域关于言词辩论及其终结的民事诉讼规范,归纳出言词辩论的具体内容,结合学理讨论确定言词辩论终结的标准和程序。在此基础上,比对查找我国诉讼法规范上存在的不足,提出改进和完善相关制度的具体建议。第一章:通过学理分析,以逻辑演绎的形式,指出言词辩论终结是诉讼标的、诉权与审判权、主张责任、自由心证、举证证明责任、既判力学说在民事诉讼活动中现实展开的凝聚点,言词辩论终结这一时点在学理上不可或缺。通过价值分析,指出言词辩论终结时点前后,民事诉讼规范的三种价值理念的权重发生了重大的变化,程序效率、程序经济的地位相对提高,民事诉讼规范的效果逐渐体现,言词辩论终结这一时点在规范价值上十分重要。第二章:辩论作为西方社会的传统文化的一部分,自发地成为西方民事诉讼活动的内核,于我国文化传统而言无疑是一种异质的存在。归纳大陆法系不同国家或地区关于言词辩论的民事诉讼规范,得以详细了解言词辩论的概貌。第三章:通过归纳外域民事诉讼规范,全面了解言词辩论的具体内容,了解言词辩论得以存在的条件。只有认识到言词辩论为何物,方能讨论如何确定终结。第四章:在此基础上,本文着手以民事诉讼规范的学理分析和价值分析为途径,讨论确定言词辩论终结的条件和例外情形。第五章:理论分析的目的在于解决现实的问题。以前文得出的结论为基础,以外域民事诉讼法规范为参照,总结归纳我国民事诉讼规范及司法实践关于言词辩论终结的现状与不足。第六章:结合我国民事诉讼发展的前景,在我国民事诉讼日益回归大陆法系传统的趋势下,提出建立言词辩论终结制度的立法建议,并以此为核心建立或完善配套的举证时限制度、失权制度、新证据认定制度、裁判公示时限制度、既判力基准时制度、裁判记载制度等。文章最后的结语,概括性地揭示了笔者的行文思路,尝试从司法实践的问题出发,从规范层面、学理层面分别进行立法论和阐释论的思考,将实践问题上升为理论问题,以阐明理论为基础,进而检讨规范之不足,进而解决实务中存在的问题,满足司法实践的需要。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Academically, the doctrine of debate and the doctrine of disposition in thenarrow sense of the word are compared to the two wheels of modern Civil ProcedureLaw. In the oralarguments, the focus reflects the state of operation on these twowheels. Despite the constant evolution of the theory and practice of civil procedurelaw, debate theory has been constantly revised under the impetus of the judge sinterpretation right, litigation promotion obligations, and real obligations. But oral arguments is always the core of Civil Procedure Law. The theme of this paper is todiscuss the specific content of the oral arguments and the discussion of the oral arguments in the institutional environment of Civil Procedure Law in China under the premise of the revised, and on this basis, make recommendations on how to improve the relevant legal norms.This article begins with a brief introduction to the concepts of the close relationship between oral arguments and the determination of oral arguments. Then,from the theoretical point of view, through logic analysis and value analysis, the important position of the determination of oral arguments in the theory of Civil Procedure Law is clarified. Taking this as a background, this paper examines the norms of Civil Procedure Law about oral arguments and its end, sums up the specific content of verbal arguments, and combines academic analysis to determine the criteria and procedures for the determination of oral arguments. On this basis, the comparison finds the deficiencies in the procedural law of China, and proposes specific suggestions for improving and perfecting the relevant systems.Chapter 1: through the analysis of academic theory, in the form of logical deduction, it points out that the determination of oral arguments is the object of litigation, the right to appeal and the right to judge, the responsibility of claim, the certificate of freedom, the burden of proof, and the convergence point of the theory of mechanics in Civil Procedure Law activities. The determination of the oral arguments is indispensable in theory.Through the value analysis, it points out that the weights of the three values of the Civil Procedure Law norms have undergone major changes before and after the determination of the oral arguments. The procedural efficiency and the status of the procedural economy have been relatively improved, and the effect of the Civil Procedure Law norms has gradually manifested. Thedetermination of the oral arguments is important in terms of normative value.Chapter 2: Debate, as part of the traditional culture of Western society, spontaneously became the core of Western Civil Procedure Law activities, which is undoubtedly a heterogeneous existence in our cultural tradition. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce the specific content of the oral arguments.Chapter 3:Only by recognizing what the verbal argument is, can we discuss how to determine the end. By summarizing the civil lawsuits of different countries or regions in the civil law system on oral arguments, it is possible to understand the full picture of the oral arguments and understand the conditions under which the oral arguments can exist.Chapter 4:On this basis, the paper begins with the theoretical analysis and value analysis of the civil procedure standard, and discusses the conditions and procedures for determining the determination of the oral arguments.Chapter 5: The purpose of theoretical analysis is to solve real problems. Based on the conclusions drawn from the previous papers, the norms of the extraterritorial civil procedure law are taken as a reference, summarizing the current situation and shortcomings of the Civil Procedure Law norms and judicial practice on the determination of the oral arguments.Chapter 6: Combining the prospects of the development of Civil Procedure Law in China, under the predetermination that Civil Procedure Law of PRC is increasingly returning to the tradition of the civil law system, it proposes to establish a legislative proposal to determination the system of verbal arguments, and to establish or improve the supporting evidence limit. The system of loss of power, the system of identification of new evidence, the degree of restriction when the referee is publicized, the system of the basis of judgment, and the system of referee records.The final conclusion of the article generally reveals the author's thinking and thinking. He tries to start from the issue of judicial practice, from the normative level and the academic level, to the legislative and interpretation theories, and raises the practical problem to the theoretical problem to clarify the theory. Based on this, we will review the shortcomings of the norms, and then solve the problems in practice and meet the needs of judicial practice.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-06
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2018-12-05
回到顶部