重估民事执行权运行模式

On Running Mode of Enforcement Power of Civil Judgment

西方执行权运行模式固然有当事人主义与职权主义的差别,但即使在前一模式下,执行权在各单项执行措施中也并不总是消极的。部分国家采取前一模式是因为其实行过分松散的执行权分配体制。改革中出现的当事人主义主张照搬诉讼程序的理念,名为保护处分权实为加重债权人负担。应该区分执行实施权和执行裁判权的运行模式,至少前者应是积极主动的。我国的执行权分配体制使得执行员能够拥有程序选择权。执行机构的程序选择权与当事人的处分权是可以并行不悖的。

The running mode of Enforcement power of civil judgments varies in Western countries, but even under the former mode, enforcement power may be active in separate enforcement measure. Some countries＇ passive mode is the result of their incompact allocating system of enforcement power. The adversary system coming with the reform suggests copying the idea of contentious procedure. This appears to protect the fight of disposing but actually would place a heavier burden upon creditor. We should distinguish implementing power and judging power, the former must be active. Our bailiffs could have option of enforcement measure. This option does not necessarily contradict that of creditor.