论司法确认程序的性质

Onthe Nature of Judicial Confirmation

当前学界对于司法确认性质的探讨和争论主要围绕着是诉讼程序还是非讼程序展开,而依据基本都是"二元分离适用论"下的"实质界限说"为判断标准。但实际上,对于诉讼与非讼的界分,理论界早已用"交错适用论"代替了"二元分离适用论"。因此,以"交错适用论"为基础来判断,司法确认由于具有非讼争性、解决纠纷的目的性以及程序保障的适中性,应该属于诉讼法理与非讼法理交错适用的民事案件,将其纳入到诉讼程序或非讼程序均可,关键看立法政策如何取舍。而从制度设计的本意考量,将司法确认程序纳入到非讼程序应该说更为适宜,因为非讼程序相比于诉讼程序所具有的快捷、迅速、经济及弹性的特点,与司法确认程序所要实现的制度目标更为接近。

Based on the absolute distinction between judicial procedure and non-judicial procedure, theoretical discussions focus on the nature of judicial confirmation as to whether the judicial confirmation is judicial procedure or not, and its purpose is to prevent or resolve a dispute. Theoretically, the differentiation between judicial procedure and non-judicial procedure is vanishing gradually. Thus in my opinion, the nature of judicial confirmation is a complex of judicial procedure and non-judicial procedure. In order to design a perfect institute, classifying it as non-judicial procedure is more appropriate, because non-judicial procedure is more flexible, convenient and efficient than judicial procedure, and is beneficial to achieve its purpose.