论共同诉讼与第三人参加诉讼制度的界分

Differentiation Between Co-litigation and Third Party Participation in Litigation

在我国民事诉讼理论解释和司法实践中,作为多数人诉讼形式的共同诉讼与第三人参加诉讼制度之间区分模糊。这两种当事人制度其实各具不同的功能设置与本质规定性,同时在传统诉讼标的理论下具有适用于不同实体法律关系之别。不同诉讼模式对当事人制度形式的确定也具有重要影响。传统职权主义模式下可能存在忽视当事人的意愿之嫌,直接依职权"分配"当事人在诉讼中的角色;当事人主义模式则赋予当事人参加诉讼所处防御地位的选择权,尤其在第三人参加诉讼之时应由当事人自主启动。具有不同功能设置的两种制度在适用时不宜模糊其间的界限而相互转化,宜以诉的合并的不同类型对多数人诉讼制度进行体系化解释,必要共同诉讼是单纯的诉的主体合并,普通共同诉讼是诉的同类客体合并,第三人制度是诉的主客体牵连合并,同时应彰显两种制度各自不同的功能并促进形成相应的诉讼程序规则。

In China＇ s theoretical interpretation and judicial practice, the distinction between ordinary co-litigation and third party participation in litigation is vague. In fact, each of the two systems has its own functional arrangements and essential provisions. Meanwhile, under the traditional ＂subject matter＂ of litigation theory, the two systems are applicable to differ- ent legal relations between entities. Different litigation modes also have an important influence on the determination of the form of the litigant system. The traditional inquisitorial mode may ig- nore the will of parties and directly ＂assign＂ the roles of the parties in the ex officio lawsuit. The litigant mode gives the litigant the option to participate in litigation in a defensive position and allows the parties themselves to initiate the procedure when a third party participates in the lawsuit. In the application of these two different modes of litigation, we should not blur their boundary and transform one into the other, but should give systematic explanation to common litigation through the consolidation of different types of lawsuits ： necessary joint action is a pure consolidation of subjects of action; ordinary co-litigation is a consolidation of kindred objects of action; and the third party system is a joint consolidation of subjects and objects. Meanwhile, we should highlight the different functions of these two modes of litigation and promote the formation of corresponding procedures.