民事诉讼拘传原告制度之否定论

The Negation of the Plaintiff System in the Civil Litigation

《民诉法解释》第174条第2款突破现行《民事诉讼法》之规定,将民事拘传制度之适用主体延伸至原告。此规定乃我国民事诉讼国家干预主义之"特色"体现,与民事诉讼解决私权纠纷之特质相差甚远。民事拘传适用于特定原告可谓对当事人处分权的粗暴干预,于立法规定,于法理,其存在正当性都极其值得商榷,而且在司法实践中缺乏可操作性,司法实践适用效果亦是不佳。拘传被告制度亟待完善解决,拘传原告制度更是无用武之地。原告缺席情形之下的处理应结合实践并本着民事诉讼当事人平等原则重新考量,摆正法院地位,完善缺席审判制度。

Section 174, paragraph 2 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China breaks through the provisions of the current Civil Procedure Law and extends the applicable subject of the civil detention system to the plaintiff. This regulation is a "characteristic" manifestation of the state interventionism in China’s civil litigation,and it is far from the nature of civil litigation to resolve private disputes. The application of civil detention to a specific plaintiff can be described as a gross intervention in the disposition of the parties. In the legislative provisions,jurisprudence,it’s legitimacy is extremely debatable. It is lack of operability in judicial practice and the judicial practice is not effective. The detention of the accused system needs to be improved and solved,and the arrest of the plaintiff system is useless. The handling of the plaintiff’s absence should be reconsidered in combination with practice and in accordance with the principle of equality of civil litigants,correcting the status of the court and improving the system of trials in absentia.