Research on the Operation Mechanism of Claim in Civil Procedure Law and the Applications on Court Trial Way Reform

In this paper, we conduct research on the operation mechanism of claim in civil procedure law and the applications on the court trial way reform. The ultimate goal of the rule of law lies in identifying and protecting the rights of citizens. Way to protect the rights of citizens is diverse, but the judicial relief is the most basic and important form of insurance. Everyone can “into” the court and get the impartiality of the judicial relief, is a measure of a country judicial level height and the rule of law implementation degree of important yardstick. Judicial system and judicial procedure to build and build a better, if the subject of litigation rights are not being met and the safeguard, can’t get through the door and it is the legislators and legal scholars over the many efforts are meaningless, under this basic condition, we propose the new perspective on the corresponding issues that is necessary.

Study on the Application of the Restrictive Admission in the Newly-Revised Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures

The Supreme People’s Court classifies admission into two types-complete admission and restrictive admission-according to the degree and scope of admission.Article 7 of the newly-revised Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures provides clear rules for restrictive admission,which is divided into partial admission and conditional admission.In judicial practice,it is relatively easier to identify partial admission.However,the determination of conditional admission entails further considerations regarding whether there is a legal nexus between the attached condition and the admitted fact.Therefore,this study argues that there is a lack of unified rules regarding the applicability of restrictive admission in practice.Starting from the examples from the Supreme People’s Court,this study analyzed the application of conditional admission in judicial practice,as well as the problems and causes in the application of restrictive admission in practice.This article also explores the route to perfecting the rules of restrictive admission from the perspectives of its definition,classification,the onus probandi(burden of proof)and supporting mechanisms.

Application and Regulation of Legal Science and Technology on the Pilot Program of the Reform of Separation between Complicated Cases and Simple Ones in Civil Procedure in the Basic People’s Courts

Blockchain,artificial intelligence,and other technologies have been increasingly integrated with the law,and the construction of smart justice and Internet courts in various places has a prominent effect on court informatization.The Supreme People’s Court is currently carrying out the pilot reform of separation between complicated and simple cases in civil procedure,and legal technology will inevitably become a major means to enable the reform.In the field of electronic litigation,legal technology itself has become a goal of the reform.Regarding the trials of pilot basic courts,legal technology has been more deeply applied in many links such as trial activities and trial management,playing an essential role in improving judicial efficiency,and becoming an important way to solve judicial dilemmas such as“litigation explosion.”However,the history of modern society reminds us that we should be reasonably optimistic about the development of technology,especially in the field of justice.

China's Criminal Law Reform from the Perspective of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reflects the world’s perception of human rights, and is of vital importance in the field of international human rights. The Covenant has been signed by Chinese government. Although not ratified yet, it will definitely have an impact on the reform of China’s Criminal Law. Therefore, it is necessary to further change our notion of the criminal law system by defining the boundary between public power and civil rights and developing the view of human rights protection. In terms of the specific system, it is necessary to further reduce the number of crimes punishable by the death penalty and limit the application of the death sentence, improve China’s Criminal Procedural Law to protect the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants in terms of compulsory measures, investigation means and judicial form, and add some charges like enslavement and illegal human experimentation, which are criminalized around the world, so as to be in line with the requirements of international human rights protection.

The Idea of the Judicial System in a Large Country and the Development of International Civil Procedure in China

The development of China’s international civil procedure should correspond to the development of the country’s reform and opening to the outside world.As a large economic country,China needs to draw on international civil procedures to guarantee its worldwide interests;and as a large country with the rule of law,it needs to improve the level of its judicial services and enhance the market attraction of its judicial system in global dispute resolution.Given that a country’s judicial system is an important element in measuring its comprehensive competitiveness,the global competitiveness of our international civil procedure is one of the goals to be pursued in the reform of Chinese judicial system.In order to raise the level of Chinese international civil procedure,China should emphasize the idea of the judicial system of a large country and prioritize its competitiveness,service orientation and cooperative approach to dispute resolution.In addition,it should focus on the following reforms:firstly,establishing a specialized system of international civil jurisdiction,with an increase in matters for competitive jurisdiction;secondly,enhancing China’s specialist services capacity in international civil actions,highlighting the expedient protection given to the rights of the parties concerned and stressing the professional development of judicial bodies in the commercial field;and thirdly,strengthening international judicial cooperation and facilitating the global movement of Chinese judgments.

民政部门担任遗产管理人的困境与法律对策研究

遗产管理人是《民法典》规定的新制度,民政部门作为兜底主体担任遗产管理人是我国法律制度上的一项创新。自《民法典》实施以来,各地都在积极探索民政部门担任遗产管理人的做法与经验,但由于缺乏配套性、操作性、实施性的具体规定,导致民政部门工作中产生许多困惑与问题,影响民政部门遗产管理职能的发挥与落地。应当通过制定立法解释,完善司法解释和相关规范性文件,从源头上解决裁判依据问题,进一步明确民政部门在遗产管理实务中独立的法律地位和诉讼主体地位,细化指定遗产管理人确认和启动程序在内的各项具体规则,制定遗产管理人工作操作指引,明确承担遗产管理职能的内设机构、职责、人员、编制和经费,并加快专业人才的培养步伐,使这一新制度能够落地落实,实现《民法典》的立法宗旨。

民事在线诉讼当事人权益保障的检视与路径探索

当事人权益保障体现了以当事人为中心的诉讼理念,确保了实现诉讼效益与程序公正的统一。在线诉讼中单一的程序选择权类型难以满足双方当事人需求、证人远程作证提高了质证难度、异步审理稀释了直接言词原则、个人信息保护与庭审公开之间存在张力。应当根据被选择事项性质合理确定选择权类型、加强证人远程作证技术保障、肯定异步审理的价值并明确边界、具体衡量审判公开与个人信息保护价值利益。

民事公益诉讼的制度危机与程序统合

我国民事公益诉讼的发展可谓壮观,但风生水起的背后隐藏着渐趋严峻的制度危机。危机的三重外在表象是“超简化立法系统性不足”“司法解释规则碎片化趋势”和“程序属性、制度功能异化”,其内在法理本质则是民事公益诉讼“立法”与“司法解释”的实然性功能错位。将欲挽回残局,民事公益诉讼“立法”与“司法解释”须回归应然性功能构造。为此,要立足于党的二十大报告进一步“完善公益诉讼制度”的明确要求,依托已纳入《十四届全国人大常委会立法规划》一类项目之《检察公益诉讼法》(《公益诉讼法》一并考虑)的立法进程,提出“民事公益侵害阻断程序”的理论性支撑概念,结合相关立法的一体化配套修改,推进民事公益诉讼的立法性程序统合。

滥用管辖权异议的规制——以涉外知识产权诉讼为切入点

违背诚实信用原则的滥用管辖权异议行为应予以规制。在现行法律体系下,我国司法机关可通过管辖权异议案件的快速审理对滥用管辖权异议行为予以训诫,甚至可以在管辖权异议未决时通过实体审理等方式遏制滥用管辖权异议行为。建议《民事诉讼法》明确滥用管辖权异议的行为构成妨碍民事诉讼行为,依法应予以惩罚;同时规定受诉法院在案件管辖权异议争议未决的情形下,对是否继续进行实体审理享有自由裁量权。

技术正当主义:异步审理正当性的一种理论证成

异步审理突破了传统诉讼活动的时空限制,回应现实司法需求的同时也引发了正当性争议。异步审理是技术深度融入司法的新产物,对其正当性证成应当跳脱出传统诉讼法理桎梏,通过技术正当主义从技术和法律的结合与平衡两个层面解释与证明异步审理的合理性与正当性。具体依循技术赋权、技术交互、技术优化和技术谦抑的逻辑进路展开正当性证成:通过技术赋权落实程序基本权,保障了各主体享受技术红利参与诉讼的机会;通过技术交互基本落实直接言词原则与集中审理原则,赋予了传统法理新的内涵;通过技术优化具备落实证人出庭作证不受干扰、公开审判加强监督的条件,助推了诉讼规则的实现;通过技术谦抑落实程序最低限度的保障,消解了“技术中心主义”的担忧。

侵占不法原因给付物的认定困境与规范路径

不法原因给付所致的民事保护限缩效果具有不法给付行为和主体的规范侧重,投射于刑事可罚性层面,对不法原因仅在受领人单方及受领人不法程度更重时,不能对侵占行为予以绝对限缩甚至湮没。前置民事规范对越轨行为与不法状态的矫正主要通过干预理性经济人间的财产关系予以实现,而后置刑事规范,其所聚焦的主要关系不再为私人主体间利益冲突与平衡,而系国家作为公权力主体与越轨行为人之间的公私二元对立,转向对挑战法秩序的越轨行为予以更强制化规制与预防的新维度。民刑规范在以宪法为基石的法秩序体系中虽然具有适用顺序位阶、规制目的侧重等层面的不同导向,但其适用均以消灭并矫正与法秩序相冲突的不法行为及状态、维护巩固法秩序的稳定为共同指涉与依归。民事前置法对不法给付人与不法给付行为单方侧重性规制与预防,不能实质性矫正不法受领后逾越法秩序的不法状态,其规范目的的侧重所显现的局限性需通过后置刑事规范予以补足。

新文科背景下法学课程资源的建设——以《民事诉讼法》为例

新文科背景下,法学课程资源建设应当打破法学各部门法之间的壁垒,注重法学学科与其他学科的交叉融合,秉持思政育人,传承中华优秀传统法律文化,开放、共享课程资源,关注前沿问题,侧重培养实践能力。就《民事诉讼法》课程资源建设目标不够清晰、建设内容不够全面、建设方式不够创新、建设评价不够健全的问题,应当明确课程资源建设目标,从提升师资水平、提高教材质量、贯彻案例教学、整合实践资源等方面优化课程资源建设内容,通过多方主体参与、提升信息化水平,创新课程资源建设方式,同时完善课程资源质量评价体系,评估建设实效。

新修《民事诉讼法》中的网络侵权管辖研究——兼论涉外民事诉讼管辖规则

我国现有网络侵权纠纷地域管辖规则难以实现当事人之间程序利益的平衡、司法资源与秩序利益的平衡、实体正义与程序正义的平衡。2023年《民事诉讼法》以适当联系为补充根据扩大了平行诉讼的可能性,以先受理和不方便法院的混合规则强化了法院的自由裁量权,增加了涉外网络侵权纠纷管辖规则的不确定性。国内和涉外民商事纠纷管辖规则均为民事诉讼管辖体系的重要组成部分,均具有民事诉讼本质和涉网特征,由此构成了网络侵权纠纷管辖体系的重塑动因。为解决当事人诉讼地位的差异、新兴权益保护的迫切需求、管辖规则与其他诉讼制度的衔接问题,应根据涉网程度不同,重塑“非网—弱网—强网—专网”的多层次管辖体系,以平衡网络侵权纠纷主体诉讼能力的差异,实现法院案件审判全流程的制度衔接,兼顾国内与涉外管辖规则的有机结合。

个人信息保护公益诉讼制度建构路径优化——基于实体法与程序法交互方法

个人信息保护公益诉讼兼具实体法与程序法双重属性,基于实体法或程序法单一维度的制度建构将会陷入“一元观”困境。实体法与程序法交互为个人信息保护公益诉讼程序建构提供一种实体法关照。通过优化最具交互特征的三个支点:受案范围、责任形式和证明责任,不仅能够促进个人信息保护公益诉讼制度建构的二元论,也有利于推动实体法与程序法的一体化衔接,实现司法程序正义与实质正义。其一,从实体法维度,将“不特定多数人”公共利益说作为基础,增加“规模性”与“无差别性”的标准,解决受案范围“众多个人权益”的程序判断难题。其二,从程序法维度,通过诉讼信托的方式,允许原告受让惩罚性赔偿请求权,解决惩罚性赔偿这一责任形式缺乏实体适用空间难题。其三,从交互维度,一方面承认法官裁量分配证明责任,解决“规范说”在新型复杂案件的实体失范难题;另一方面设定证明责任减轻的请求权基础,解决裁判失度的程序适用难题。

多维视角下的“民事诉讼法”课程教学内容改革

“民事诉讼法”课程作为法学本科阶段专业核心必修课程,现行理论教学内容安排和实践教学内容设置均存在着体系性的结构缺陷,无法全面系统地塑造学生对民事诉讼程序制度和民事诉讼程序理论的认知框架,也不利于锤炼学生的民事诉讼实践能力与民事程序思维能力。遵循“大思政课”的理念精神,回应数字法治建设时代的发展需要,“民事诉讼法”课程教学内容的完善应当搭建民事诉讼法课程群,拓展“民事诉讼法”课程的数字+新内容,构建“理实一体化”和“专思一体化”的教学内容体系。

民事诉讼现代化标准判识

民事诉讼现代化是我国民事诉讼发展的方向性命题。民事诉讼现代化首先需要解决其现代化的标准为何。否则,民事诉讼现代化的推进就没有方向。民事诉讼现代化的基本标准主要包括五个方面:一是民事诉讼与现代社会的契合;二是民事诉讼与民事权利及体系发展的契合;三是强化民事诉讼的程序保障;四是实现民事诉讼的体系化;五是民事诉讼的科技化。民事诉讼的现代化应当主要围绕这几个方面展开和推进。实现民事诉讼现代化的有效路径是通过借鉴域外国家、地区现代民事诉讼制度,充分结合我国国情,实现中国式民事诉讼的现代化。

论中华民族现代文明话语体系建构与全球传播

中华民族现代文明话语体系的出场,是基于回应西方“合法化”强势话语对中国叙事的嵌套式解读,孕育“新的文化生命体”的逻辑必然,促进“中国经验话语”向“世界共识话语”过渡转化的科学把握。中华民族现代文明话语体系的建构为推动人类文明演进发展提供新的范式遵循,为塑造新时代良好中国国际形象提供话语辩护,为阐释好中国共产党治国理政效能优势提供话语支持。围绕知识输出、授受互动、叙事引导等要素进行中华民族现代文明话语体系建构的范畴锚定,确保能够将其意义表达的话语生产转移到共识与历时交互的解释框架之中。推动中华民族现代文明话语体系全球传播,要以多元话语主体间互动参与实现叙事传播的“音量合鸣”,以具身体验润泽“人机共生”时代的中华文明浸润式传播,以情感修辞搭设传受双方的“重叠性共识”。

检察行政附带民事公益诉讼制度的构建困境与突破路径——以检察环境公益诉讼为例

作为一种实践先于立法的诉讼制度,检察行政附带民事公益诉讼具有有效化解单一公益诉讼模式局限性,显著提高诉讼效率、节约司法资源,充分保障司法权威、保障司法公平公正等重要功能。但囿于当前法律对于公益两诉一并审理尚未从制度上予以确立,司法实践中行政附带民事公益诉讼这一制度在诉前程序、级别管辖和举证责任等方面存在一定的矛盾与问题。因此,需要不断探索优化路径来突破两诉衔接上的困境,从而构建检察行政附带民事公益诉讼制度,使得公益“两诉”能够取长补短,最大限度保护公共利益。具体措施大致包括取消附带民事公益诉讼的诉前程序,改变附带民事公益诉讼的级别管辖,明确举证责任,强化检察机关调查取证权等。

侦审信息阻断机制构建与三原则重新解读——我国刑事庭审实质化出路探索

习近平总书记在党的二十大报告中指出,要严格公正司法,深化司法体制综合配套改革,全面准确落实司法责任制,加快建设公正高效权威的社会主义司法制度。庭审实质化既是巩固“以审判为中心”改革举措的关键手段,也是一个国家司法文明的重要体现。我国当前庭审实质化改革中遭遇案卷依赖的阻碍,究其原因是对“分工负责,互相配合,互相制约”三原则的误读,以致于产生“流水线”式固化诉讼结构,继而出现庭审依赖案卷的现象。因此,有必要对庭审实质化的意义、所面临的阻碍以及消解这些阻碍的对策等相关问题做出妥善处理。这对于坚持走中国特色社会主义法治道路,建设中国特色社会主义法治体系、建设社会主义法治国家具有深刻意义。

论所有权让与交易的担保化及其限度

具有担保功能的所有权让与交易泛化适用担保规则存在弊端。担保目的是担保合同的构造核心,有担保功能但无担保目的的交易不属于担保。在不同担保目的的限定下,债权人形式上取得的所有权可能属于仅具变价功能的纯粹担保权,也可能属于兼具变价与归属确认功能的担保性所有权,后者在法律效果上与典型担保有所区别。据此,可以将所有权让与交易类型化为补充型、混合型和创新型三类。补充型交易具有完全的担保功能,应与典型担保一体适用担保规则;混合型交易具有不完全担保的特点,在与典型担保进行规范统合的同时,应保留债权人通过归属清算等合同机制成为完全所有权人的可能;创新型交易虽有担保功能但不属于担保,法官应对此种规范的限缩解释负担实质论证义务。