论文标题:中国外贸代理制度的现状及对策研究
The Study about Actualities and Countermeasures of Foreign Trade Agent System of China
论文作者 盛宏丽
论文导师 徐淑萍,论文学位 硕士,论文专业 法律
论文单位 安徽大学,点击次数 42,论文页数 35页File Size1730k
2003-09-01论文网 http://www.lw23.com/lunwen_370787137/ 民事诉讼;上诉审;公正与效率;改革与完善
civil litigation, appeal, justice and efficiency, reform and improvement
上诉审是指上级法院对下级法院已作裁判、尚未生效的案件，根据上诉人的上诉，再行审理的一种制度。基于裁判公正这一基本价值目标而设立的上诉审制度已经成为世界各国的一项基本诉讼制度。本文在比较西方两大法系及其主要国家的上诉审制度的基础上，结合我国民事审判方式改革的实际，着力探索如何借鉴国外经验以完善我国民事上诉审制度，以更好地实现上诉审的目的和价值取向，从而使得我国民事上诉审制度更加符合公正与效率这一世纪主题。文章由引言、正文和结论组成。 引言概述了我国民事审判方式改革的背景和已取得的成果，指出我国民事审判制度的理论研究与司法改革是以第一审程序为重心，上诉审程序的理论研究与司法改革却鲜有触及；然而上诉审制度的改革成为西方两大法系国家近年来进行民事诉讼改革的重要内容，从而引出上诉审制度研究的必要性和紧迫性。 正文分四部分论述。第一部分介绍了民事上诉审的一般内涵和基本制度。民事上诉审制度包括审级制度、提起制度、审理制度与裁判制度。审级方面，一般实行三审终审制，例外实行两审终审制与一审终审制。提起方面，为防止当事人滥诉，各国民事诉讼立法往往都给予一定的限制。审理制度有三种模式，复审制模式效率低，很少国家采用；英美法系国家多采用事后审制模式；大陆法系国家多采用续审制模式，改革的趋势对上诉审中提出的证据范围与期限予以适当限制，使事实审理的重心放在一审。裁判方面，不论大陆法系国家还是英美法系国家，民事上诉中均确立了禁止不利益变更原则，尊重当事人的处分权，承认当事人放弃审级利益的诉讼合意。 第二部分介绍了我国民事上诉审的基本状况。基于国情，防止和避免多审级所造成的不便，我国民事诉讼实行两审终审制，也有一审终审的例外。鉴于我国民事诉讼法规定了审判监督程序，因此，我国的审级制度兼顾了公平与效率。我国民事上诉审提起条件相当宽泛，几乎没有什么限制。虽然民事诉讼法对上诉审采取何种审理模式并没有明文规定，但是从具体规定不难推出，我国二审审理是采取续审制的。民事审判方式的改革，对于新证据在上诉审中的提出明确了较严格的限制条件，从而使事实审理的重心放在了第一审。我国上诉审裁判制度的一个显著特点，即上诉审裁判由对原审法院裁判评价加上自己的裁判二者构成。 第三部分探讨了我国民事上诉审制度的弊端。（一）上诉的提起缺乏应有的限制，导致滥诉的发生。一方面造成了稀缺的司法资源被浪费，导致诉讼成本增加与诉讼时间延长；另一方面，由于法院负荷的增加，严重影响二审作为上诉审的正常功能，尤其是统一法律适用功能之发挥。更为严重的是，基于一方当事人的不正当诉讼，往往给对方当事人造成严重损失与侵害，导致整个司法公信力的下降。（二）上诉审未明确当事人的上诉请求的范围。民事诉讼法将上诉案件审理的范围界定为第二审人民法院应当对上诉请求的有关事实和适用法律进行审查，即不对全案进行审查。但是对于当事人的上诉请求的范围并未作任何规定，当事人在上诉审中是否可以增加新的诉讼请求以及当事人在上诉审中是否可以提出反诉，并未明确。（三）上诉审裁判认定事实采取“正确且清楚”的二元标准。其中的“清楚”标准与诉讼认识活动的客观规律、法律逻辑、诉讼效率、司法实践的具体操作程序相停。（四）上诉审裁判扭曲了依法改判。司法实践中出现应依法改判而发回重审或不应改判而改判的情形。（五）上诉审采取任意选择性裁判，违背了司法公正，使发回重审程序变成二审法院的挡箭牌，造成有限的司法资源浪费，减弱一审法院审判的独立性，造成法院内部或法院与当事人之间矛盾冲突。（六）上诉审裁判重实体轻程序。对于原审违反民事诉讼程序但不会影响案件正确判决的行为不能成为上诉审废止其裁判结论的根据；现有二审裁判方式不能满足司法实践的需要；现行二审裁判方式没有体现当事人的程序处分权。 第四部分探讨了上诉审制度改革的价值取向、基本原则、具体完善措施。公正与效率二者最大限度的统一应为我国民事上诉审制度改革与完善的价值目标。上诉审制度改革应坚持以事实为根据，以法律为准绳、公正优先兼顾效率、实体公正与程序公正并重的原则。具体完善措施为：（一）限制上诉提起的条件，除了坚持现行民诉立法所规定的一般上诉条件之外，还必须具有上诉利益；允许当事人以不上诉之合意排除市级制度的适用：对恶意上诉者建立有效的制裁机制；确立附带上诉制度。（二）在上诉审审理的诉讼请求范围方面，可以有条件地允许审判原审被告在上诉审中提出的反诉，提起反诉须经对方当事人同意。（三）尊重当事人的处分权与当事人的诉讼合意，在仅一方当事人提起上诉的情况下，应实行禁止不利益变更制度；在原审法院违反法定程序有重大理疵的情况下，如果当事人愿意放弃审级利益，双方均愿意由上诉审法院直接裁判，上诉审法院应当裁定撤消原判，直接作出裁判而不应发回重审。（四）取消认定事实的二元标准，确立认定事实的一元标准，即以正确标准代替清
The appeal system, which is the system where the superior court reviews the judgment made by the subordinate court that hasn"t taken effect upon the claim of the appellant, has become one of the basic litigation systems around the world to achieve the judicial justice. Based on the reality of the civil litigation reform in PRC and the comparison between the appeal system of the two western legal systems and of the major countries, this paper explores the way to improve the civil appeal system in China and better achieve the objectives and value of the appeal system, in order to make the civil appeal system more in line with the principal of justice and efficiency. The paper comprises of introduction, main section and conclusion.The paper summarizes the background and achievement of the civil litigation reform in China in the introductory section and points out the researches and reform on the PRC civil litigation system emphasis on the trial procedures and give less attention to the appeal procedures. However, the appeal system has become the focus of the civil litigation reform in western legal systems and therefore the researches on appeal system in China have become necessary and urgent.The main section includes four parts. The first part introduces the definition and basic rules of civil appeal system. The civil appeal system consists of rules of judicial level, initiation, hearing and judgment. There are usual three judicial levels but two or even one judicial level systems also exist. Certain limitations usually apply to the initiation of an appeal in order to prevent the appellant to abuse the system. Among the three main hearing systems, the re-hearing system is rarely used. The common law countries usually use the post hearing system and continuous hearing system is usually used in civil law countries. The trend is that the scope of and time frame to summit the evidences are limited and the finding of facts is mainly placed in trial. In terms of judgment, most countries adopt the principal of respecting the right of disposal of the appellant and recognize the appellant"s autonomy of giving up judicial rights.The second part gives a review of the civil appeal system in China. The two judicial levels system is adopted in China with the exception of one judicial level in limitedcircumstance in order to prevent the cumbersome of multi-level judicial system and balance the justice and efficiency. The initiation of the appeal in China is subject to few restrictions. Although not explicitly provided in the civil procedure code, it is not hard to see that the continuous hearing system is used in China from the provisions of the code. The reform of civil litigation applies more restrictive conditions on bringing in new evidences in the appeal and makes the finding of facts more focused in the trial. One of the characteristics of the judgment system in China is that the appeal judgment has both comments on the trial judgment and appeal rulings.The third part discusses the shortcomings of the civil appeal system in China. Firstly, there is no adequate limitation on the initiation of appeal, which encourages the abuse of the appeal procedure and results in the waste of judicial resources and increase of judicial costs as well as the caseload in the court system. The abuse of the appeal procedure also causes severe losses of the appalled party and further impacts on the credibility of the judicial system. Secondly, the appeal system does not have clear scope of claims. The civil procedure code provided that the appeal hearing shall only review the facts and laws of the appalled claims. However, it fails to provide the scope of the appalled claims and is not clear as to whether the appellant can add new claim or initiate counter-claim in the appeal. Thirdly, the fact finding rules use the "accurate and clear" criteria but the "accurate" criteria doesn"t fit with the nature, logics, efficiency and practice of litigation. Fourthly, the re-judgment is distorted in appeal where some cases that should be re
|
