论案外第三人撤销诉讼

为防止诉讼当事人为欺诈行为或其他原因导致第三人利益受损,各国都通过不同的制度安排对此加以规制。案外第三人撤销诉讼是在考虑更为全面地保护案外人利益的基础上而设计的制度。民事诉讼法修正案的颁布之前,我国学者对该制度早有探讨。基于法律规定的抽象性,当下有必要对案外第三人撤销诉讼的主体、客体、提起事由、提起时间、管辖法院、审理方式、审判组织和判决的效力进行研究,并探讨保障其充分发挥作用的措施,为将来的法治实践奠定基础。     

确定判决对案外第三人权益的损害及其救济原理

传统观点认为,判决效力相对性抗辩足以保护案外第三人权益,不受确定判决效力拘束的案外第三人应当通过另行起诉的方式谋求救济.判决效力相对性原则可以充当案外第三人另行起诉的理论基础,另行起诉通常可以向案外第三人提供更为充分的正当程序保障,但势必带来案外第三人权益救济不及时、正当程序保障滞后、判决相互矛盾等问题.以人民为中心的民事司法应当保障不具有可归责性的案外第三人可以及时、彻底地消除确定判决给其造成的不利影响.反思确定判决与案外第三人权益之间的关系,是科学构建案外第三人权益救济体系的先决性理论问题.     

民事诉讼案外人权益保护研究

市场经济的发展中,社会关系变得日趋复杂,生效判决所影响的范围,已从单纯的案件当事人向案件以外的第三人扩大,从而常常导致案外人权益受损情况的发生.而我国立法和司法上的缺陷致使案外第三人合法权益的保护陷入困境.由此,本文建议,以我国现有案外第三人权益保护制度为基础,加以优化配置,构建系统、完善的案外第三人权益保护体系.     

人事诉讼判决效力的扩张与第三人程序保障

为保持身份关系的稳定,实现社会秩序的和谐,诸多国家都赋予了人事诉讼判决的对世效力,它是判决"相对效原则"的例外。通过检察官参与人事诉讼、限制适用辩论主义、实行职权探知等特别"法则"的施行,为人事诉讼判决既判力的扩张提供了依据。但从施行这些特别法则国家的司法实践来看,难以实现对案外第三人利益的保护。在固守人事诉讼判决"对世效力"为基本原则的同时,应另辟它路实现对法律地位受到影响的第三人的程序保障。     

论诉讼欺诈的刑法规制

诉讼欺诈是指行为人为了使本人或第三人非法占有被害人的财物或者财产性利益,以提起诉讼(民事诉讼或者行政诉讼)为手段,通过虚假的陈述、提供虚假证据,获得有利于自己的判决,破坏人民法院正常活动的行为.诉讼欺诈在刑法上如何定性,刑法理论和司法实践中均有争议.     

虚假诉讼与对调解书的检察监督

近年来我国民事诉讼中虚假诉讼频发,对司法公正造成了严重损害。虚假诉讼案件大多采用调解方式结案。为了应对虚假诉讼形成的调解书,立法机关增加了人民检察院对损害国家利益、社会公共利益的调解书提出抗诉或检察建议的规定。基于虚假诉讼形成的调解书损害的利益类型各不相同:有的损害了国家的经济利益,有的损害了社会的经济秩序,有的妨害了社会管理政策,有的损害了案外第三人利益。虚假诉讼损害的是复杂客体,所有的虚假诉讼都损害了国家司法上的利益和社会的公序良俗,因而对第三人利益造成损害的虚假诉讼的调解书也应当属于检察监督的范围。     

借鉴与反思:依托再审程序解决案外人救济——第三人撤销诉讼的冷思考

法国和我国台湾地区的第三人撤销诉讼制度虽然与我国的第三人撤销诉讼制度立法目的不同,但由于针对的是生效的判决,从立法结构看,都属于非通常诉讼程序。我国第三人撤销诉讼制度不能依通常诉讼程序,而只能依再审程序审理,这是最为经济有效的解决争议的方法,也是符合司法效率原则的途径。     

对执行程序中已查封不动产另案确权的程序和实体问题

对人民法院在执行程序中已经查封的登记在被执行人名下的不动产,第三人通过对被执行人另案提起诉讼或者仲裁的方式,主张查封不动产的权属并获得法院确权判决、调解书或者仲裁确权裁决、调解书(以下简称确权法律文书)的支持,尔后,持生效的确权法律文书向执行法院提出执行异议,要求法院解除查封,更有甚者,     

第三人撤销之诉的制度辨析

新修正的《民事诉讼法》增加了一种非常救济诉讼——第三人撤销之诉。它弥补了我国再审制度中的不足,即案外第三人在因生效判决错误而遭受不利时,很难对自己的合法权益进行救济。本文试从第三人撤销之诉的性质和特征入手,分析其法理依据,将其与相关概念进行辨析,并提出对该制度进一步完善的看法。     

再审程序中应建立第三人异议制度

根据国内外立法和司法实践,第三人异议包括两种情况:一是案外第三人要求排除对于特定标的物强制执行行为;二是案外第三人要求取消已生效的裁判。我国《民事诉讼法》第208条规定:“执行过程中,案外人对执行标的提出异议的,执行员应当按照法定程序进行审查。理由不成立,予以驳回;理由成立的,由院长批准中止执行。如果发现判决、裁判确     

宪法为什么要诉讼

宪法诉讼重视在法律实践中调动社会一切力量发现法律违宪的问题,对法律实践的尊重意味着人类承认有自己未知的领域存在,承认法律与人们的利益息息相关。宪法诉讼要求在法院解决问题,违宪审查是一个法律问题,应当用法律的方式、在法院、由法官们来决定。宪法诉讼是群众发现法律问题的智慧和法官解决法律问题的智慧的有机结合。     

THE BOLDT DECISION

In 1974 Federal District Judge H. Boldt mandated that 50% of the salmon resource of Washington State be allocated to Indian treaty tribes. His decision produced what has been characterized as "except for some desegregation cases … the most concerted official and private efforts to frustrate a decree of a federal court witnessed in this century." This article argues that fishing rights litigation has played a significant role in defining and structuring the conflict over the salmon resource. An unanticipated or unavoidable "side effect" of the successful tribal litigation strategy is the restructuring of the conflict in a way that is likely ultimately to prove as detrimental as outright legal defeat. Focusing on the Indian fishing rights issue, the article also studies the use of litigation as a weapon for social change. The underlying assumption is that a legal order that denies impoverished and powerless constituents a meaningful avenue for social change is gravely flawed.     

论债权人代位诉讼的诉讼标的

我国代位权制度对“入库规则”的放弃,对我国债权人代位诉讼的诉讼标的影响极大,现有的“一 诉讼标的说”和“二诉讼标的说”均难成立,应当采纳新诉讼标的理论和“争点效”理论来解决其诉 讼标的和判决拘束力问题,即债权人代位诉讼的诉讼标的是债权人提出的要求次债务人履行债 务的诉讼请求,而作为基础法律关系的债权人与债务人之间、债务人与次债务人之间的债权债务 关系,则因判决的争点效而具有约束力。     

论诉讼中附属证据性行政行为问题的解决

诉讼中附属性行政行为问题是指具体行政行为在诉讼中作为证据如何审查判断其效力的问题 ,实质是其公定力与证据效力的关系问题。具体行政行为中认定的事实具有相对公定力 ,直接确定的法律关系具有绝对公定力。应当根据具体行政行为是否具有公定力、公定力的效力范围及具体行政行为所处状态 ,灵活适用行政诉讼制度和本案诉讼的证据审查规则确定其证据效力。     

The Impact of Supreme Court Activity on the Judicial Agenda

When the Supreme Court takes action, it establishes national policy within an issue area. A traditional, legal view holds that the decisions of the Court settle questions of law and thereby close the door on future litigation, reducing the need for future attention to that issue. Alternatively, an emerging interest group perspective suggests the Court, in deciding cases, provides signals that encourage additional attention to particular issues. I examine these competing perspectives of what happens in the federal courts after Supreme Court decisions. My results indicate that while Supreme Court decisions generally settle areas of law in terms of overall litigation rates, they also introduce new information that leads to increases in the attention of judges and interest groups to those particular issues.     

抵销诉讼及其判决的效力

抵销诉讼是两大法系国家的制度化选择。实践的迫切需求和制度空位的巨大断裂使得我国建立抵销诉讼制度成为必要。以实然的诉讼制度为基点,考量两种模式的抵销诉讼的优劣,反诉模式的抵销诉讼成为我国制度建构的理性选择。这种抵销诉讼模式的建立也提供了既判力正当化的制度根据。     

Fathers and sons: some effects of prolonged custody litigation

In all jurisdictions, for a variety of reasons, child custody and visitation issues may be reopened at any time. The children at issue, already likely to have been traumatized by problems in the parental marriage and subsequent separation and divorce, are affected further by still more litigation. The cases of three preadolescent boys who are the subjects of such prolonged litigation are presented. In each, the boys resided with their mothers as the primary custodial parents, the fathers having generally liberal rights of visitation. Regardless of which parent raised further court-related issues after the original agreements, the father-son relationship was most severely affected by continuing legal actions and related parental actions. Each child became increasingly fearful of the next anticipated visit by the father, who was cast into the role of villain by the child. Efforts to improve these damaged relationships through joint parent-child therapeutic attempts were largely of little avail. In spite of what may have been good experience with the person of the judge who dealt with earlier litigation, the children became fearful of what the next might be like or might do, viewing the judge as the person in power to whom parents and attorneys alike deferred. It is suggested that, wherever possible, prolonged litigation be avoided in the best interests of the child and of preserving necessary child-parent relationships.     

Improving APA science translation amicus briefs

This commentary uses APA's brief inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins to examine a number of issues concerning such briefs submitted to appellate courts: What are the purposes of APA's science translation briefs? What role conflicts emerge between legal advocates and empirical scientists? In what ways are these exacerbated or lessened by the respective duties of advocates and scientists? In what ways may the conflicts be compelled by differences between legal and empirical questions? How adequate are Brandeis briefs as a tool for communicating empirical research findings to appellate courts? Are any of the usual adversarial protections maintained? What is the question the court might look to the brief, and to the field, to answer? What is the role for meta-analyses? For what interests might APA as an amicus advocate? In addition to organizational self-interest and the public interest, does it ever make sense to advocate, in a purported science translation brief, on behalf of an ultimate issue in the case or for one of the parties to the litigation? To these difficult problems, I suggest a potentially simple solution.     

The dilemmas of legal mobilization: ideologies and strategies of mental patient liberation groups

The decision to participate in the legal process depends in part upon the ideologies of the potential participants. The ideology that has dominated the rights movement during the past two decades is what Stuart Scheingold describes as the myth of rights. But participation in litigation, including rights evolution litigation, has also been colored by other and sometimes conflicting ideologies. Thus the mobilization of legal resources can be seen as the ways participants in litigation cope with multiple ideologies.
This paper looks at the mental patient liberation movement in this way. That movement has been very much affected by a myth of rights ideology, as well as by a liberation ideology that is quite contradictory to the tenets of the myth of rights. The paper documents these ideologies, looks at the way the movement has tried to reconcile them, and shows how this problematic reconciliation affects the nature of mental health rights litigation.     

反垄断诉讼的价值定位与制度建构

反垄断诉讼是反垄断法实施的重要机制之一,是反垄断法理论研究和司法实践中的重要问题。对此问题有两种研究思路：一是以个人权利为中心,将诉讼看作争议解决机制;二是以秩序建构为中心,将诉讼看作建构理想秩序的重要机制。反垄断法的产生、发展与有机社会的生成同步。垄断行为属于风险行为,其造成的损害具有不确定性、延伸性、难以恢复性,因而反垄断法属于现代社会规制法。与此相应,反垄断诉讼应是秩序建构诉讼,在价值上注重竞争秩序的建构,在功能上主张司法能动、积极回应社会在竞争上形成的价值共识,在构造上主张放宽原告条件,建立多元参与的诉讼机制。