Solutions To The Issue Of Common Litigants’ Opposing Interests

This article is to explore solutions to the issue of common litigants’ opposing interests,focusing on starting from common litigants’ internal relations, exploring the status quo andcauses of mutual disputes and confrontation between common litigants under the existinglegislation. On the basis of these, the article analyzes the types of possible scenarios ofcommon litigants’ opposing interests, then followed and summarized the provisions ofsolutions to this issue of different countries that have two legal systems. Lastly, it presentsconcrete measures to resolve the issue of a variety of opposing co-litigants with reference toChina’s actual situation. Based on this idea, this article is divided into four parts.The first part is an overview, mainly proposes solutions to the proposition of commonlitigants’ opposing interests, stating associated basic concepts such as joint action andcommon litigants. It also covers a brief introduction of the status of China’slegislation and judiciary on this issue. Secondly, this part presents a detailed discussionof the causes of this problem, which covers two main ones: the first is the existence of theprofit and loss relationship between common litigants, but it confronts with the demandsbetween the procedural law litigants, especially behaviors necessary for the effectiveness ofcommon litigants the existence of a conflict between the requirements implicated, the secondis the introduction of the more complex and more far-reaching reasons of this issue, i.e., thecoverage of the necessary common litigation system is too wide, and the classification isgenerally lack.The second part mainly explains the possibly existed specific circumstances of commonlitigants’ opposing interests. It is generally grouped into four categories: the first categoryrefers to the execution of rights, i.e., the the existence of opposing positions between contraryviews on the appearance of a litigant ’s complaints and whether to prosecute the case; thesecond category is the alternative relational, under this scenario, the rights or obligations ofthe common litigants enjoyed by the other party is presented in a profit and loss performancerelationship; the third category is the split of common property, under this circumstance,common litigants are against each other due to their different opinions about the propertydivision program; the fourth category is the third person prosecution, which means that third person prosecution makes the party becomes co-litigants, it may not consistent with theinterests of the physical presence right or legal relationship.The third part is the elaboration and analysis of two legal systems’ relative regulations.First, this part elaborates the solutions to inherently necessary common litigants’ opposinginterests by various countries, mainly refers to the relevant provisions of the additional parties,including issues like whether the two legal systems allow for the additional mandatory, how toappend, and the litigation position of the parties after being given an additional mandatory.Second, it elaborates how to deal with opposing positions exist between the parties during theproceedings, mainly American cross-litigation system and Germany joint action auxiliarysystem and so on.The fourth part is to propose possible solutions with a combination of the presence of thespecific circumstances of common litigants’ opposing interests, including four points: firstly,the solution to the opposing issue of the interest on the exercise of rights. The main measureis to reasonably re-building a common litigation system, including the need for narrowing thescope of joint action and re-dividing its inherentneed for joint action, and enforce China’s mandatory additional system; secondly, thesolution to the the alternative relational, mainly discussing China’s introduction ofcross-litigation system in joint action and focusing on demonstrating its feasibility andnecessity, and analyzed the applicable specific operation mode in China; thirdly, the solutionto common litigants’ opposing interests of the third person prosecution, processed by ananalogy to the main participation proceedings; Finally, the solution to the common litigants’opposing interests of the split property category, including the conception of transformingprosecution into multi-faceted litigation prosecution proceedings and its feasibility. Theauthor’s discussion might remain immature, but only to expose the opposing interests ofcommon litigants to the vision of litigation practice, let it go through practice test, can thecorrect statements to be proven and the errors and omissions be revised.