| Because of the development of legal systems and people's anticipation for it, thesignificance of the system of joint action in modem times goes beyond the plannedobjects, namely resolving disputes and realizing legal order. Joinder of parties isestablished as a procedural system serving for the mass action. Compared with unitaryaction, it concerns with more complex relations among parties. It is more necessary tomake the research of joint litigation as the basis of mass action which is used by morepeople. The research is aimed to construct a preliminary theoretical system for jointaction, and the further study related to it helps to make the subject status of jointparties clear and direct judicial practice properly. At the same time, the study on thetypes of joint action will promote the academic ideas, and the comparative research onrelated theories of other countries and regions would also greatly enrich the principaltheories of civil procedure. In a word, the research on the system of joint action has itsown theoretical significant and practical imperatives.Generally speaking, joint action is classified by the category of parties in the theoryof civil procedure. However this paper carries out the research based on the categoryof system. Since the system has its own collective basic theory, and could be dividedinto several types by different standards, the paper is unfolded in four chapters. Ofthese four chapters the first chapter reviews the history and meanings of the system ofjoint action, and analyzes the basic jurisprudence of it. The second chapter is a closestudy of several types of the system. Based on the first two chapters, the direction ofthe paper is to understand the system comprehensively and take on deeper discussionof it. The third chapter is shifted to analyzing present system of joint action indifferent countries and regions. Based on the former chapters, the fourth chapterspecifically analyzes the perfection of the system in our country, not only from thetheoretical perspective, but also in the sense of legislature and judicial practice. Tosome degree, the perfection of the system is also one of the aims of the research.There are three sections in the first chapter. Above all the meanings of the systemshould be defined because it's different in the same system of different countries, so in order to include the content which shall be studied it is necessary to define what isjoint action. In the first section, joint action is defined as the litigation including twoor more than two parties on one side or both side. Furthermore, the essential nature ofjoint action is consisted of one action in formal and several actions in reality.Section two mainly reviews the historical development of joint action in differentfamily of law, including China. In modem times people always think joint action assubjective joinder of action litigation, but after reviewing the history of joint action itcan be found that in the beginning of development these two concepts are not thesame things, and joint action merged gradually with subjective joinder of actionlitigation. Furthermore during the course of development the system of joint actionexpands from original inherent necessary joint action to necessary joint action.Moreover legislative provisions paralleled with theoretical development, in Germanythe 1877 code of civil procedure introduced joint action into legislature, and thenJapan learned from Germany about the system. As for China, some regulationsconcemed with the system appeared in ancient books and records, especially duringone—hundred—year course of civil procedure from the last stage of Qing Dynasty tomodem days the system left its brand in the republic period and the area of Taiwan.The system of joint action which is universal in different countries and regions leftits historical skeleton not only in civil law countries but also in common law countries.It is sure that in common law countries deal with joint action as system joinder ofparties, which directly brings it into the scope of litigant subject and is more familiarin pleading procedure. In England with the merge of common law court and equitylaw court, judicial system changes continually, which develops from demandingjoinder of parties strictly in writ system to deal with it for resolving disputes. However,in America the system develops independently although inheriting from England.People look on the question differently in nineteenth and twentieth century. FromField Code in 1848 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938 different systemsabout joinder of parties are established in legislature and judicial practice, but thediscussion continues behind it, and how to join parties is still a problem which has notassured answers. The third section analyzes the content and the function of the system of joint actionbriefly. Although it has different names in legislature and judicial practice of civilprocedure in different countries and regions, there is common rule with the frame andthe management of the system, which makes up of principal content when analyzingjoint parties as the subject and the function of the system. Because the paper does notmake the research on the system from the perspective of parties, this chapter definesthe scope of joint parties through the difference from other types of parties. As aspecific system joint action shares the same function with other system of civilprocedure, above all fulfilling procedural benefits and substantial justice.According to different standards joint action can be classified differently andmeaningfully. However, no matter whatever type of joint action demands someestablishment conditions.Chapter two is divided into four sections, which carries on the research centered onthe system in civil law. And at the same time, it is necessary to review similar systemin common law as the object of reference. Regarding with different standards ondefining the classification of joint action, this part takes the popular standard in civillaw, namely according to the relation between joint parties and subject of mattersdiscusses it consequently.Section one reviews and analyzes necessary joint action which can be classifiedinto inherent necessary joint action and similar necessary joint action. These twotypes have different historical sources, whereas syncretic certainty in both conceptsmakes them as one type. This section discusses them separately.It has a long history about inherent necessary joint action, which stresses obligatorysyncretic certainty on party qualification. If joint parties do not institute proceedings,it will not be proper party. Therefore between joint parties it is quite intenseimplicative of each other, and because of this the application scope of inherentnecessary joint action should be limited. Not only in civil law the limitation standardin courts also is applicable to indispensable party in American civil procedure.Similar necessary joint action is different from inherent necessary joint action in theaspects of proper party, connotation and nature etc. As for how to judge the core of similar necessary joint action, namely for joint parties the syncretic certainty ofsubject of matters, people has different understandings in academic field and hasdifferent theories, however, it can be found that every theory has some shortagesthrough careful analysis.As necessary joint action, two types have common trial procedure with each other,such as uniform collection of litigant information and uniform progress of litigantprocedure.Section two discusses the system common joint action simply. Compared withnecessary joint action, the independency of litigant position between common jointparties is more distinguished, but since it is also a type of joint action, the implicationbetween joint parties still exists, which expresses such aspects as common propositionand information and the burden of litigation costs. In order to explain demonstrablythe meanings of common joint action and expurgate the types of joint action whichare easy to be confused, this section discusses several situations which could beexisted in practice. It is this illustrated manner that makes people understanddefinitely the meanings of common joint action and the difference from other types ofjoint action, which further advance the theoretical cognition. However, maybe thereexists no affirmatory answer for every situation, since how to determine the nature ofspecific situation is still in the continuous course.Section three introduces subjective-preparatively incorporative litigation as onespecial type of joint action, which is applicable to the condition that the litigant has noway to assure who should be classified into the plaintiff or the defendant, so makesthe parties preparative incorporation for acquiring recover judgment. It has differenttheories for or against this type of litigation, moreover there are different judicialprecedents in Japan and Taiwan of China. The paper thinks that the reasons against itcan be disproved through some ways, whereas it is necessary to recognize the natureand the condition of subjective-preparatively incorporative litigation again, anddiscuss how to deal with different situations about this type of litigation. Otherwise, itseems to declare publicly movement tendency of subjective-preparativelyincorporative litigation concerned with simultaneous trial joint action prescribed in Japan's 1998 revised Civil Procedure Law.Section four discusses principal intervention litigation as a special type ofnecessary joint action. It is certain that there are some dissenters in academic field.However as for specific types of principal intervention litigation, there are two types,one as request for entire or partial subject of matters, the other as claim for rightsbeing aggrieved because of litigant result, which have different historical origins. Thissection reviews the composing condition and the effects in procedural law based onthe defmition of its meaning.Chapter three turns to comment on the theory of joint action system again on thebasis of above-mentioned analysis of its history and each type. In view of aboveresearch centered on the system in civil law, it is hard to avoid some one-sided partsso it is necessary to raise essential animadvert on the case, which comes from thesystem itself, but also from the development tendency of the system in civil law.Considering this, this chapter reviews similar system further in common law, andpreliminary review also accounts for value on the institutional functions in thesecountries. At the same time pragmatic jurisprudence in common law do not sustain theestablishment of systematic theory, which leads to some problems in the aspects ofinstitutional application, and present legislature cannot be satisfied by academic fieldso that different propositions produces.Through the comparison of similar system between two families of law, thischapter preliminarily prospects for the future of joint action, including the flexibilityof inherent necessary joint action and the expansion of similar necessary joint action.However it is probably necessary to adjust the litigant status of joint parties.Because this paper does not satisfy with the present system of joint action in ourcountry, last section of this chapter reviews the system from the aspect of legislationand practice, and explains the institutional sources, legal provisions and judicialpractice, so that the advantages and the disadvantages of the present system can beunderstand in general, which may be looked upon as a preliminary analysis ofperfecting the system.Chapter four focuses on the suggestions that will perfect our country's system of joint action, which may be looked upon as a preliminary analysis of perfecting thesystem in order to keep track of the problems in the present system. Since beingconvinced of the inadequacy of the research on the system of joint action, this chapterfirstly outlines the principles of perfecting the theory of joint action in our country:one is theoretical diversity, including theoretical model and researching method; onedepends on the participation of practical department and the interaction withtheoretical groups, which makes the cooperation accord with the situation of ourcountry. Secondly, on the basis of using the experience of two families of law forreference it should confirm the classification of joint action in theory over again inorder to perfect our country's system. In practice, however, it is necessary todiscriminate different types for exercising the functions of them adequately. Thirdly,only the system of joint action cannot deal with more and more mass actionsufficiently so that it is sure to establish the system of multi-litigant action whenperfecting the addition of litigant simultaneously in order to resolve the disputeefficiently. This chapter also criticizes the provisions of revision suggestionmanuscript of civil procedure law, which is to put forward legislative advices for therevision of civil procedure and the approximate tendency of joint action in ourcountry.
|
PDF Full Text Request