Research On The Procedure Of Sorting Out Issue

The procedure of sorting out issue is an important system of the civil pretrial procedure in many countries and regions. Due to historical, social and cultural differences, in its depth and breadth of constant development of building pretrial procedure in our country's civil litigation, theoretical and practical circles have shown a high degree of enthusiasm to system of evidence, legislative only basically learned the idea of the rules of evidence and court-level activity, not making special provisions for the procedure of sorting out issue. The lack of current legal norms, the lack of theoretical research and the confusion of judicial practice inspired my interest and desire to study the proceduce of sorting out issue further. Through the discussion pointing to the procedure of sorting out issue , the writer tries to design a manifold procedure of sorting out issue, to enrich the currently pretrial procedure and focus on the purpose of intensive trial.Besides perface and conclusion, the article is divided into four chapters.Chapterâ… , the basic theory of the procedure of sorting out issue. Research of scholar of different point of view, there are some existing definitions of issue, based on analysising the concept of object of action, object of trial, the writer defines issue: between the parties to the case of substantive significance of the results of the fact issue and the evidence issue, as well as between the parties with the judge about the case law applicable to the issue. Including the fact issue, evidence issue and legal opinion issue. Secondly, the writer analyses the relationship between sorting out issue and pretrial procedure, evidence-exchange system, regards that sorting out issue is the outline of pretrial procedure, and is interdependent and complement with the evidence-exchange. Finally, the writer analyses the procedure of sorting out issue from level of value and program features, and points out that the justice and efficiency are the intrinsic value of relentless pursuit, and promoting trial decentralization, promoting diversion of cases are the value of function for continuing to pursuit.Chapterâ…¡is to study the proceduce of sorting out issue of foreign countries. To the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Japan for the typical method used carding into the procedure of sorting out issue for pointing the general way: the United Kingdom and the United States as represented by the major common law countries to use the pleadings and a pretrial conference, Germany, Japan as represented by the civil law countries use the pleadings, written type preparation, trial preparation and conference-type. Based on the general approach of the procedure of sorting out issue in common law and the civil law with the method of integration., the writer analysis essential questions related to setting judge, judge competence, means of evidence-gathering, loss of rights and ending action. Furtherly, preparing an objective assessment of the extraterritorial procedure of the sorting issue, consider: In collaboration with the judge and the parties not only to protect the dominant position of the parties and also played an active role of judge. Than at way of a variety of flexible programming to meet the collation of the proceedings of the pursuit of efficiency, at matching mechanism, a better means of evidence collection and loss of the right provided a good platform.Chapterâ…¢, defecting the proceduce of sorting out issue in our country. Through the historical retrospective of pretrial procedure, the writer points out the legislative missing and judicial predicament of the procedure of sorting out issue. The reasons for this status can be summed up in the following areas. Firstly, influenced by the traditional litigation idea, the judge is more inclined to pursue the real entities; Secondly, the trial model of administration of the court make pretrial procedure nothing; Thirdly, idea of debate and action which did not be carride out lead to constant floating-point in issue of cases; Fourthly, exist deviations of positioning the procedure of sorting out issue; Fifthly, the current defense mechanisms, evidence system and legal system can not support for sorting out issue effectively.Chapterâ…£, the basic ideas of constructing the proceduceof sorting out issue. Based on the core elements of sorting out issue, the writer proposes the initial ideas of the scope, the role of parties to share with the judges, the ways of organization and the effectiveness of organization. In theory, the procedure of sorting out issue shall apply in all cases, but the reality is that the sharp increase in cases show that the proceduce of sorting out issue which applies to all cases is only an ideal. Therefore, comparing the cases which access to the summary of procedure and the ordinary proceduce, the writer points that the procedure of sorting out issue should be used to access to the case of the ordinary procedure. Secondly, organize the procedure of sorting out issue for the judges has two type of unity and separation, Ithe writer preferreds the latter view, that the separation can be avoided by the intervention of the judge to give the pre of dangerous. distinguish the cases, applying the ordinary proceduce of the cases. In the organization of fact issue and evidence issue, the parties take the lead, the judge to assistance; in the organization of legal issue, the judge role, the parties involved in. Thirdly, the diversity of ways of sorting out issue reflects the flexibility of sorting out issue , mainly including ways of writing, writing + written preparation debate and writing + meeting-based approach. Fourthly, the writer further elaborates the procedure of sorting out issue to confirm the results, the effect of lost of the rights, and the ending of proceeding. Finally, to give full play to the procedure of sorting out issue for the functional point, the writer suggests to improve matching implementation of the relevant system, and discuss the importance and specific measures of expanding the prescribed obligations of the judge, improving the pleading-exchange and expanding the means of evidence-gathering.