Establishment Of Objective And Preparatory Joinder Of Litigation In Our Country

The objective and preparatory joinder of litigation means that theplaintiff claims two or more objects and statements jointly in the proceeding,which have a fixed order; and the plaintiff requests the court to judge inaccordance with the order. If the former claim is reasonable, the court shouldonly judge the former, which resembles the current procedural regime of ourcountry in actual juridical effect that the parties could request the court tojudge on a subject matter; if the former claim is unreasonable, the courtshould judge on the latter, which resembles the situation that the partiesimplead again on another object of the event after losing the former lawsuitand the court has to try and judge the case once again. The objective andpreparatory joinder of litigation wouldn’t cause substantial fundamentalchanges to the current procedural regime established in our country, while it provides another option for the plaintiff in the operation of prosecution fromthe point of view to facilitate the parties to litigate and the court to try. In theaspect of fitness, the establishment of objective and preparatory joinder justmakes certain derivatives on the basis of the existing law, which has noprinciple contradiction with our legal system; while in the judicial effect, itcan reduce the burdens of both the parties and the court simultaneously, andeffectively protect the harmony and stability of the society. Thus, it would bea useful attempt.There are two difficulties in the actual performance of introducing theobjective and preparatory joinder of litigation into our country: one is thedefinition of the system itself, and the other is how to combine the systemwith our current legal framework perfectly. Since the system has been widelyapplied in the civil law countries and regions, such as Germany, Japan andTaiwan, there are different definitions of the system in the regulations of thecountries and the interpretations of the scholars. When applying the system inour country, we need to discriminate pros and cons, draw features, and learneach of the long. On the other hand, we have to modify or extend some legalregulations to bring the system into our lawsuit structure. Since overdone isworse than neverdone, the control of degree is critical. In addition, there mustbe some amendments in the judicial operation to make sure that the system is well implemented and the desired effect could be obtained.In view of the foregoing considerations, the article will be divided intofour parts. Firstly, proceeding from the fundamental theory of the objectiveand preparatory joinder of litigation, we should clear the connotation anddenotation of the system through comparing the concepts defined by differentscholars and relatively analyzing other theories about joinder of litigation.Secondly, we should make a feasibility analysis on the establishment,combining with the current situation of legislation, justice and socialcontradictions. Subsequently, we should build a system of the objective andpreparatory joinder of litigation that fits our national conditions on a practicalbasis; we should explain the conditions and limits of prosecution andacceptance, the lawsuit attribution of the latter claim in the first trial, thequalifications of subjects to appeal, whether the claim of the second trial islimited within the appeal scope, and so on. Lastly, we should propose somemodifications to our existing laws and judicial operations according to the setsystem, and clear the scope and exercise norm of the courts’ right ofelucidation.