Observation And Critique On Reconstruction Theories About System Of Third Party Without Independent Right To Claim

Due to Article 56 of Civil Procedure Law, there is inner contradiction in the system of third party without independent right to claim which requires reconstruction. Several reconstruction theories which represent high-level reform proposals have appeared in academia. The appearance of reconstruction theories shows that the research of third party without independent right to claim has entered a mature stage. However, scholar has neither examined and sorted out the reconstruction theories, nor verified whether there exists a question and whether the reconstruction theories have solved it well, nor asked such questions as what is the difference between reconstruction theories, is there any collateral damage, and does there exist any new theory which is more inclusive and comprehensive.The article is divided into six parts except Conclusion.First part, raise a question. Point out that domestic scholars have done mature research on the system of third party without independent right to claim. Several reconstruction theories have appeared which comes along with slow progress ever after. Therefore, it is necessary to observe and study the reconstruction theories. Briefly introduce reconstruction theories, and point out the main task of this thesis is to observe, criticize and amend reconstruction theories.Second part, the judicial interpretation should not be considered as misinterpretation of Article 56 of Civil Procedure Law. Tough it makes no difference to the theories, the reconstruction theories misinterpreted Article 56 of Civil Procedure Law. Study the necessity for reconstruction of the system of third party without independent right to claim. Point out that major contribution of reconstruction theories is making the litigation status of third party without independent right to claim predictable and unchangeable rather than increasing litigation right of the third party.Third part, make an observation of quasi-litigant theory. Figure out who it learns from, how it thinks and what its proposal is. Point out the problematic case and type. Thus, it is necessary to amend quasi-litigant theory.The forth part, make an observation of implead third-party defendant theory and its reference. Through observing on third party defendant theory, find out that it inherits from implead third-party defendant theory and it is a supplement of implead third-party defendant theory. Examine on intervention of obligation theory and find out that it learns from implead third-party defendant theory and third party defendant theory and makes some amendment to it. Object to two conclusions intervention of obligation theory obtains from comparing third party system in common law and civil law. Illustrate authority doctrine left behind in third party without independent right to claim system. Point out the proposal of intervention of obligation theory is different from the existing third party without independent right to claim system because it doesn’t hold the third party responsible.The fifth part, make an observation of assisting participation theory. Make an introduction to readers about several important factors in assisting partic ipation system of the Civil Law. Elaborate different civil litigation structure in two main legal systems. Compare efficiency of third party system in common law to the third party system in civil law.The sixth part, mainstream theories have pointed out that imp leading a third party makes two lawsuits. Procedural law needs to be amended to permit consolidating the original lawsuit and new lawsuit brought by defendant. When comes to the most typical third party, mainstream theories are more radical than assisting participation system as they allow the defendant to implead a third-party defendant. In my opinion, compulsory consolidation of such third party is more valuable.