Research On Part’s Right To Choose In The Civil Law Of Procedure

Papers recommendfrom three part about the theoretical basis, legislation and defects,and improvement measure. The first part of the concept and nature of the proceedings the right to choose the party’s proceedings, the value is, the legitimacy and feasibility analysis system. First, consider the program option refers to a general right to choose or proceedings in civil matters, and has to enjoy the right to dispose of the unique nature of the premise; secondly, to allow parties to the proceedings have focused on their own choice, in order to achieve the party litigation procedures balance the interests and values of real interest. At the same time, to achieve the protection of the rights of the parties involved in the proceedings, reflects the value of procedural justice proceedings. Again, the implementation of the program is to select the right application on the basis of more than one theory. Program subject theory laid the parties may actively use the proceedings as the basis for their service; Private autonomy theoretical description of the process of handling the subject of their rights and options justified; close to provide a basis for a theory of justice set a variety of proceedings, to ensure that all people can be in the same line as close to the administration of justice; and finally, through the analysis of extraterritorial legislation of reference for the arbitration proceedings and the principle of a high degree of autonomy, and to further strengthen the dominant position of the party program, improve the existing procedures in order to play the option of civil law effect. Finishing second part of the relevant provisions of the existing civil procedure law and judicial interpretation, and analysis of the problems still exist, including the existing procedural provisions incomplete and does not provide the appropriate procedure system these two issues, the former including unlisted and not hearing hearing way too narrow range of options, jurors can not be selected by the parties, the right to choose not to remand is limited to two kinds of judicial interpretation of the provisions of the types of cases, which did not include the construction of three trial system and the corresponding leapfrog rules the legislation did not acknowledge the lack of safeguards final first instance proceedings contracting parties desirable choice, and the right to choose the system program. The third part is based on a flawed, inadequate legislation to be perfect place for lack of litigation system be constructed. First, it should expand the party is not a public hearing, and no way of hearing range. First, when there privacy of the parties, may allow the parties to choose when family relationships are not made public, and second, the second instance which gives people the right to participate in deciding whether to apply a written hearing, which will help promote the process of simplifying the procedures; secondly, give the parties to choose a professional jury the right to hear the case, to improve the acceptance of the referee and quickly quell controversy; you can also order the defendant to shorten the trial period to achieve the original value of the pursuit, the second trial program to allow the parties involved in the application by the court of second instance verdict directly. Again, in order to balance the interests of both substantive and procedural, allow the parties entered into the contract does not appeal the first instance Final. Meanwhile, under the additional three-tier appellate system conditional premise, but also the leap appeal system should be set up to give the parties to choose the direct request of three trial court hearing on the legal issues of rights; and finally, in order to guarantee the correct and effective implementation of the program the right to choose, it should be Supporting the right to inform the judges and lawyers to clarify the system, the ability to compensate for the lack of part of the parties to the proceedings.