德日必要共同诉讼“合一确定”概念的嬗变与启示  

The Evolution and Inspiration of the“One Judgment”Concept in German and Japanese Necessary Common Litigation

作　　者：段文波[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学,重庆401120

出　　处：《现代法学》2016年第2期149-165,共17页Modern Law Science

基　　金：国家社科基金2015年西部项目"迈向制度理性的民事庭审阶段化构造研究"(15XFX012)

摘　　要：作为诉的主观合并禁止原则的例外,必要共同诉讼滥觞于日耳曼固有法上的诉讼团体共享诉讼实施权制度。随着诉讼团体范围的扩张,被视为一种妨诉抗辩的共同诉讼也受到质疑。以诉讼标的不可分为契机,必要共同诉讼的识别标准变为诉讼标的应合一确定。当诉讼法与实体法从体系上分离之后,必要共同诉讼的识别标准从实体法转向诉讼法,从必须共同诉讼转向避免矛盾判决,即从诉讼标的应合一确定演化为判决之合一确定,同时完成了从法律上合一确定转向逻辑上合一确定的华丽转身。借此,必要共同诉讼的类型也随之从单一走向多元,类似必要的共同诉讼应运而生。As an exception of the principle of forbidding litigation＇ s subject combination, necessary cornmon litigation origins from Germanic indigenous law, in which lawsuit groups can share the right of initiating litigations. At first, the existence of common litigation could be raised as a demurrer. With the expansion of the range of lawsuit group, such demurrer became questioned. Seeing the impartibility of the object of action, the identification criteria of necessary common litigation changed to be the identity of the object of action. After the separation of procedural law and substantive law, the identification criteria became adjusted by procedural law rather than substantive law. The common litigation was no longer mandatory but only initiated to avoid conflict- ing judgments. Therefore, the identification criteria transformed from ＂one object of action＂ to ＂one judg- ment＂, and the purpose of common litigation transformed from applying ＂one law＂ to applying ＂one logic＂. Thereby, the category of common litigation is also diversified, and similar necessary litigation comes into being.

关 键 词：共同诉讼 合一确定 固有必要的共同诉讼 类似必要的共同诉讼 

分 类 号：D925[政治法律—诉讼法学]