诉讼请求的释明及其限度--以《证据规定》的修正为分析基点  

Interpretation of Claims and Limits of Interpretation:Based on the Amendment of Evidence Provisions

作　　者：包冰锋[1] 周梅 BAO Bing-feng;ZHOU Mei(Law School,Southwest University of Political Science and Law,Chongqing,401120,China)

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院,重庆401120

出　　处：《福建江夏学院学报》2022年第1期45-54,共10页Journal of Fujian Jiangxia University

基　　金：西南政法大学法学院研究生科研创新项目“诉讼请求释明及其限度”(FXY2021118)。

摘　　要：2001年《证据规定》第35条第1款首次确立了释明变更诉讼请求制度,但实务中因法官对“诉讼请求”含义理解不一、笼统地将释明性质限定为法官义务以及过度追求纠纷一次性解决,从而不断发生滥用释明的状况。基于此,2019年新《证据规定》第53条第1款删除了旧规条文中“释明变更诉讼请求”的相关表述。但此举并非对诉讼请求释明的否定,而是在解决旧规问题的基础上,为释明一般规则的适用留出一定空间。诉讼请求释明中的“诉讼请求”应理解为基于请求权基础的诉讼声明,释明的性质也不能单一地囿于权利抑或义务属性。新规下的诉讼请求释明应建立在当事人的辩论和案件审理焦点的基础之上,以当事人存在最低限度的暗示为限,充分发挥法官与当事人的主观能动性。In 2001,Article 35(1)of the Evidence Provisions established the interpretation system of changing claims for the first time,but in practice,the abuse of interpretation continues to occur due to the judges'different understanding of the meaning of the claim,generally limiting the nature of interpretation to judges'obligations and excessive pursuit of one-time settlement of disputes.Based on these,Article 53(1)of the New Evidence Provisions in 2019 deleted the relevant expression of"interpretation of the change of claims"in the old provisions.However,this is not a negation of the interpretation of the claims,but to leave a certain space for the interpretation of the application of general rules while solving the problems of the old rules.The"claim"should be understood as a litigation statement based on the right of claim,and the nature of the interpretation cannot be limited solely to the attributes of rights or obligations.The interpretation of claims under the new rules should be based on the debate of the parties and the focus of the case trial,limited to the minimum threshold of the parties,and give optimal scope to the subjective initiatives of the judge and the parties.

关 键 词：诉讼请求释明 诉讼标的 纠纷一次性解决 释明限度 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]