论我国检察民事公益诉权的研究路径  

The Research Path of China’s Procuratorial Civil Public Interest Litigation Right

作　　者：陈文曲[1] 李皓然 CHEN Wen-qu;LI Hao-ran(Law School,Central Souh University,Changsha Hunan 410083,China)

机构地区：[1]中南大学法学院,湖南长沙410083

出　　处：《太原理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第3期1-9,19,共10页Journal of Taiyuan University of Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“基于行政裁判文书的‘明显不当’行政行为研究”(21YJA820022)。

摘　　要：域外检察民事公益诉权呈现公共自主型和私人自主型两类,我国相关研究受此影响并在路径依赖下形成三种路径,即以“法律监督型诉权说”为主的公共自主路径、以“公益代表人诉权说”为主的私人自主路径,以及有限的折中性路径。国内检察民事公益诉权的研究路径延续了域外的路径分化以致缺乏研究共识。基于路径反思,我国相关研究应回归诉讼程序中的主体间沟通关系,柔化检察民事公益诉权的监督形式,在诉权和监督权的辩证关系中探索新路径。There are two types of civil public interest litigation rights in extraterritorial procuratorates:public autonomy and private autonomy.Affected by this,three paths have been formed under route dependence in China’s relevant research,namely,public autonomy path centering on the theory of“legal supervision type action right”,private autonomy path centering on the theory of“action right of the public interest representative”,and limited compromise path.The domestic research path of eivil public interest litigation rights continues the differentiation of the extraterritorial path which results in the lack of research consensus.Based on path reflection,it is proposed that China's relevant research should return to the communication relat ionship between subjects in litigation procedures,soften the supervision form of procuratorial civil public interest litigation rights,and explore new paths in the dialectical relationship be-tween litigation rights and supervision rights.

关 键 词：检察机关 民事公益诉权 研究路径 

分 类 号：D915[政治法律—诉讼法学]