硕士学位论文：论无行为能力人离婚起诉之代理问题——一次法学方法论的检讨.doc

1、1硕士学位论文（20 届）论无行为能力人离婚起诉之代理问题一次法学方法论的检讨姓 名学 科 、 专 业 法 律 硕 士 （ 全 日 制 法 律 硕 士 ）研 究 方 向 民 商 法指 导 教 师论文提交日期2论无行为能力人离婚起诉之代理问题一次法学方法论的检讨（硕士论文摘要） 原告为无民事行为能力人，其法定代理人可否提起离婚诉讼的问题，理论界尚无系统研究的学术成果。同时，由于我国亲属法立法的滞后，理论界和实务界对此问题在解释论的层面并未达成共识。这进一步导致司法裁判的矛盾，适用法律的混乱和说理的匮乏与谬误。本文以对“身份行为不得代理”原则的辨析为论证起点，引入法学方法论的方法对现行法规进行分析

2、、论证。并在保证社会妥当性的前提下，参照契约法规则对“婚姻目的”进行类比分析，为原告法定代理人起诉权的确定提供新的注脚。进而建立以原告法定代理人起诉权为中心的二次评价体系，还原无行为能力人离婚救济的本真面貌和应有理念，合法、合理、有效地保护双方当事人的利益。本文分为六个部分，以“发现问题原则探讨方法论研究实质论证体系构建结论”的路径展开。第一部分，通过比较最高法院公布的两例典型判例，引出本问题在司法界的矛盾现状。进而通过梳理理论界的研究现状和外法域的立法实例，归纳出矛盾的根源，也就是我国亲属法相关立法的滞后，导致本问题需要解释论层面的深入研究和论证。而细化到现行法，其矛盾焦点应该是对于最高人民

3、法院关于适用中华人民共和国民事诉讼法若干问题的意见第 94 条（以下简称意见第 94 条）的理解。第二部分，针对“身份行为不得代理”的原则进行详细论证。还原其本来的内涵和适用的方法、步骤。再将之带入本文问题，进一步澄清本文问题的矛盾所在。也就是意见第 94 条的内容是否应理解为对于原告法定代理人的特别法律授权。第三部分，运用驳论的方法，针对否定论学者的观点进行检视。论证意见第 94 条是否应进行目的性限缩。首先确定否定论学者的观点导致的方法论3上的结果，也就是目的性限缩的运用。进而引入阿列克西关于目的性限缩的论证体系，通过对使用目的性限缩手段的内部论证和外部论证，检视对于意见第 94 条进行目

4、的性限缩的合理性。并得出，在外部论证方面，目的性限缩的充分性和必要性不强，其合理性不足的初步结论。第四部分，运用正面论证的方法，对原告监护人法定代理权的合理性进行实质性论证。针对婚姻的契约性特点，引入离婚与契约解除的对比分析，通过对于婚姻目的的研究，探讨给予原告法定代理人起诉权对于无行为能力人的利弊，通过利益衡量，检视第三部分得出的初步结论。其间，运用大量的法经济学、法社会学、伦理学的方法，力求论证的合理性和全面性。最后得出在婚姻目的不能达成的情况下，给予监护人程序性的起诉权实为妥当的结论。第五部分，体系检视方法的运用，兼含立法论层面的探讨。通过对比各国及地区的法律制度，讨论给予原告法定代理人

5、起诉权后所引出的相关司法问题，并论证对中华人民共和国民事诉讼法第 183 条进行目的性限缩的可能。最后笔者提出了在现行法基础上建立以原告法定代理人起诉权为中心的二次评价体系的设想。第六部分，本文的结论部分。通过方法论论证、实质论证和体系论证，本文得出的结论是，我国现有立法虽存在疏失，但是在解释论的层面，不需超越法律的续造依然可以解决无行为能力人作为原告的离婚起诉问题。但是，原告法定代理人起诉权的获得仅仅是一个正确的开始，其需要正确的司法理念和合理的配套评价体系的共同协作，才能合理保护各方权益。而真正解决本文问题，则需要立法层面的修正。关键词 身份行为 法定代理 目的性限缩 法律漏洞 婚姻契约

6、1Issues about legal agent of those who without civil capacity to conduct the right of taking legal action of divorce(Abstract of L.L.M Thesis Paper) As for a person without capacity for civil conduct, whether his legal agent has the right to take a legal action of divorce, there is still no systemat

7、ic research achievements in the Theory Circle. Meanwhile, the legislation of our Family Law has lag behind other countries, the Practical Circals and the Theory Circle havent reach common ground regarding the Explanation of the Law which further leads to contradictions in judicial judgments, a state

8、 of chaos during the application of law and fallacious inference.This theory starts from the argument of the principal of “ Discretion Action of relationship can not be act for ”, carry about analysis about current laws and regulations with Legal Methodology. At the same time, make analogical reason

9、ing toward “the purpose of marriage” with reference to Contract law theory on the premise of social stabilization, adding new concept into the suite rights of plaintiffs legal agent. Finally set up a secondly rating system focusing on the suite rights of plaintiffs legal agent, give truth and right

10、concepts back to the relief of the divorce action for those without capacity civil conduct, legally, rationally, effectively protect the rights of both plaintiff and defendant.This theory was made up of six parts, relatively as follows: Problems FoundPrincipals DiscussionResearch MethodologyEssence

11、Argument System ConstructingConclusion.Part one: The comparison of two typical cases published by the Supreme court cause contradictions in judicial circles. Then author try to find out the root causes of conflicts through observing the Situation of Study and foreign legislative examples, that is, t

12、he lagging situation of the legislation of our Family Law which need our deep study at the Explanation level. As to the existing law, the focusing must be the 2understanding of Article 94 of The Supreme Courts comments on the application of a series of issues of.Part two: Give detailed proof to the

13、principal of “ Discretion Action of relationship can not be act for ”, return the original concepts, methods and steps applied to it. Then further clarify the exact problem, just the question whether Article 94 is to endow plaintiffs legal agent special rights.Part three: Use refutation to treat neg

14、ativists observations and discuss whether Article 94 needs teleologische Reduktion. First of all, confirm the points of negativists give outcome of Legal Methodology which is the application of teleologische Reduktion. Then author recommend the teleologische Reduktion system of Doctor Alexy to intro

15、duce adequacy and necessity of the theory, which prove that Article 94 is rational but without enough adequacy and necessity.Part four: Use positive proof to undertake substantive argument about the rationality of plaintiffs legal agent. In the light of marriages contractual nature, comparison betwe

16、en divorce and dissolution of deed is a must; though the study of marriage purpose, look into what the legal agents right of action will bring; with weighing the pros and cons, check the outcome of part three. There are a lot of measures of Legal Economics, Soziologie des Rechts and Ethics have been

17、 brought in to ensure rationality and Comprehensiveness. Last naturally come to the point that its proper to give the procedure right of action to the custodian when the objective of marriage can not be achieved.Part five: System inspection, along with discussion on the aspect of Traite de Legislati

18、on. Though research of different counties judicial system, study the follow-up judicial problems after plaintiffs legal agent got the right of action and the possibility of undertaking teleologische Reduktion of Article 183 - Civil Procedure Law of Peoples Republic of China. In the end, the author p

19、ropose a secondly rating system focusing on the suite rights of plaintiffs legal agent.Part six: Conclusion. Based on teleologische Reduktion, substantive argument and system study, the final conclusion is: Though defects exist in our judicial system, how a person without capacity civil conducts as

20、plaintiff institutes a proceeding cant 3be a real problem, it can be solved without creating new laws and regulations. But plaintiffs legal agents getting the right of action manifests only a start, which should be companied by correct judicial concepts and rational rating system, so that rights can

21、 be properly be protected. Modification in the area of litigation is what really solves the problem raised by this article.Key Words: Discretion Action of Relationship；Legal Agent； Purpose Narrowed Interpretation；Legal Leak；Marriage Contract1目 录导 言 .1第一章 离婚诉讼代理的立法疏漏： 审判实践与理论学说 .1第一节 司法裁判的冲突与司法解释的沉默

22、.1第二节 法学理论界的不同声音 .5第三节 比较法的考察 .6第四节 小结 .8第二章 “身份行为不得代理”之辨 .9第三章 法学方法视野下的意见第 94 条 .16第一节 法律漏洞与目的性限缩 .17一、法学方法之确定 .17二、论证对象之确定 .23第二节 目的性限缩的内部论证 .24第三节 目的性限缩的外部论证 .25一、目的性限缩的充分性论证 .26二、目的性限缩的必要性论证 .28第四节 小结 .28第四章 离婚诉讼代理的实质性论证 .30第一节 方法之定位 .30第二节 契约法规则的引入：以契约目的为中心 .31第三节 “契约目的”引入的妥当性论证 .352第四节 婚姻目的之检讨 .37第五节 小结 .40第五章 二次评价体系之构建以原告代理人起诉权为中心 .41第一节 原告起诉权与变更监护权 .41一、“单轨制”与“双轨制”的取舍 .42二、变更监护权的具体实施 .44第二节 原告起诉权与实体审判 .46第三节 离婚再审的突破对民诉法第 183 条的目的性限缩 .47第四节 小结二次评价体系之构成 .49第六章 结论 .51参考文献 .53后 记 .58