摘要
争点效与诚实信用原则作为民事纠纷解决的重要理论,两者存在紧密联系的同时也有些许差异。相同之处在于,在最终目的上,两者均使案件获得充分审理,以期达到纠纷的一次性解决;不同之处在于两者在适用条件上,争点效具有明确的适用要件,当事人掌握适用的主动权;诚实信用原则因缺乏统一明确的适用标准,更多的依赖于法官的自由裁量权。鉴于两者存在的上述特性,在具体适用上,应优先使用具体要件更为明确的争点效理论,而在争点效无法起作用时,诚实信用原则起着衔接作用。
The issue preclusion validity and the principle of good faith are important theories of civil dispute resolution.There is a little difference between the two while there is a close relationship.The same thing is that in the final purpose,both of them are to make the case fully heard in order to achieve a one-time settlement of the dispute;the difference is that the dispute between the two on the applicable conditions has clear application requirements,and the parties have the initiative to apply.The principle of good faith depends on the discretion of judges because of the lack of uniform and clear application standards.In view of the above-mentioned characteristics of the two,in the specific application,priority should be given to the theory of issue preclusion validity with more specific requirements.When the issue preclusion validity does not work,the principle of good faith plays a cohesive role.
作者
黄茂醌
邵琛惠
HUANG Mao-kun;SHAO Chen-hui(Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120, China)
出处
《南华大学学报（社会科学版）》
2020年第2期88-93,共6页
Journal of University of South China(Social Science Edition)
基金
国家社科基金西部项目“迈向制度理性的民事庭审阶段化构造研究”资助(编号:15XFX012)。
关键词
既判力
争点效
诚实信用原则
res judicata
issue preclusion validity
principle of good faith
