Civil Action The Plaintiff Eligible For Study

The right to sue, litigant and the burden of proof are the three cornerstones of civilprocedure legal theory. In the modernization of civil procedure law in various countries,almost every great change is due to the cooperation and response of the party system;therefore it is the party theory that has been the emphasis of civil procedure law researchand the foundation of perfecting the civil procedure system. At present, however, thediscussion of litigant in our country is mostly based on integrated analysis, the scholarsfocus on research of the third party when concreting to a kind of party. The litigant innarrow sense is divided into plaintiff and defendant. It is commented in a legal saying "Noplaintiff, no trial". The beginning of the whole litigation procedure, and even the arise ofthe defendant are because of plaintiff's act of sue in procedure law. Being the one to startlitigation procedure, plaintiff's importance should not be ignored. Through the procedureof accepting a case the civil procedure law in our country only makes uniform division ofqualification of plaintiff, and sorts plaintiff to the litigant without explore of its specialnature. As a result the theory and procedure of plaintiff research has some blind zones, andis lack of systematics and operability. The origin intention of this article is to confront thequalification of plaintiff in civil procedure, to make theoretical analysis on plaintiffqualification, to draw lessons from legislative experience of foreign countries, to anatomythe shortage of present provisions in our countries, and foregoing based to restructure thesystem of plaintiff qualification in our country's civil procedure. This dissertation consists five parts, which respectively analyzes the definition ofplaintiff qualification, the research of eligible plaintiff, and the modeling of relatingforeign systems, besides discusses the present situation of plaintiff qualification andreconstruction of the plaintiff qualification system in our country. The first chapter as the beginning of the whole essay, locates plaintiff qualificationfrom its definition and content, and macroscopically gives a sensible understanding of thequalification. In order to give us deep understanding of the system, the author will analyzethe theory basis of plaintiff qualification reconstruction, and embody the legitimacy andnecessity of the research. In the end of the part, the author differentiates some likelydefinitions, e.g. plaintiff qualification, plaintiff's litigation ability and plaintiff inprocedure sense, as well as further the understanding of plaintiff qualification bytransverse comparison. The second chapter of the dissertation, concerning a vital component of plaintiffqualification system, discusses eligible plaintiff qualification. In this part, the author firstlycompares eligible plaintiff to procedural eligible plaintiff by the definition and location ofeligible plaintiff, which give us initially intuitive knowledge. After that, she introduces thejudging standard of eligible plaintiff, e.g. the right to carry out lawsuit, and the plaintifflawsuit exemplifying the separate of entity interest and the right to carry out lawsuit. Chapter three, from the view of comparative law, introduces the procedure and theoryof plaintiff qualification in America represented the common law system, German andJapan represented the civil law system. As a result it helps to understand the systematics ofplaintiff qualification in the integrated litigation process and provides experience andlessons to construct our own plaintiff qualification system. Chapter four analyzes the present status of plaintiff qualification in our country. Itconsists three parts. Part one is about our legislative provisions of plaintiff qualification. Itsketches some weak points that the condition to accept a case is over-strict, the elements tosue has been converted into the elements of acceptance and the flexibility in plaintiffqualification has been denied. Part two is the theoretical analysis situation of our plaintiffqualifi...