On The Civil Objective Merger System Of Claims

The greatest value of the civil objective merger system of claims lies in solving multipledisputes in the same procedure between the same parties, which can achieve the goal ofeconomy in the litigation, promote both the justice and unity of the judgments. However,China’s current legislation lacks the detailed provisions of this theory, which makes the judgeshave not the authoritative criterion to follow. To perfect the objective merger system of claimsin our country, we should first recognize the objects of action and then distinguish betweencircumstances of single or multiple objects of actions. Furthermore, the author concentrates onthe discussion of the court rules of different mergers in details. Based on the consultations ofthe advanced experience from different countries and regions, and plus the authentic civiljudgments in our country, the author gives suggestions on consummating the civil objectivemerger system of claims.Apart from the introduction and conclusion, this dissertation is divided into five parts.The first part is on the general introduction of objective merger system of claims.Logically speaking, the civil objective merger system of claims is a kind of plural-litigation.The difference between the civil objective merger system of claims and merger of claims iswhether or not there are plural objects of action in the same trial procedure. The componentsof the civil objective merger system of claims mainly include the following three aspects:firstly, the same plaintiff who puts forward several suits belonged to different action in nature;secondly, the court has jurisdiction over the plural litigations; thirdly, the merger actions areinitiated in the same procedure. At last, the author briefly analyzes the advanced experience offoreign legislations and the defects in the current legislations of our country.The second part is on the identification of objective merger system of claims. Theauthor argues that distinguishing whether they are single-objective actions or plural-objectiveactions should be the most important thing before the judge decides to merger the actions.Different action theories to determine the institution of the benchmark is not the same. Theauthor combined with our country’s civil trial practice, by analyzing the various mainstreamaction theories.“The traditional substantive law theory” argues that the number of thesubjective matter of action is decided by the entity legal relationship proposed by plaintiff, butthis theory can’t clearly explain the issues on concurrence of the right of claims.“Procedurallaw theory”purely studies the object of action in procedure, but separating the substantive law and procedural law in touch to trial practice brings about many problems.“The newsubstantive law theory” combines the advantages of both “The traditional substantive lawtheory” and “Procedural law theory”, but it does not solve the problem of identifying thesubjective matter of the action. The author claims that, for the problem of identifying the civilactions’ merger on the objective scope, we should adhere to “one-arm theory” and do a littlemend on actions for prostration genus.The third part is on the types of civil objective merger system of claims. In order to havea right classification of it, the standard should be the subjective matter of action andcombining with the relationship between the different claims. In the traditional theory, thetypes of civil objective merger system of claims mainly have four types, such as the merger ofsimple causes of action, the merger of overlapping causes of action, the merger of preliminarycauses of action, and the merger of selective causes of action. Based on the standard partition“one-arm theory”, the author argued that the types of civil objective merger system of claimsshould only have two types: the merger of simple causes of action and the merger of selectivecauses of action. For the merger of overlapping causes of action, the plaintiff has only onedemand for judgment. And for the merger of selective causes of action, there is only onecause in the action.The fourth part is on the rules of hearing and refereeing in the civil trial. The authorargued that, the judge should review civil procedure prerequisites of each action before themerger claims’. On the debate of merger claims, the litigants can make it merged orseparated.In the fifth part, the author tries to give some advice on perfecting the civil objectivemerger system of claims. The Civil Procedure Law doesn’t have the rules on this theory,which leads to a lack of unified standard. The author gives forward a concrete idea onallocation of jurisdiction, litigation costs, judge interpretation, referee rule, and so on.