| 摘要: |
| 诉讼标的诉讼法说长期以来是德国法学界的通说。按照学说出现的时间顺序，同时也是遵循学说在往复中逐步深化的过程，还原代表性德国学说的全貌，有助于挖掘各主张背后的价值考量和论证方式，突显大陆法系基本原理的学术脉络、知识谱系和传承发展。尼基施提出了被认为结合了诉的声明和事实因素的二分支说，他也区分了给付之诉和形成之诉中的识别标准，但后期转而奠定了新实体法说发展的理论基础。对比而言，与他同时期的罗森贝克虽然一直守在诉讼法说阵营前列，但没有将其主张坚持到底，而是在20余年的发展中从二分支说逐渐向一分支说转向。依托于二分支说，施瓦布提出了以诉的声明为核心的一分支说，并以驳论方式否定了存在多个生活事实时构成诉的合并的理论可能性。这种学说从立论来看过于简单，尤其在既判力方面常常面对严厉批评，他则通过提出独立的、决定既判力客观范围的裁判的本质概念加以回应。在前述诉讼法说与实体法说、二分支说与一分支说的对话的基础上，哈布沙伊德成为诉讼法二分支说的集大成者，他有力地论证了生活事实概念的独立地位，但仍然承认既判力规则存在例外。上述对德国理论传承和发展的研究，无论从方法论来看还是在具体识别标准的认识上，都将助力我国诉讼标的理论的深化。 |
| 关键词: 诉讼标的 诉讼法说 诉的声明 生活事实 既判力 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:2018年国家社会科学基金青年项目“我国民事诉讼标的识别的诉讼法进路研究”（项目编号： 18CFX033） |
|
| Introduction：Expansion and Regulation of Data Power |
|
Zhang Linghan
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| The procedural theories are the leading theories on the subject matter of claims in Germany since long ago. Introducing each of the representative doctrines thoroughly is supposed to contribute to the discovery of the value judgment within each theory and the finding of various reasoning approaches behind the academic divergence. Accordingly, the tradition and the evolution of the research in this area are to be highlighted. Among those masters on this issue, Arthur Nikisch brought out the famous theory consisting of two branches, namely the claim for relief sought （Klageantrag） and the factual elements in the disputed case. He also distinguished the identifying standards of the claim for performance （Leistungsklage） and of the claim for the alteration of legal rights or relationships （Gestaltungsklage）. However, he changed his position later and built the foundation of the new substantive legal theory of subject matter of claims. Similarly, Leo Rosenberg did not insist on his previous standing as well. In 20 years, he switched from the theory of “two branches” （zweigliedrige Lehre） to the theory of only one branch （eingliedrige Lehre）, in which the claim for relief should play the crucial role. This theory of single branch was originated from the dissertation of Karl Heinz Schwab, who was a disciple of Leo Rosenberg. Such theory is nevertheless to be regarded as too simple, whereas in case of multiple sets of facts of life （Lebenssachverhalte）, Karl Heinz Schwab successfully retorted the academic argument from other scholars for a consolidation of claims in any theoretical ways. The position of Karl Heinz Schwab on the objective scope of res judicata effect was criticized severely, but he responded the criticism with an independent new concept, namely the essence of the judgment. Lastly, Walther J. Habscheid argued for the independent status of the concept of facts of life. However, he admitted the existence of some exceptions in his alleged rule of res judicata effect. Not only regarding the legal methodology but also the interpretation of identifying standard for the subject matter of claims, the research on the academic history of such issue is highly helpful for the development of the theory of subject matter of claims in China. |
| Key words: Subject Matter of Claims, Procedural Theories, Claim for Relief Sought, Facts of Life, Res Judicata Effect |
