Abstract：At present, there are some problems in the judicial governance mechanism of false litigation in China, such as relatively monotonous regulatory means, limited long-term effectiveness of the disciplinary mechanism, and partial imbalance of governance concepts. In order to solve the above problems and implement the concept of tempering justice with mercy, in view of the intercommunication and conductivity of the spirit of the rule of law and the basic principles, the system of “restraining order” in British and American countries can provide a useful reference for China. The essence of “restraining order” is a necessary punishment and litigation risk prevention and resolution mechanism. It is only in the original free prosecution mode, the court's necessary and reasonable review and permission requirements for the prosecution of blacklisted persons are “embedded”, while the remaining processes and rules remain unchanged, highlighting the concept of state intervention in civil litigation, and helping to achieve the coordination and balance between social public interests and personal interests, free prosecution and litigation risk management and control. The system of “restraining order” itself also has rich applicable levels and gradients. When it is introduced into China, a reasonable connection with the existing disciplinary mechanism is required.
卫跃宁,刘文斌. 英美国家诉讼限制令对我国虚假诉讼治理的启示[J]. 浙江工商大学学报, 2022, 36(5): 86-99.
WEI Yuening, LIU Wenbin. Enlightenment of Litigation Restriaining Order in British and American Countries on the Governance of False Litigation in China. Journal of Zhejing Gongshang University, 2022, 36(5): 86-99.
2022, Vol. 36 
浙公网安备 33011802000512号