现代美国民事诉讼的复杂性:诅咒还是治愈?

Stephen B. Burbank
{"title":"现代美国民事诉讼的复杂性:诅咒还是治愈?","authors":"Stephen B. Burbank","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.993202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Originally prepared for the 2007 meetings of the Italian Association of Comparative Law, this paper seeks to excavate the roots of procedural complexity in modern American litigation. Proceeding from the view that there is no accepted definition of complex litigation in the United States, the paper discusses five related phenomena that the author regards as consequential: (1) the architecture of modern American lawsuits and the procedural philosophy that architecture reflects, (2) the volume of litigation and the public and private policies, attitudes and arrangements that affect it, (3) the dynamic nature of, and dispersed institutional responsibility for, American law, (4) the enormous amounts of money at stake in some litigation, and (5) the search for, and the forms of, relevant evidence in modern American litigation, and the impact of science and technology on both. The paper argues that, having opted for equity's approach to the joinder of claims and parties - in part to ensure effective enforcement of rights but also in part to make such enforcement more efficient - Americans have repeatedly turned to the tools of aggregation as a remedy for that success. In doing so, the people responsible for the courts often override the preferences of the parties (and thus the principle of party autonomy), alter the balance of power in litigation, and render trial effectively impossible. In such instances, they are creating complexity where it is not necessary for effective access to court; the stated goal of efficiency may be a delusion, and in any event aggregation can make little pretense to a goal of accuracy as opposed to dispute resolution simpliciter. Moreover, as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 suggests, in a federal system the unremitting quest for aggregation may come at a heavy price to individual state autonomy. In sum, taken to the extremes to which Americans appear to be heading, complex litigation appears to be a cure that has become a curse.","PeriodicalId":377417,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Complexity of Modern American Civil Litigation: Curse or Cure?\",\"authors\":\"Stephen B. Burbank\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.993202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Originally prepared for the 2007 meetings of the Italian Association of Comparative Law, this paper seeks to excavate the roots of procedural complexity in modern American litigation. Proceeding from the view that there is no accepted definition of complex litigation in the United States, the paper discusses five related phenomena that the author regards as consequential: (1) the architecture of modern American lawsuits and the procedural philosophy that architecture reflects, (2) the volume of litigation and the public and private policies, attitudes and arrangements that affect it, (3) the dynamic nature of, and dispersed institutional responsibility for, American law, (4) the enormous amounts of money at stake in some litigation, and (5) the search for, and the forms of, relevant evidence in modern American litigation, and the impact of science and technology on both. The paper argues that, having opted for equity's approach to the joinder of claims and parties - in part to ensure effective enforcement of rights but also in part to make such enforcement more efficient - Americans have repeatedly turned to the tools of aggregation as a remedy for that success. In doing so, the people responsible for the courts often override the preferences of the parties (and thus the principle of party autonomy), alter the balance of power in litigation, and render trial effectively impossible. In such instances, they are creating complexity where it is not necessary for effective access to court; the stated goal of efficiency may be a delusion, and in any event aggregation can make little pretense to a goal of accuracy as opposed to dispute resolution simpliciter. Moreover, as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 suggests, in a federal system the unremitting quest for aggregation may come at a heavy price to individual state autonomy. In sum, taken to the extremes to which Americans appear to be heading, complex litigation appears to be a cure that has become a curse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":377417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.993202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.993202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇论文最初是为2007年意大利比较法协会会议准备的,旨在挖掘现代美国诉讼中程序复杂性的根源。本文从美国对复杂诉讼没有公认的定义这一观点出发,讨论了笔者认为相应的五种相关现象:(1)现代美国诉讼的架构和架构所反映的程序哲学;(2)诉讼的数量以及影响诉讼的公共和私人政策、态度和安排;(3)美国法律的动态性质和分散的制度责任;(4)某些诉讼中涉及的巨额资金;(5)现代美国诉讼中相关证据的寻找和形式。以及科技对两者的影响。本文认为,美国人选择衡平法来合并索赔和当事人,一方面是为了确保权利的有效执行,另一方面是为了使这种执行更有效率,因此美国人一再求助于汇总工具,作为这种成功的补救措施。在这样做的过程中,对法院负责的人往往凌驾于当事人的偏好(以及当事人自治的原则),改变了诉讼中的权力平衡,使审判实际上不可能进行。在这种情况下,它们造成了复杂性,使有效诉诸法院没有必要;宣称的效率目标可能是一种错觉,在任何情况下,与简化争议解决相反,聚合都无法实现准确的目标。此外,正如2005年的《集体诉讼公平法案》(collective Action Fairness Act)所指出的,在联邦体制下,对集体的不懈追求可能会让各州的自治权付出沉重的代价。总而言之,从美国人似乎正在走向的极端来看,复杂的诉讼似乎是一剂良药,却变成了一种诅咒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Complexity of Modern American Civil Litigation: Curse or Cure?
Originally prepared for the 2007 meetings of the Italian Association of Comparative Law, this paper seeks to excavate the roots of procedural complexity in modern American litigation. Proceeding from the view that there is no accepted definition of complex litigation in the United States, the paper discusses five related phenomena that the author regards as consequential: (1) the architecture of modern American lawsuits and the procedural philosophy that architecture reflects, (2) the volume of litigation and the public and private policies, attitudes and arrangements that affect it, (3) the dynamic nature of, and dispersed institutional responsibility for, American law, (4) the enormous amounts of money at stake in some litigation, and (5) the search for, and the forms of, relevant evidence in modern American litigation, and the impact of science and technology on both. The paper argues that, having opted for equity's approach to the joinder of claims and parties - in part to ensure effective enforcement of rights but also in part to make such enforcement more efficient - Americans have repeatedly turned to the tools of aggregation as a remedy for that success. In doing so, the people responsible for the courts often override the preferences of the parties (and thus the principle of party autonomy), alter the balance of power in litigation, and render trial effectively impossible. In such instances, they are creating complexity where it is not necessary for effective access to court; the stated goal of efficiency may be a delusion, and in any event aggregation can make little pretense to a goal of accuracy as opposed to dispute resolution simpliciter. Moreover, as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 suggests, in a federal system the unremitting quest for aggregation may come at a heavy price to individual state autonomy. In sum, taken to the extremes to which Americans appear to be heading, complex litigation appears to be a cure that has become a curse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Web Appendix to 'The Ramsey Rule at 100: Pairing Back the Overgrowth' Assessing COVID Impacts, Sustainable Finance, Current and Future Implications for Banks and Monetary Policy: 'Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon, Climate Change and Financial Stability' A Political Economy Perspective of The Egyptian Competition Authority Social Security and Trends in Wealth Inequality Justifying Bad Deals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1