| The concept of "subject matter" of claims is widely regarded as the backbone of civil procedure theory. The monistic or systematic paradigm or research pattern has been very popular among researchers of "subject matter" in China. The Chinese civil procedure law circle has tried to borrow a specific theory of "subject matter" from other civil law countries and make it the only and invariable standard applicable to every main procedural aspect. However, all the efforts under this paradigm seem to have failed either to achieve their theoretical goals, or to respond to the chaotic use of the concept in judicial practice. In other words, this research approach does not contribute much to the containment of the abuse of judicial discretion. Not surprisingly, the monistic or systematic paradigm has disappointed judges and encounters theoretical crises. Driven by such factors as new trend of theoretical development in western countries, amendments of civil procedure rules and publication of judgments online in China, a shift towards a variable or indicative paradigm is taking place. This paper reviews the new trend of development towards variable theory of subject matter in Germany, Japan, the United States and European Union, examines and distinguishes between different usages of the concept of "subject matter" in four main procedural aspects, and sums up current judicial experience in the application of the concept in each aspect. Furthermore, it carries out interpretation work on rules of civil procedure relating to "subject matter" and tries to construct an integrated concept of "subject matter" applicable to both theoretical and practical fields. Such a reintegrated concept has three layers of meaning and aims to minimize the abuse of judicial discretion in different procedural aspects. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号