作者：杨奕
作者介绍：最高人民法院中国应用法学研究所研究员
出版日期：2026年10月9日
内容提要 我国诉权滥用行为日趋多发、多样且隐蔽化，严重浪费司法资源、扰乱正常诉讼秩序。然而，诉权滥用治理面临界权标准模糊、识别规则失准、规制手段单一、权利保障失衡等突出问题，整体治理效能不足。其根源在于法理认知偏差、制度设计缺陷、实践惯性制约与跨领域协同机制缺失。应根据诚实信用原则、禁止权利滥用原则、比例原则、程序正义原则等基本原则，构建以“诉权界定、滥用识别、梯度惩戒、动态保障”为核心的诉权滥用治理四阶化构造体系。该体系以正当诉权主体适格、事实真实、目的正当三要件搭配外部行权边界作为双重标尺，厘清正当诉权界定标准；以客观行为越界、主观可责性、结果失范性三重维度为核心，辅以类型化规则与全流程审查程序，实现对诉权滥用行为的精准识别；以分层梯度惩戒与跨主体协同规制凝聚全链条治理合力；以动态保障机制实现正当诉权保障与滥用规制的双向平衡。
关键词 诉权滥用治理 诉权界定 滥用识别 梯度惩戒 动态保障
Abstract: The abuse of litigation rights has become increasingly frequent, diversified, and covert in China. Such acts seriously waste judicial resources and disrupt the normal litigation order. At present, the governance of the abuse of litigation rights in China is confronted with prominent problems, including vague criteria for defining rights, inaccurate identification rules, single regulatory tools, and unbalanced protection of rights, leading to insufficient overall governance efficiency. The root causes lie in biased legal cognition, defective institutional design, restrictive practical inertia, and the absence of cross-field coordination mechanisms. Grounded on legal principles such as good faith, prohibition of abuse of rights, proportionality, and procedural justice, a four-tier governance system for the abuse of litigation rights should be constructed, centered on the definition of litigation rights, the identification of abusive conduct, graduated sanctions, and dynamic protection. This system defines the standard of legitimate exercise of rights through a dual measurement criterion consisting of three essential elements of the right holder’s proper qualification, factual truthfulness, and legitimate purpose, combined with external exercise boundaries. Centering on three dimensions of objective transgression, subjective culpability, and adverse consequences, supplemented by typified rules and full-process review procedures, it achieves accurate identification of the abuse of litigation rights. It also consolidates whole-chain governance forces via graduated sanctions and cross-subject coordinated regulation, and adopts a dynamic protection mechanism to strike a two-way balance between curbing abusive litigation and safeguarding legitimate litigation rights.