Abstract

The traditional theory of civil procedure and its rule system are based on the principle of self imputation under the due process guarantee，so that we can reasonably expect the parties to fully attack and defend in the litigation process. For the modern disputes that we cannot reasonably anticipate the two parties to fight against each other or even do not exist two parties，the traditional civil litigation system is not competent. Modern litigation mechanisms，such as group action，group action and exemplary litigation，arise at the historic moment. Under the circumstances that the parties can not be reasonably anticipated to fight against each other，social organizations，enterprises and institutions can provide support to the parties who can not compete with the other parties in accordance with the fifteenth provision of the civil procedural law. However，the application condition of supporting the prosecution system is the civil litigation of the subject of the right to litigation. When it is not possible for a direct interest party to bring a civil action or there is no direct interest party，the supporting prosecution system cannot run at all. Only give the implementation of the right of litigation to the essence of traditional civil action litigant theory is facing a fundamental challenge，whether and how to select the best parties to resolve the dispute from substantial parties or even third parties，becomes a major theoretical issue in modern civil litigation system.

Therefore，the normal allocation mode of the right to sue is given exclusive real parties the right to implement action，and action abnormal configuration mode implementation right is to give the parties the right to implement the form of litigation （including the assigned part of substantial parties to surpass the scope of direct interest litigation implementation right，the same below）. No matter whether there is a substantial party，the right to be enforced，the parties shall have the right to raise a civil lawsuit in order to protect the legitimate interests of the potential party in their own name. The explicit （specific） substantive parties of a formal litigant’s protection belong to the allocation of enforcement rights of group actions，while the potential parties who are seeking protection by formal parties belong to the allocation of public interest litigation enforcement rights. In view of the fact that both parties take formal parties as eligible parties，there is a commonality in the principle of disposition of the right to implement group actions and the enforcement rights of public interest litigation. At the same time，because there was substantial parties in the allocation of the right of supervision right of appeal，we should pay more attention to the direct stakeholders and to form the parties’ rights to implement the group litigation，and the allocation of the right to sue for public welfare usually do not obstruct private right to appeal the victim suspects，but faced with the plight of the parties form of incentive and supervision. The commonality of the implementation rights of public interest litigation and the implementation rights of group litigation is mainly the following principles of complementarity，proportionality and procedural guarantee. The particularity of the allocation of public interest litigation is mainly caused by the lack of substantive parties.

As the relationship between existing parties and potential parties is very complex，it is especially important to properly handle the relationship between the right to sue for public welfare and that to sue for private right. Distinguishing public-interest litigation form private-interest litigation makes research easier，but maintaining insulation between public-interest litigation and private-interest litigation is to cut the feet to fit the shoes. In order to resolve mass disputes timely and properly，theorists and practitioners are attempting to use joint action system to mitigate difficulties caused by the opposition of public-interest litigation and private-interest litigation. However，this solution will lead to multi-party litigation which is not welcomed by policy-makers. Granting the right to sue for private-interest to the subject of the right to sue for public-interest or granting the right to sue for public-interest to the subject of the right to sue for private-interest through procedural or substantive empowerment model helps to avoid multi-party litigation and promote integration of public-interest litigation and private-interest litigation. Based on this integration，this paper establishes a system of group litigation with Chinese characteristics from the perspective of legal interpretation.

In addition to properly handle the relationship between the civil public interest litigation and civil private interest litigation，the configuration should also pay attention to the coordination of the relationship between civil litigation and administrative enforcement，administrative public interest litigation right to implement public welfare litigation，and implementing the basic principle and the value of the target entity corresponding legal departments in the field of. Therefore，this book conducts a theoretical study on the allocation of enforcement rights in specific cases，such as environmental public interest litigation，consumption public interest litigation，food safety public interest litigation and other specific cases. In terms of environmental public interest litigation，in the field of environmental public interest litigation should be a clear distinction between national interest litigation and private interest litigation，environmental administrative public interest litigation should be the priority in environmental civil litigation system，expand the space environment in two aspects of private victim interpretation and legislation on the exercise of the right to sue for public welfare. In the consumer public interest litigation，the consumer group litigation is difficult to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers，the author advocates litigation compensation system of extraterritorial reference two order consumer collective damage，authorized consumer protection organizations filed for judgment to operators of specific consumers bear the general obligation or confirm the infringement litigation operators not specific to consumers，and allow consumers to protect the organization through litigation and litigation trust，litigation and other means of micro agglutination dispersion of claim for damage compensation，to some second stage procedure smoothly. In terms of food safety，I believe that food safety is mainly protected by public law enforcement，but under the background of government failure and market failure，we should strengthen the construction and application of food safety public interest litigation system as an independent private law enforcement means. In particular，for illegal production operators，through the implementation of punitive damages litigation rights of the collective exercise of the configuration technology，is expected to surpass even the public law enforcement deterrent.

After the completion of basic research on the allocation theory of the right to sue for public welfare，this book launches the research on the implementation of the state of China’s civil public interest litigation and its existing problems，sums up and analyses the eight core issues，and argue deductively that only “not the specific interests of the third person” can be the object of protection of civil public interest litigation. According to the allocation theory of the right to sue for public welfare，this book also discusses why and how to grant authorization for private victim to sue for public welfare，expand types of public interest litigation requests，establish the concept that public interest litigation should support private litigation，strengthen the understanding that public interest litigation only supplement administrative law enforcement，and perfect the rules of civil public interest litigation.

Keywords：public interest litigation；right to sue；stading；substantive litigant；procedural litigant