2005年10月27日，中华人民共和国第十届全国人民代表大会第18次常委会通过了修订的公司法。与旧公司法相比，新公司法在许多方面取得了较大进步，其表现之一，就是通过新设规定引入了股东代表诉讼制度。股东代表诉讼制度是抑制企业经营中不当行为、追究公司董事等经营者及第三人责任的重要手段，具有作为保护公司和股东利益的防御装置的意义。我们知道，新公司法规定的股东代表诉讼制度是以典型的独立公司为前提的。然而在现代社会中，企业结合的现象更加普遍，在企业之间普遍形成支配与从属关系。面对这样的经济现实中，股东代表诉讼制度在适用上就不可避免地具有一定局限性。由于支配公司的股东对于从属公司具有利益关系，而支配公司的股东因从属公司的董事等经营者的不当行为而受到损害时，从属公司和支配公司如果因某种考虑拒绝或消极追究董事等经营者责任，在一定意义上就有支配公司的股东为从属公司提起代表诉讼的必要性。将这一必要性变成现实可能的就是双重代表诉讼制度。相对于股东代表诉讼制度，双重代表诉讼还是一个比较传统而富有争议的制度。双重代表诉讼制度属于股东代表诉讼制度适用范围的扩张，将提起代表诉讼的原告由公司股东扩展到公司股东的股东。一方面，这样的制度对于保护公司结合下的股东权利、督促公司经营具有特殊的机能；另一方面，这样的制度对传统诉讼代表制度理论进行了突破，需要克服一定的理论障碍、并要防止其被滥用。这两个方面的考虑，使得世界上一些国家对于该制度开始积极关注，但对该制度是否予以法制化则采取较为谨慎的态度，存在激烈争论。具体而言，美国作为股东代表诉讼制度最为发达的国家，很早就有了关于双重代表诉讼问题的讨论和判例，并已经确立为正式法律制度；即便如此，关于双重代表诉讼的有效性问题仍然存在争论，各州之间态度不一，关于该制度的判例在立场上也不完全统一。在日本，确立双重代表诉讼制度的呼声很高；1999年至2001年，国会试图以立法的形式引入双重代表诉讼制度，但最后以失败告终；日本国会未能通过立法确立双重代表诉讼制度的原因，在于认为代表诉讼制度在存在公司支配关系时也能保证支配公司的股东追究从属公司经营者的责任，从而可以充分保护支配公司的股东。此外，日本在判例上也不承认双重代表诉讼。韩国关于引进股东双重代表诉讼制度的争论十分激烈，2006年10月法务部提出了引入双重代表诉讼制度的立法预案，经过反复讨论，最终，双重代表诉讼制度最终被排除在“商法修改案”之外；目前，关于双重代表诉讼制度引入与否的议论和检讨仍在进行中。英国也曾试图立法引入双重代表诉讼制度，但是因法律委员会的否定意见，最终放弃了立法。基于双重代表诉讼制度所具有的特殊机能以及世界各国对该制度的激烈争论，而中国关于双重代表诉讼制度的研究还几近空白，本文希望对双重代表诉讼制度的相关问题进行整理与分析，以便于加深对双重代表诉讼制度的认识，从而有助于推动理论研究和法制完善。为此，本文介绍了双重代表诉讼的基本理论，系统考察了世界上主要国家关于双重代表诉讼法制化尝试的进程，探讨了双重代表诉讼制度下的原告资格界定及其与股东代表诉讼制度的差别，以及股东代表诉讼制度的程序规则如何在双重代表诉讼中加以运用等问题，最后对中国引进双重代表诉讼制度的问题进行了深入探讨。通过分析，本文认为：股东代表诉讼制度在公司结合场合下存在的局限性为双重代表诉讼制度的确认提供了制度空间；双重代表诉讼作为一项新的制度，不仅在学理上存在激烈争论，各国法律实践的做法也不一致；双重代表诉讼制度作为单纯股东代表诉讼制度的发展和延伸，其原告属于符合一定条件的法人股东的股东，其程序规则也基本上变通适用单纯股东代表诉讼中的相关制度规则；在中国引进双重代表诉讼制度，不仅是可能的、也是必要的。因此，对于这一全新的制度，中国公司法理论界与实务界应该予以足够关注，进行深入调查和反复研究，以进一步优化公司集团的治理结构、完善股东代表诉讼制度。

The Company Law of the People's Republic of China has been amended and adopted at the 18th session of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China on October 27, 2005. Compared to the old company law, the amended Company Law has made great progress in many aspects. One of the progresses is that the Shareholder Derivative Suit System has been established for the first time in China. Shareholder Derivative Suit System is considered as one useful tool to restrain the improper activities in corporate business and to take action against managers who infringe upon the interests of the company they are working for, and it’s also believed to have played important role in protecting the interests of shareholders and corporations.According to the company law, however, the system of shareholder’s derivative suit is based on the separate and individual company as scribed by law. On the other hand, as deepening merging enterprises in modern society, to constitute a holding-subordinate relationship among enterprises considers as a general rule. Given such existing economic condition, it is unavoidable that the application of the shareholder’s derivative suit is encountered with difficulties. As following the demand of the times, when the holding-subordinate relationship is constituted between two companies as one company possesses the whole or most of another company’s stocks, the managers of the controlled corporations and controlling corporations may share common interests, so it happens that both the controlled corporations and controlling corporations fail to take actions against the managers. Therefore, it’s necessary and possible in some level that the shareholders of controlling corporations should be entitled to take actions in behalf of the controlled corporations. And the necessity and possibility are actualized by the Double Derivative Suit System.The Double Derivative Suit system is a bran-new system in dispute. In fact, The Double Derivative Suit is the utilization of Shareholder Derivative Suit System in an expanded scope. Under double derivative suit, the prosecutors are the shareholders of shareholder instead of shareholders. On the one hand, the Double Derivative Suit system has special function on protecting the interests of shareholders of controlling corporations and supervising and urging the operation and management of the corporations when the corporations are affiliated to others. On the other hand, this system raises challenges against orthodox Shareholder Derivative Suit theory and this system should be avoided improper utilization. The two concerns make some countries to focus on this system and take cautious attitudes in introducing this system by law. The United State has discussed about the problems in the double derivative suit and has had accumulated judgments related to the double derivative suit for a long time, and now it has been institutionalized. But still the validity of the double derivative suit admits of adverse criticism, even in the United State where this system is actively applied, the judicial precedents show different interpretations of the system. In Japan, the necessity of double derivative suit has formed considerable public opinions. In 1999 and 2001 the Japanese Diet’s effort to legislate the double derivate suit ended in failure. It was because Japan believed that the derivative suit referring that the holding company’s shareholder presses the director to take responsibility for the action could protect the holding company’s shareholder. Japan did not admit the judicial precedents about the double derivative suit, either. In October 2006, through “the proposal for the amendment of the commercial law” the Ministry of Justice of Korea announced the preliminary legislation about the introduction of double derivative suit in order to protect the minority shareholders as well as secure the transparency of enterprise. However, in the face of the opposition movements of people in the business world the Ministry of Justice concluded, in February 2007, to introduce the system after reviewing through “the coordination committee for the commercial law issues,” comprised of recommended specialists from both sides of agreement and disagreement to legislate the double derivate suit, and then set the proposal in concrete. By the reasons of the oppositions of people in the business world and government ministries, and the introduction of the system by the National Assembly, the system of double derivate suit was excluded from “the amendment of commercial law.” As a result, the double derivative suit fell behind as “continuous problem” and kept drifting, only discussing and reviewing whether adopts the system or not. Britain has given up the attempt to legislate the double derivative suit, influenced by law commission’s adverse reaction to the proposal.Unlike above countries, China does not even enter into a discussion about the double derivative suit. In view of the fierce discussion upon the double derivative suit system the special functions of the double derivative suit system, this paper tries to sort out and analyze the relevant problems of this system so that people can deepen the recognition of this system and hopes to promote the research and legislation. With this aim, the paper introduces the basic theory on double derivative suit, explores the course of attempting to introduce double derivative suit system by law in some countries, compares and analyzes all kinds of theories on whether establish the double derivative suit system or not, discusses the differences between the prosecutor of double derivative suit and that of shareholder derivative suit, and difference and affiliation between the procedure rules of double derivative suit and those of shareholder derivative suit, and finally discusses some problems on the establishment of the double derivative suit system in China.In conclusion, the deficiency of shareholder’s derivative suit system makes room for the double derivative suit system; the fierce dispute and different opinions on double derivative suit system show that this system has special functions while it is faced with theoretic obstacle; the prosecutor of the double derivative suit are qualified shareholder of controlling corporation (the shareholder of controlled corporation) ; the procedure rules of double derivative suit are similar to those of shareholder’s derivative suit, and it’s possible and necessary that China establish this system. All the People from the theory horizon and practice field majoring in corporation law should pay enough attention to the double derivative suit system, and dive deep in survey and research, integrate the research on this system with the research on activating the shareholder’s derivative suit system, so as to make the management structure of corporations with holding-subordinate relationship better.