民事生效判决中的判断会对后诉产生不同程度的影响，对于这些判决效力世界上主要国家均予以体系性的安排，如此方能实现明确性和有序性，给予当事人稳定的预期。但是在我国，目前判决效力还不具有体系性，规范中仅有禁止重复起诉的消极既判力与作为免证规则的事实预决效力，司法实践中二者适用的范围均较宽且混乱。学理中大多数研究为对比较法判决效力体系的介绍，但并未能完全澄清不同概念之间的界限与关联，且未构成适合中国语境的判决效力体系化方案。在比较法视角下对中国判决效力进行体系化研究，正是基于上述问题意识提出的理论思路。之所以采取比较法的视角，一方面是由于我国民事诉讼法与实体法均以大陆法系为蓝本，另一方面是为了借鉴比较法知识为我国的判决效力研究提供概念、框架与思路。与此同时，须进一步着落于中国判决效力的本土化考察，对相关规范作出解释、对其在司法实践中的适用状况进行整理（即相关案例的类型化分析），条分缕析地提炼出有待解决的中国问题群。比较法视角与本土化路径始终相互依存，比较法可为我国的规范解释与实践类型化注入知识基础，而中国语境中的问题群决定了拣选比较法知识的标准与方向。作为一项体系化研究的成果，是对中国判决效力的体系性安排。本文选取来整理判决效力体系的基本范畴是同一性与先决性，依据这两个范畴可对作为判决效力基础的前后诉之间关系进行类型化，不同类型对应着不同的判决效力，故在特定类型中对同一性与先决性的内涵进行界定，就能明确不同判决效力的内容、构成要件与法律后果；而且，在不同类型之间划界就能适度澄清不同判决效力之间的边界。在我国已经存在着与[诉讼客体同一+诉讼主体同一]相对应的消极既判力，还应承认与[诉讼客体先决性+诉讼主体同一]相对应的积极既判力、判决针对已获得事先程序保障主体产生的参加效。除了界定诉讼客体同一性与先决性，还应对诉讼主体同一性作全面的检讨，结合前后诉诉讼客体的关系对既判力的主观扩张进行研究、对判决事实性效力进行类型化。这样形成的我国判决效力体系是本文的主线，作为副线本文还对与判决效力问题存在横向联系的诉讼客体、诉讼主体相关制度进行了研究。

Contents in a civil judgment on the merits will affect a subsequent relevant action in different ways. For all these effects of judgment on the merits, major countries around the world have already, for better and worse, built up their own systems in relatively explicit manner. With a system in the background, the application of effects of judgment suffers less ambiguity and things can be put in good order, thus making justice predictable for parties. In China, however, we couldn’t find any fine system for effects of Judgment. Only res judicata in term of repetitive litigation prohibition and pre-determined effect which means that facts decided in effective judgments are in no need of proof unless there are valid counterevidence, could be found in legal rules or judicial interpretations in our country. In judicial practice, these two effects are applied widely and confusedly. In legal theories, Chinese scholars mainly bring in institutes or theories from foreign countries, without clarifying different concepts, especially the dividing lines and relevancy. More importantly, existing studies fail to build up a complete system for effects of judgment in the context of China. A research on systemization of effects of judgment in China with a perspective of comparative law is the plan to solve problems brought up above. A perspective of comparative law is necessary because, on the one hand, basic institutions and legal theories on Chinese civil procedure and civil law as well were borrowed from civil law countries, especially Germany and Japan. On the other hand, foreign institutes and theories could offer concepts, frames and ways of thinking for this research. Meanwhile, the more important part in this research is about effects of judgment in China, consisting of explanations for relevant legal rules, categorization and analysis of cases, and in the end bringing up groups of question in the context of China in logical order. The comparative perspective are always linked with the approach of localization, in the way that one brings in new knowledge, and the other decides standard of choosing resources and the direction of research.The result of this research on systemization comes out as a system of effects of judgment in China. The basic concepts applied in this dissertation as standards for systemization are identity and the pre-judged (“Pr?judizialit?t” in German). Different relationship between two actions (the former and the latter) can be put into combination of these two categories, and different combinations bring out different effects of judgment. By defining identity and the pre-judged, contents, and elements (“Tatbestand” in German) legal consequences of different effects of judgment will be clarified correspondingly; in the meantime, in this system boundaries between different effects could be drawn. In China, preclusion of res judicata demands both subjective and objective identity; binding effect of res judicata demands subjective identity and objective Pr?judizialit?t, we should also recognize participating effect by which judgments bind subjects who have had opportunities to be heard in the former action. Besides, subjective identity and subjective scope of res judicata need to be studied separately, because the former only decides part of the latter. Subjective scope of res judicata also deals with subjects who were not parties of the former judgment but would be bound by the judgment. Also, the factual influence of judgment upon parties and non-parties should be categorized by considering different relations between objects of two actions. In such way, we could get a system of effects of judgment in China, the construction of which is main line of this dissertation. At the same time, as a subline, there is some study on institutions of subject matter and parties in an action which are related to effects of judgment.