既判力与第19条外文翻译.docVIP

外文翻译 原文： RES JUDICATA AND RULE 19 Of：William J Katt From：Northwestern University Law Review Vol, 103, No 1. His legal interests are protected; therefore he will be bound by res judicata. 2. He will be bound by res judicata; therefore his legal interests are not protected. Of course, either his interests are protected or they are not—but not both. The heart of the problem lies in the interaction between Rule; 19 and res judicata. Rule 19 requires an absent person to be joined if that persons ability to protect his interests is impaired by not being a party. Some courts have held that the binding effect of res judicata on an absent; person satisfies this impairment requirement, thus requiring the absent person to be joined. A basic principle of res judicata, however, is that an absent person will only be bound if he is in privity with a party. Privity exists between a party and an absent person if that party adequately represents, and therefore protects, the absent persons interests. Thus, by definition, being bound by res judicata means an absent persons interests were protected and his ability to protect his interests was not impaired. It is illogical foi- courts to require a persons joinder by saying that he will be bound by res judicata because the relevant portion of Rule 19 only requires joinder when an absent persons ability to protect his interests is impaired. Despite the clear logical inconsistency in using res judicata as ?a basis for joinder, the circuit courts are split on the issue. A second justification for the use of res judicata as a basis for joinder might be that the expanding breadth of res judicata has made courts wary of a future court invoking the doctrine against the absent person in question. Under this justification, the court will deem an absent person necessary if there is a chance a later court will bind him to the judgment in the ?present case. Although this justification carries more weight than the first, it is still problematic. The