我国民事诉讼法关于对妨害民事诉讼的强制措施的规定,加强了人民法院审判工作的权威性,为人民法院严肃执法提供了法律保障。但是,在司法实践中对如何掌握该强制措施的时效问题,尚存在一些不同认识:一种观点认为,妨害民事诉讼的强制措施是一种排除性措施,当案件审理或执行完毕后即失去了采取强制措施的前提条件,原处罚决定也同时失去了继续执行之必要;另一种观点认为,妨害民事诉讼的行为是具有一定危害性的行为,无论在诉讼期间还是在案件审理、执行后均可对其进行处罚;第三种观点认为,妨害民事诉讼行为具有违法性,除拘留、训戒、责令退出法庭措施外,罚款、拘留两种强制措施应在一定的 The provisions of China’s Civil Procedure Law on coercive measures that impede civil litigation strengthen the authority of the people’s courts in adjudication and provide legal guarantees for the people’s courts to strictly enforce the law. However, in judicial practice, there are still some differences on how to handle the limitation issue of the coercive measure: one view is that the coercive measure that hinders civil litigation is a kind of exclusionary measure and it loses when the case is tried or executed The preconditions for compulsory measures, the original penalty decision also lost the need for continued implementation; the other point of view, prejudice to civil actions is a behavior that has some dangers, both during the litigation or in the trial, the implementation of both Can punish them; the third point of view, to disrupt civil actions with illegal, in addition to detention, discipline, ordered to leave the court measures, fines, detention two coercive measures should be a certain