法学家
  
   首页  |  期刊介绍  |  编 委 会  |  期刊订阅  |  投稿指南  |  广告服务  |  联系我们
法学家  2018, Issue (5): 91-105    DOI:
最新目录 | 下期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 Previous Articles  |  Next Articles  
中国式举证责任制度的内在逻辑
胡学军,法学博士,南昌大学法学院教授。
The Internal Logic of the Chinese-Style Burden of Proof: An Analysis of the Guiding-Cases by the Chinese Supreme Court
Hu Xuejun, Ph.D. in Law, Professor of Nanchang University Law School.
 全文: PDF (12873 KB)   HTML (1 KB)   输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      背景资料
摘要 我国目前司法实践中仍遵循“谁主张、谁举证”的举证责任分配规则,尤其流行在证据短缺导致事实难以判断的情况下“转换举证责任”。我国语境中的“真伪不明”及其裁判方法与大陆法系现代证明责任理论名同实异。此种中国式举证责任制度与学界长期倡导的大陆法系经典证明责任理论及我国现行法律规范之间均存在矛盾冲突,却高度契合中国文化观念基础,具有其自身内在逻辑与实践合理性。为解决理论与实践的矛盾,一方面,宜在事实认定领域承认并尝试建构此种中国式举证责任理论与制度,另一方面,对现代证明责任制度移植的重心宜从过去注重将“证明责任裁判”作为真伪不明时败诉负担的结果正当化功能,转向将“证明责任分配”作为调整民事审判过程的裁判方法论功能。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
胡学军
关键词证明责任   中国式举证责任   真伪不明   举证责任转换   证明责任裁判     
Abstract: In Chinese current judicial practice, the general reason or common sense of“who claims, who proves the evidence”is still followed to distribute the“burden of proof”of the facts to be proved. It is especially popular to change the burden of proof when the lack of evidence leads to difficult judgment of facts. The consequence of this burden of proof is that the facts of the case are unfavorable to the party concerned. In the context of our country, the name of“non liquet”and its judgment method are different from the modern theory of burden of proof in continental law system. This Chinese-style burden of proof conflicts with the classical theory of burden of proof and the current legal norms of our country, but it is highly consistent with the foundation of Chinese cultural concept and has its own internal logic and practical rationality. In order to solve the contradiction between theory and practice, on the one hand, it is advisable to recognize and try to construct this kind of Chinese-style burden of proof in the field of fact recognition, on the other hand. The emphasis of the modern system of burden of proof should be put on the function of justifying the result of“burden of proof”as the burden of failure when the truth is not known in the past. The Shift to“burden of proof distribution”should be the adjustment of the civil trial process of the adjudication methodology function.
Key wordsBurden of Proof   Chinese-Style Burden of Proof   Non Liquet   The Burden of Proof Shift   Burden of Proof-Judgment   
引用本文:   
胡学军. 中国式举证责任制度的内在逻辑[J]. 法学家, 2018, (5): 91-105.
HU Xue-Jun. The Internal Logic of the Chinese-Style Burden of Proof: An Analysis of the Guiding-Cases by the Chinese Supreme Court[J]. , 2018,(5): 91-105.
 
相关文章:   
[1] 杨代雄. 《合同法》第14条(要约的构成)评注[J]. 法学家, 2018, 169(4): 177-190.
[2] 胡学军. 证明责任“规范说”理论重述[J]. 法学家, 2017, 1(1): 63-76.
[3] 王雷. 论合同法中证据规范的配置[J]. 法学家, 2016, 1(3): 53-66.
[4] 张海燕. 民事推定法律效果之再思考
——以当事人诉讼权利的变动为视角
[J]. 法学家, 2014, 1(5): 50-63.
[5] 曹志勋. “真伪不明”在我国民事证明制度中确实存在么?[J]. 法学家, 2013, 1(2): 95-105.
[6] 胡学军. 从“抽象证明责任”到“具体举证责任” ——德、日民事证据法研究的实践转向及其对我国的启示[J]. 法学家, 2012, 1(2): 159-175.
[7] 陈瑞华. 程序性裁判中的证据规则[J]. 法学家, 2011, 1(3): 130-140.
[8] 孙远. 法律要件分类说与刑事证明责任分配——兼与龙宗智教授商榷[J]. 法学家, 2010, 1(6): 99-110.
[9] 赖早兴. 美国犯罪成立要件与证明责任分配[J]. 法学家, 2007, 1(3): 153-160.
[10] 谢文哲. 论避免通过证明责任作出判决的对策[J]. 法学家, 2005, 1(5): 72-80.
[11] 章恒筑, 夏瑛. 日本要件事实论纲——一种民事诉讼思维的展开[J]. 法学家, 2005, 1(3): 146-153.

版权所有 © 2011《法学家》编辑部 
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn