论文部分内容阅读
事案阐明义务论作为大陆法系民事诉讼法学前沿理论,在解决现代型案件证明困境问题上发挥了有力作用。但这一概念的提出却对作为现代民事诉讼制度基石的辩论主义和证明责任制度形成了挑战,其产生与发展也正是围绕着与辩论主义及证明责任的关系问题而展开的。当今各国阐明义务一般化的趋势比较明朗,这尤其对于传统上注重追求案件客观真实的我国诉讼制度具有巨大的诱惑力。但目前引进无限制的“事案阐明义务”会使我国司法改革辛苦建构起来的证明责任制度及民事诉讼模式转型前功尽弃。其积极意义只不过在于在特定的案件类型中以此理论可弥补证明责任分配可能的弊端。
As a front-line theory of civil procedural law in the civil law system, the case clarification obligation theory has played a powerful role in solving the problem of modern-type cases proving the dilemma. However, the proposal of this concept posed a challenge to the debate doctrine and the burden of proof as the cornerstone of the modern civil procedure system. The emergence and development of the concept also centered on the relationship with the debate doctrine and the burden of proof. The tendency of all countries to clarify the generalization of obligations now is especially attractive to the Chinese litigation system that traditionally focuses on the objective and truthful pursuit of the case. However, the introduction of an unlimited “case clarification obligations ” will make our country’s judicial reform hard to establish the burden of proof system and civil litigation mode before the transformation. Its positive significance is simply that this theory can be used in specific types of cases to make up for the possible drawbacks of the burden of proof.