国际民事诉讼中境外证据的审查与认定

发布时间：2018-12-10 19:04

【摘要】：证据是民事诉讼审判中定案的核心依据,只有在证据明晰确定的情况下才能作为案件的事实依据,帮助法官作出判断,从而理清法律关系作出判决。在国际民事诉讼中,由于很多时候法律关系在境外形成或存在,所以为了证明该法律关系的事实,会涉及到大量的境外证据。从更宽泛的角度来讲,诉讼的当事人的身份证明问题也包含在广义的证据范围之内,所以境外证据在国际民事诉讼中无处不在,且扮演着非常重要的作用。在国际民事诉讼审判中,由于境外证据的特殊性质,法官需要在大量的相关信息之中去粗取精,去伪存真,判断哪些证据材料可以作为最后的定案依据,这项工作就是境外证据的审查与认定。正是由于境外证据具有国际性,不同国家的法律中对于证据制度的规定差异迥然,从境外证据的取证主体到取证方式再到司法实践中审查与认定的标准,沿着这一条逻辑线索,每一个国家的立法和司法对于这个问题都有着自己的探索。而最终的审查与认定又与之前的几个问题环环相扣,所以研究境外认定的审查与认定无法绕过境外证据的取证方式问题。在境外证据的取证上,虽然以两大法系为代表的多数国家对于这个问题至今仍然存在争论,但是近年来签署了大量的双边司法协助条约以及1970年海牙取证公约和几个有代表性的区域性公约的签订,让境外取证的国际合作变得有法可循。这些国际条约和公约的立法理念和技巧,以及对于境外证据的取证和审查认定问题的解决方式都值得我们深思和学习。在证据制度的法律冲突问题上,本文提出了一个理论性的探讨,试图用国际私法上古老的冲突规范来补充国际公约对于此的解决方式。因为国际公约毕竟是相对封闭的,囿于加入国的限制和保留,在现实中层出不穷的新情况面前也显得相对苍白无力,所以本文大胆探讨了在国际民事诉讼的境外证据领域引入冲突规范予以调整的可能性与可行性。由于我国对于国际民事诉讼案件立法和司法实践相对于西方国家都起步得较晚,所以相关立法和司法实践在国际民事诉讼的境外证据方面存在很多不足和幼稚之处。在立法上的不足主要包括基本概念界定不清,规则僵化和模糊,以及系统化不足。正是因为立法上的不足导致了司法实践上对于这个问题的处理停留在一个相对封闭的状态,严格地要求公证和认证,而忽略了案件的具体情况。所以本文的最后,笔者从国际合作、改良立法框架和细则以及更新司法实践的做法几个角度提出完善的意见,以期能给这个问题一个较为系统的理论的梳理以及给我国的国际民事诉讼的境外证据的审查和认定制度提出一个较为新鲜的视角。
[Abstract]:Evidence is the core basis for the determination of a case in civil litigation. Only when the evidence is clearly determined can it be regarded as the factual basis of the case and help the judge to make a judgment, thus clarifying the legal relationship to make a judgment. In international civil proceedings, because of the formation or existence of legal relationship in many cases, in order to prove the fact of the legal relationship, there will be a large amount of overseas evidence. From a broader point of view, the identification of litigants is also included in the broad scope of evidence, so foreign evidence in international civil proceedings everywhere, and plays a very important role. In international civil proceedings, due to the special nature of the evidence outside the country, the judge needs to refine the large amount of relevant information, identify the false things, retain the real things, and judge which evidence materials can be used as the basis for the final decision. This work is the examination and determination of overseas evidence. It is precisely because of the international character of overseas evidence, that the provisions of the evidence system in different countries' laws are very different. From the subject to the way of obtaining evidence from overseas evidence to the standards of examination and confirmation in judicial practice, it follows this logical clue. Each country's legislation and judiciary have their own exploration of this issue. However, the final examination and confirmation are related to the previous problems, so the study of the examination and determination of overseas identification can not bypass the evidence collection method of overseas evidence. With regard to the collection of evidence from abroad, although most countries represented by the two major legal systems still have arguments on this issue, However in recent years a large number of bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties as well as the 1970 Hague Convention on Forensics and several representative regional conventions have been signed. The legislative ideas and techniques of these international treaties and conventions, as well as the methods of obtaining evidence and examining the identification of overseas evidence, are worthy of our deep thinking and study. On the issue of conflict of laws in the system of evidence, this paper puts forward a theoretical discussion, trying to use the ancient conflict norms in private international law to supplement the solutions of international conventions. After all, the international conventions are relatively closed, and due to the restrictions and reservations of the acceding countries, they are also relatively weak in the face of the endless new situation in reality. Therefore, this paper discusses the possibility and feasibility of introducing conflict norms in the field of foreign evidence in international civil litigation. Because the legislation and judicial practice of international civil litigation in our country started relatively late compared with the western countries, the relevant legislation and judicial practice have many shortcomings and childish points in the overseas evidence of international civil litigation. Shortcomings in legislation include unclear definition of basic concepts, rigid and vague rules, and inadequate systematization. It is precisely because of the lack of legislation that the judicial practice to deal with this problem stays in a relatively closed state, strict requirements for notarization and certification, and ignore the specific case. So at the end of this paper, the author puts forward some suggestions from the angle of international cooperation, improving the legislative framework and rules, and updating the judicial practice. In order to give this issue a more systematic theoretical combing and to our country's international civil proceedings of foreign evidence review and identification system to put forward a relatively fresh perspective.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D997.3

【相似文献】