论中国“现代”证明责任问题——兼评德国理论新进展

发布时间：2018-04-07 17:04

本文选题：罗森贝克　切入点：具体举证责任　出处：《当代法学》2017年05期

【摘要】：罗森贝克证明责任论是我国民事诉讼的理论共识。这一共识据称正受到"现代"挑战。具体举证责任论不仅不是背离,而且是证明责任论在我国语境下的必要补充。只有坚持证明责任对应法律问题和具体举证责任对应事实问题的二元结构才可能实现正确分配诉讼风险前提下对"证明难"和恣意事实认定的克服。罗森贝克及其学说的继承者并未止步于文义解释和句式结构,而是有机融入了其他法律解释方法。德国实质性解释的新进展主要针对权利妨碍规范,且是在立法论而非解释论语境下展开的。罗氏证明责任论在德国的修正表现为三个方面,分别是从法不适用到否定性基本规则、权利妨碍规范的实体法视角到诉讼法视角以及立法论层面评价分层体系的建构。在我国现阶段或可部分通过司法解释和指导性案例实现分配漏洞的填补,但应特别强调其前提条件和法律效果。最高人民法院应肩负起更多的说服责任。
[Abstract]:Rosenbeck's theory of burden of proof is the theoretical consensus of civil litigation in China.This consensus is said to be being challenged by "modern".The theory of burden of proof is not only a deviation, but also a necessary supplement to the theory of burden of proof in the context of our country.Only by insisting on the dual structure of the corresponding legal problem of the burden of proof and the corresponding fact problem of the specific burden of proof can the overcoming of "difficult proof" and arbitrary fact determination be realized under the premise of correctly allocating the risk of litigation.Rosenbeck and his successors did not stop at textual interpretation and sentence structure, but incorporated other legal interpretation methods.The new development of substantive interpretation in Germany is mainly aimed at the obstruction of rights and is carried out in the context of legislation rather than interpretation.The revision of Roche's theory of burden of proof in Germany is presented in three aspects, namely, from the perspective of non-application of law to the basic rule of negation, from the perspective of substantive law to procedural law and from the perspective of law of law to the construction of hierarchy system of evaluation at the level of legislative theory.At the present stage of our country, it may be possible to fill the distribution loophole partly through judicial interpretation and instructive cases, but special emphasis should be placed on its precondition and legal effect.The Supreme people's Court should shoulder more responsibility for persuasion.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【基金】：北京市社会科学基金项目“民事诉讼法与民法衔接理论研究”(项目编号16FXC036)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】