论民事诉讼当事人具体化义务的中国路径

发布时间：2018-09-05 14:09

【摘要】：当事人具体化义务是采民事诉讼辩论主义,奉行主张责任的必然产物。它包括事实陈述具体化和证据声明具体化双重含义。为保障法院的审判利益,当事人的防御利益和证人的人格利益,德日等大陆法系国家和地区,乃至英美法国家均建立了以该义务为中心或者类似该义务的规则体系。我国的当事人具体化义务孕育于1991年的《民事诉讼法》,生成在2001年颁布的《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》,并于2012年新修订的《民事诉讼法》中得到诚信原则和审前程序的支撑。但由于理论界和实务界的忽略,当事人具体化义务在实际运行中仍存在诸多不足。因此,要对立法方法予以创新,规则体系予以健全,审前程序合目的性完善,阐明权针对性充实,以更好地发挥当事人具体化义务的程序功效。
[Abstract]:The party's duty of concretization is the inevitable outcome of adopting the doctrine of debate in civil litigation and pursuing the doctrine of claim responsibility.It includes concretization of factual statement and concretization of evidence statement.In order to protect the court's trial interests, the party's defensive interests and the witness's personality interests, Germany, Japan and other continental law countries and regions, as well as Anglo-American and French countries. A rule system centering on this obligation or similar to this obligation has been established. The concrete obligation of the parties in our country was conceived in the Civil Procedure Law of 1991, and produced the Certain Provisions on Civil Procedure Evidence promulgated in 2001. It was supported by the principle of good faith and the pretrial procedure in the newly revised Civil Procedure Law of 2012. There are still many deficiencies in the actual operation of the parties'specific obligations due to the neglect of the theoretical and practical circles.Therefore, the legislative methods should be innovated, the rules system should be improved, the pre-trial procedure should be perfected, and the right to clarify the specific purpose should be enriched in order to better play the procedural effect of the parties' specific obligations.
【作者单位】：苏州大学王健法学院;
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】