摘要
对证明标准制度功能的不同期待,构成了两大法系民事诉讼证明标准的关键差别。基于职业法官专司审判的司法组织方式,德国法将民事诉讼证明标准定位于法官个人的内心确信;二元制司法组织方式以及陪审团集体裁决的决策机制,则让英美民事诉讼证明标准最终落脚于盖然性优势。同样因为制度背景的差异,证明标准的制约功能仅仅在英美法系获得了较多发展;在大陆法系,人们转而依靠法官的事实说理来对事实认定加以控制。认识到证明标准的功能限度,对于我国民事诉讼证明标准的未来设计具有重要意义。
The basic difference of standards of proof between common law and continental law systems is the distinct expectations of their functions.Based on professional judges-trail system,German law settles judges' inner belief as its standard of proof,and common law countries,consistent with the jury-trail system,settles preponderance of probability as their standards of proof in civil procedure.Also derived from the institutional distinctions,the constraining function of standard of proof is only developed in common law countries,while in continental law countries,people resort to judges' reasoning to control the fact-finding process.In the future devising of standard of proof in China law,it is of great significance for the lawmakers to be aware of its functional limits.
出处
《法学家》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第3期145-162,180,共18页
The Jurist
关键词
证明标准
诉讼证明
民事证据
民事诉讼
Standard of Proof
Proof in Judicial Proceedings
Evidence in Civil Litigation
Civil Proceedings
