证明责任概念的分立论--基于中国语境的考察  

The Conceptual Theory of Distinguishing the Burden of Proof from the Burden of the Provision of Proof:Observations in the Context of China

作　　者：霍海红[1] 

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院讲师,吉林长春130012

出　　处：《社会科学》2009年第6期95-103,共9页Journal of Social Sciences

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学青年基金项目“证明责任判决的实证研究”(项目批准号:08JC820021)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：证明责任双重含义说的出现带来了证明责任理论的世界性革命,我国20世纪80年代复兴的证明责任理论研究也是从它开始的。然而至少在中国语境中,双重含义说的概念框架无法完成区分和界定证明责任的任务,它无法保证理论上的确定和明晰、无法实现司法过程的有效理解与沟通,也无法完成科学和规范立法的任务。应将结果证明责任与行为证明责任在术语上明确区分为"证明责任"和"提供证据责任",并从学术领域开始逐步放弃常引人误解的"举证责任"术语,从而固定双重含义说的革命成果。The double implications theory of the burden of proof,from which flows theoretic research on the burden of proof in the 1980s in China,brings about some world revolutionary achievement of the theory of the burden of proof. However,at least in the context of China,the conceptual framework of the double implications theory can not precisely define burden of proof; completely guarantee the certainty and clearness of the theory of burden of proof; effectively achieve understanding and communication in the judicial process; and complete the task of legislation scientifically and normatively. The article distinguishes the burden of proof in the sense of outcome from that in the sense of act. The former should be called the burden of proof and the latter the burden of the provision of proof. The misleading Chinese term 'Juzheng Zeren' should be abandoned gradually in the academic circle in order to consolidate the revolutionary achievement caused by the double implications theory.

关 键 词：证明责任 概念分立 中国语境 

分 类 号：DF72[政治法律—诉讼法学]