倒退抑或调整——“视为新证据”条款之正当性探讨及完善建议  

Setback or Adjustment:the Legitimacy of the Term "As New Evidence" and Suggestions for Improvement

作　　者：熊洋[1] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《中国石油大学学报（社会科学版）》2010年第6期60-64,共5页Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Social Sciences)

摘　　要：《审监解释》中"视为新证据"条款受到理论界和实务界的广泛质疑,最为重要之原因即为该款否定了证据失权制度。"视为新证据"条款与证据失权制度的冲突乃至背离并不能否定其正当性。同时,"视为新证据"条款亦存在对恶意拖延诉讼之当事人缺乏刚性制裁等不足,显有完善之必要。此外,出于统一裁判尺度之考虑,调整一、二审证据失权标准亦势在必行。The term ＂as new evidence＂ aroused controversy in the theory and practice field.The most important reason shall be that it denied the evidence invalidity.The conflict can not deny its legitimacy.At the same time,the term ＂as new evidence＂ lacks rigid sanctions,but has need for improvement.In addition,it is imperative to adjust the standards of lost rights.

关 键 词：再审新证据 证据失权 听审请求权 责问权 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]