事实客观标准的反思与安置  

Reconsideration and Placement of Fact Objective Test

作　　者：孙日华[1] 谢慧[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]山东大学法学院,山东济南250100 [2]中共山东省委党校政法部,山东济南250021

出　　处：《太原理工大学学报（社会科学版）》2010年第4期32-37,共6页Journal of Taiyuan University of Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：山东省社会科学规划研究项目"司法视野下的私法自治研究"阶段性成果(09CFXZ20)

摘　　要：事实的客观标准一直存在争议,客观真实让步法律真实,法律真实又有被交流共识标准取代的趋势。然而,从中国现实的司法诉讼模式出发,三种标准并不是互相取代的关系,事实的客观标准需要重新安置。客观真实存在现实的操作困难,只能促进证明制度的完善;为了维护法治,需要树立法律真实标准的绝对地位,这在以职权主义为主的诉讼模式中具有更大的价值;交流共识的标准在当事人主义诉讼模式下将可能更好地实现,是一种降低司法成本的方式。总之,事实的客观标准是语境化的,而不是依靠一种标准"包打天下"。The fact objective test has disputed that the objective real makes concessions to law real, the law real also has exchanged the mutual recognition standard substitution tendency. However, embarks from the Chinese reality＇s judicial lawsuit pattern, three kind of standards are not the relations which substitutes mutually, the fact objective test need to replace. The objective real exist operation difficulty, can only take the proof system perfect power; in order to maintain the government by law, needs to set up the legal real absolute status, in a greater value by the authority principle lawsuit pattern in primarily;To exchange mutual recognition＇s standard well will realize possibly under the litigant principle lawsuit pattern, is one way to reduce judicial cost. In brief, the fact objective test is the contextualization, but is not depends upon one kind of standard ＂the package to fight for state power＂.

关 键 词：事实 客观 法律真实 交流共识 

分 类 号：D903[政治法律—法学理论]