证明责任:徘徊在行为责任与结果责任之间——以民事诉讼为视角  

Burden of Proof: Wandering between Behavior Burden and Result Burden——A Perspective of Civil Procedure

作　　者：周成泓[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东财经大学法学院,广东广州510320

出　　处：《河南财经政法大学学报》2015年第1期84-98,共15页Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law

摘　　要：证明责任历经了从行为责任到结果责任的变迁。真伪不明被承认、民法典的制定及陪审制的确立是结果责任产生的原因。证明责任的性质受制于法庭组成、民法渊源形式以及诉讼模式,英美法系和大陆法系的证明责任分别是当事人一元化和法官-当事人二元化"责任",英美说服责任具有浓厚的行为责任色彩,而大陆客观责任的本质是法官的裁判方法论。行为责任是证明责任的通常实践表现形态,其缘由有证明责任的实现机制、实践继受阶段的特点以及法律语言的修辞三方面。近来诸非结果责任说在大陆法系兴起,它们对结果责任说有补充或反思意义,但还不足以代替之。我国并未真正确立结果责任,今后应当首重证明责任的裁判方法论内涵,同时也要重视行为责任。The burden of proof has been changed from behavior burden to result burden, with non liquet be rec- ognized, the enactment of civil code and jury system been established being its causes. The nature of burden of proof is affected by the composition of the tribunal, civil law sources and litigation mode, thus the proof burden of two legal systems are of respectively judge-party＇ s or party＇ s burden,and the nature of objective burden of proof which is dominant to behavior burden is judge＇ s trial method. Whereas behavior burden is typically man- ifestation ,with causes being of implementation mechanism of burden proof, character of practice transplant and legal language rhetoric. Recently various non-resuh proof burden theories have been rising in Civil Law Sys- tem,which have added or reflective meaning to objective proof burden,but not enough to replace it. In China, objective proof burden is not really be established, thus we should pay attention to judge＇ s trial methods of proof burden, but also to behavior burden.

关 键 词：证明责任 行为责任 结果责任 当事人的负担 法官的裁判方法论 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]