证明责任分类的体系重构  

On the System Reconstruction of the Classification of Burden of Proof

作　　者：周洪波[1] Zhou Hongbo

机构地区：[1]西南民族大学法学院

出　　处：《法制与社会发展》2020年第3期169-187,共19页Law and Social Development

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“错案治理视野中的印证规则研究”(18BFX084);教育部新世纪人才支持计划项目“刑事证明问题研究”(NCET-13-0982)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：关于证明责任分类的既有学说,在域外既未成为司法实践的良好规导,也不能适应制度发展的需要,更无法进行正确的通约性比较,而其作为舶来品,在我国所存在的问题则尤为严重,因此,有必要对证明责任分类进行体系性重构。首先,作为最基础的分类,需要确立说服责任与动摇责任这两个对子性的责任类型,以表明在或然真实证明标准的制度语境中讼争的当事人各方就同一证明对象面临不同的证明责任要求。其次,应对两个基础责任类型进行两个维度的类型化:从当事人是否应独立完成其证明任务的不同制度规定,可将二者区分为完全责任与有限责任;从匹配于诉讼纠纷解决过程化的功能需求,可将二者区分为审判开启责任、庭审开启责任、庭审推进责任和审理终结时责任。新的责任分类体系能够较好地呈现证明责任制度的比较法差异,明晰证明责任机理。The existing doctrines of the classification of burden proof did not provide a good guide for judicial practices aboard,nor can it meet the needs of development of system,and it is even impossible to make a comprehensively correct comparison.It is necessary to systematically recast this classification since even worse resulting effects were brought by it in China.First,as the most basic classification,it is necessary to establish the persuasion burden v.volatility burden to show the different responsibility requirements for the parties on the same proof object in the contingent truth proof standard.Second,further classification shall be made in different perspectives for each type:according to whether the parties should independently bear their burden,they can be further classified as full burden v.limited burden;from litigation dispute resolution process,they can be further classified as burden for trial opening and court hearing,burden for trial advancing and burden for trial ending.The new classification system of burden of proof can better present the differences in comparative law and clarify the mechanism of burden of proof.

关 键 词：证明责任 说服责任 动摇责任 类型分化 

分 类 号：D915.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]