举证证明责任概念的三重困境  

The Triple Dilemma of the Concept of Burden of Providing Evidence and Proof

作　　者：霍海红 Huo Haihong

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院 [2]浙江大学交叉法研究中心

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（诉讼法学、司法制度）》2023年第12期120-132,共13页Procedural Law And Judicial Systems

基　　金：霍英东教育基金会第十五届高等院校青年教师基金项目“民事实体法规则的程序法分析”(151089)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：中国语境下的民事证明责任的理论、立法与实践一直没能完全解决证明责任或举证责任的概念共识问题,“举证证明责任”概念就是一个新的例证。《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>的解释》(法释[2015]5号)首次提出了“举证证明责任”概念,并对后续不少司法解释的条文表述产生影响。然而,“举证证明责任”概念存在三重困境:一是实质背离了“双重含义说”追求“概念分立”的终极目标;二是在司法解释制定者和实务界缺乏足够的共识;三是影响自身功能发挥,不仅模糊了程序法问题与实体法问题的区分,也客观上降低了“提供证据责任”在民事诉讼发现真实过程中的中心地位。“举证证明责任”概念应当被否定,证明责任(举证责任)“双重含义说”的革命成果应当通过“证明责任”与“提供证据责任”的概念分立进行贯彻。The theory,legislation and judicial practice of civil procedure in the Chinese context have not been able to fully resolve the problem of conceptual consensus on the burden of proof.The new concept of"burden of providing evidence and proof"is a case in point,which was put forward for the first time in the Interpretation of SPC on the Application of Civil Procedure Law in 2015,and has influenced the formulation of the provisions in many subsequent judicial interpretations.However,the concept of"burden of providing evidence and proof"has three problems.First,it deviates from the ultimate goal of the"double-meaning theory",pursuing"conceptual separation".Second,there is not enough consensus among judicial interpreters and practitioners.Third,it affects its own function,not only blurring the distinction between issues of procedural and substantive law,but also objectively reducing the core status of"burden of providing evidence"in the fact-discovering process of civil litigation.Therefore,the concept of"burden of providing evidence and proof"should be negated,and the separation of the concepts of"onus probandi"and"burden of providing evidence"is a better choice to carry out the so-called"double-meaning theory"of burden of proof.

关 键 词：举证证明责任 证明责任 提供证据责任 举证责任 自由心证 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]