法律观点开示义务的本土化路径——以纠纷实质化解为视角  

The Localization Path of the Legal Point Interpretation Obligation-From the Perspective of Substantive Dispute Resolution

作　　者：马思程 MA Si-cheng(Suzhou University,Suzhou,Jiangsu 215000)

机构地区：[1]苏州大学,江苏苏州1215000

出　　处：《司法警官职业教育研究》2024年第2期50-59,共10页Vocational Education Research of Judicial Police

摘　　要：法官知法的诉讼构造保证了法官独立适用法律,但也埋下了法律适用突袭的隐患。为解决该隐患,大陆法系部分国家明确了法律观点开示义务。该义务在我国经历了从一般法律释明到具体法律观点释明两个发展阶段,逐步具备了较为完整的法律观点开示内涵。我国的法律观点开示义务虽然最早溯及于2002年《民事证据规定》第三十五条,而2019年修正之后的《民事证据规定》五十三条更接近学理上关于法官法律观点开示义务的通说,但该条的具体适用仍须通过类型化分析予以明确。通过分析每一类适用类型与规范本旨的契合与否,可以得出2019年《民事证据规定》第五十三条各种适用细节的应有之义,以此作为建构我国民事诉讼中法官法律观点开示义务的规则体系。The litigation structure of Jura Novit Curia ensures the independent application of the law by judges,but also hides the danger of unexpected application oflaws.To solve this hidden danger,some countries in the civil law system have clarified the legal point interpretation obligation.This obligation has gone through two stages of development in China,from general legal interpretation to specific legal perspective interpretation,gradually possessing a relatively complete connotation of legal point interpretation.Although the legal point interpretation obligation in our country can be traced back to Article 35 of the Civil Evidence Provisions in 2002,the revised Article 53 of the Civil Evidence Provisions in 2019 is closer to the general theory of the legal point interpretation obligation in theory.However the specific application of this article still needs to be clarified through typological analysis.By analyzing the compatibility between each type of application and the essence of the norms,it can be concluded that the various application details of Article 53 of the 2019 Civil Evidence Provisions have their due meanings,which can serve as a rule system for constructing the legal point interpretation obligation in civil litigation in China.

关 键 词：法官知法 法律观点开示义务 突袭裁判 辩论权 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]