非负证明责任当事人拒绝亲子鉴定之应有规制  

Study on the Legal Regulation of Refusal to Undergo Paternity Testing by Parties Exempt from Evidentiary Obligations

作　　者：欧阳瑞 Ouyang Rui(School of Law Wuhan University,Wuhan Hubei 430072,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《北京化工大学学报(社会科学版)》2025年第1期40-51,共12页Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology(Social Sciences Edition)

摘　　要：我国司法解释针对亲子关系诉讼中不负证明责任当事人拒绝配合亲子鉴定所设置的既有规制路径,于性质上属于一种“限制性”拟制真实规则。该条在实践中存在适用条件模糊、法官形成路径依赖、自我约束机制失灵以至于个案有违公正的问题。理论上,由于背离实质真实主义,其有违人事诉讼公益性质及判决对世效原理。最利于解明亲子关系的直接强制模式因对人格尊严侵害过大,不宜采用。建议采行自由评价模式,将拒绝之情事作为全辩论意旨之一,由法官结合经验法则自由心证。作为制度配合,应当提高法官职权探知的力度。此外,为达制裁与预防目标,可以对违反亲子鉴定协力义务的当事人为金钱上的间接强制。Existing regulatory approaches in China’s judicial interpretations against the refusal of paternity testing by non-burdened parties in paternity lawsuit,in nature,follows a“restrictive”presumption of truth rule.In practice,this approach encounters challenges including ambiguous application conditions,judicial path dependency,and the failure of the self-restraint mechanism,which may result in unjust outcomes in individual cases.Theoretically,it deviates from the pursuit of substantive truth,which in turn undermines the public interest nature of domestic proceedings and the principle of universal effect of judgments.While the direct compulsory model is most effective in determining parent-child relationships,it is deemed inappropriate because it infringes too much on personal dignity.Therefore,it is proposed to adopt a regulatory model of free evaluation in which refusal to tolerate blood extraction is considered as part of the overall argument,and judges form their conviction based on rules of experience.As a complementary institutional measure,the intensity of judges’fact-finding authority should be strengthened.In addition,to achieve the goals of sanctions and prevention,indirect monetary coercion may be imposed on the party who violates the obligation to cooperate in paternity testing.

关 键 词：亲子鉴定 拟制真实 人事诉讼 实质真实 自由评价 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]