公证证明责任探知

关于司法证明中证明责任的含义,我国学者主要有三种观点：一是行为责任说,即证明责任就是提供证据这种行为的责任;二是结果责任说,即证明责任是在案件事实不清的情况下,由负有证明责任的一方当事人承担不利的后果;三是双重含义说,即证明责任包括双重含义,即行为意义上的证明责任和结果意义上的证明责任.     

民事检察实务中证明责任理论的应用

一、证明责任的内涵 (一)举证责任的含义 举证责任是当事人对自己提出的诉讼请求所依据的事实或者反驳对方诉讼请求所依据的事实有责任提供证据予以证明.该含义在最高人民法院2001年出台的<关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定>(以下简称<证据规定>)第2条第一款中有所体现.在理论上,举证责任也被称为行为责任、主观意义上的证明责任.也就是通常所谓的"谁主张、谁举证".     

论推定规则适用中的证明责任和证明标准

<正>推定是由法律规定并由司法人员作出的具有推断性质的事实认定。由于"推定"一般都是以法律规定为依据的,所以在司法活动中运用推定方法认定案件事实或争议事实就表现为对"推定规则"的适用。推定规则的表现形式可以是立法机关制定并颁布的法律,也可以是司法机关依法制定的证据规则或者作出的司法解释和具有约束力的判例。在本文中,笔者将主     

刑事证明责任概念的比较法分析

大陆法系以主观证明责任和客观证明责任构建证明责任概念,辅之以被告人的证明必要,而以客观证明责任为主;英美法系以说服责任和提出证据责任构建证明责任概念而以提出证据责任概念为主.两大法系证明责任概念之间存在深层的差异,而不是绝对的对应关系.这种差异的原因是当事人主义和职权主义、陪审团制度和法官审制度以及犯罪构成方面的差别.     

刑事被告人证明责任进程分析

英美法系的提出证据责任、说服责任和大陆法系的主观证明责任、客观证明责任,严格来说,存在区别不能简单等同。比较而言,前者更利于描述证明责任在诉讼程序中的运作状态。应以英美法系的证明责任分层理论为分析工具,比较刑事被告人证明责任在英美法系国家、大陆法系国家及日本的运行进程,以期对我国的刑事被告人证明责任有所借鉴。     

论民事诉讼中的证明责任

我国法院在审理民事案件中，一直贯彻“以事实为根据，以法律为准绳”原则。以事实为根据，以法律为准绳是司法公正的重要体现，立法本意是只有坚持实事求是，以充分确凿的事实作为判案的根据，用法律这个尺度来衡量。以法律作为定案的准绳，才能做到不枉不纵，公正无私，保证公正的审判。民事案件的审理中最重要的两个基本问题就是查清事实和适用法律，而在我们的审判实践中，常常遇到当事人及其诉讼代理人因客观原因不能自行收集证据，人民法院亦无法调查收集到相关证据，而法官又不可能在全部证据齐备的情况下才作出判决，此时证明责任的分配对判决结果有着举足轻重的影响。本文试从两大法系中的证明责任的产生发现进行源头式的探寻，并通过对我国法院两起同类民事案件证明责任分配的分析，对完善我国民事诉讼举证责任分配的提出建议。     

司法认知:证明责任的新视角

证明责任解决的是当事人对哪些事实应当举证证明,否则承担败诉风险.司法认知解决的是哪些事实不需要当事人举证证明,免除当事人的证明责任,而由法官直接确认.在证据法学中,人们往往热衷于从证明对象的角度来把握哪些事实应该由当事人承担证明责任,而鲜有从司法认知的角度来把握证明责任的承担.如果从司法认知的角度来把握证明责任,那么司法认知影响证明责任的分配.但是司法认知只影响主观证明责任的分配,而与客观证明责任没有实质的关联.     

浅论民事证明责任的分配

本文通过对证明责任分配的性质的了解,进一步比较两大法系对于证明责任分配的不同理论认识,以反观和检讨我国民事诉讼中关于证明责任分配的原则和规定。     

要件事实论的实体法基础：证明责任理论

司法三段论在实际诉讼中得以顺利应用的前提是待证事实(要件事实)的存在,即法官对待证事实形成了为真的心证,如果心证结论为伪,则将不适用大前提,因此也不发生一方当事人所希望的法律效果。除此以外,心证状态还可能是真伪不明(non liquet),在这种情况下法官应当如何适用法律就是证明责任理     

Accommodating Religion and Shifting Burdens

With some qualifications, this article endorses Brian Leiter’s argument that religious accommodation should not shift burdens from believers to non-believers. It argues that religious believers should take responsibility for their beliefs and for meeting the demands of their beliefs. It then examines the implications of that argument for British law on indirect discrimination (disparate impact) as it relates to religion or belief: burden-shifting from believers to employers and providers of goods and services should be deemed acceptable only insofar as the burden incurred by the employer or provider is ‘insignificant’. Legal exemptions should satisfy a similar test. Why should there be religious accommodation at all, even if it entails no significant burden-shifting? The author agrees with Leiter in finding the most plausible answer in the claims of conscience rather than in general theories of equality or features special to religion. Those claims can reasonably be made in respect of liberty of conscience but also when conscience is merely disadvantaged.     

证明责任配置裁量权之反思

《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第7条赋予法官证明责任配置自由裁量权，在我国现阶段并不合时宜。我国尚未确立科学的证明责任配置一般规则，司法实践中的裁量需求更多反映出实体法规则的严重欠缺和对证明责任倒置机制的过度依赖。证明责任配置的规则性和可预见性至关重要，在我国民众对证明责任理念还未形成足够认同的背景下，自由裁量规则可能导致人们以抽象而模糊的公平正义理念冲击和取代证明责任配置的一般规则。司法实践中运用证明责任作出判决还未形成常规，法官准确运用证明责任的能力有待提高，法官运用自由裁量权也亟需规范。     

The Burdens of Conviction: Brownlee on Civil Disobedience

Kimberley Brownlee’s Conscience and Conviction offers a powerful defence of civil disobedience as a conscientious and communicative mode of protest. The overall argument of the book is important and compelling, but this critical commentary explores certain aspects of Brownlee’s view that warrant further consideration and clarification. Those aspects relate to her suggestion that civil disobedience is a dialogic mode of communication, her attempt to ground a moral right of civil disobedience in a principle of humanism, and her belief that the right establishes a defeasible moral claim against all forms of interference.     

Punishment,Fair Play and the Burdens of Citizenship

The fair-play theory of punishment claims that the state is justified in imposing additional burdens on law-breakers, to remove the unfair advantage the latter have enjoyed by disobeying the law. From this perspective, punishment reestablishes a fair distribution of benefits and burdens among all citizens. In this paper, I object to this view by focusing on the case of civil disobedience. I argue that the mere illegality of this conduct is insufficient to establish the agent’s unfair advantage over his lawabiding fellows, hence the imposition of additional burdens upon him through legal punishment. I articulate a broader account of citizens’ fair-play duties, able to capture disobedience as well as obedience to the law. While claiming that some law-breakers may not be treated as free-riders, I also gesture at the fact that some law-obeying citizens may not be ‘playing fair’: in some cases, a failure to engage in civil disobedience represents a failure to do one’s own part within the cooperative scheme of society.

     

减负与转型的经济法推进

减负与转型是贯穿我国经济改革与法治发展的一条重要逻辑主线。运用经济法推进减负与转型,有助于整体经济系统的优化,实现减负增效和转型升级;有助于通过经济法上的职权与职责、权利与义务的合理配置,促进主体负担的公平分配,实现市场主体与政府的双向减负和各自转型,从而促进经济和社会的有效发展。实践中,应改变既往对政策的过度倚重,推进制度转型、构建包容性制度,实现法治框架下持久的制度性减负。     

Presumptions,Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law

The pure “best interests” approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The “fundamental questions” proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. “Presumptions” are not “rules,” but only starting points. No simple presumption “for” or “against” all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last—the largest category—warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in‐between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure “best interests,” to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure
• Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just “for” or “against”
• Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers

     

负重的前行：《律师法》与刑辩律师权利的地方化实践

经修订的《律师法》施行以来,部分与《刑事诉讼法》疑有冲突的规定在一些地方遭遇实际的推诿、规避,这激起相当多的批评意见,以及加快跟进修订《刑事诉讼法》的建议。