试论双重含义说下证明责任概念的分立.docVIP

本科学年论文 浅议双重含义说下证明责任概念的分立 院 系 政法学院 专业名称 法 学 年级班级 08—1 学生姓名 丁子龙 指导老师 盛 蓓 2010年6月20日 浅议双重含义说下证明责任概念的分立 摘要 多年来，众多学者对证明责任理论展开了深入的研究，相关成果也颇为丰富。但是，在我国证据法理论和教科书中存在着诸多容易与证明责任混淆的概念和说法，且证明责任本身的术语和制度设计上也歧义丛生，在司法实务中对证明责任规范的理解和适用出现诸多自相矛盾的现象。为此，通过回顾国外的证明责任概念理论的历史变化，并结合我国从建国以来证明责任理论的发展 Abstract Over the years, many scholars of the burden of proof theoretical study carried out in-depth, relevant results are also quite rich. However, the law of evidence in our theory and the textbooks there are many easily confused with the concept of burden of proof and argument, and the burden of proof design of the systems own terminology and ambiguity is also a widespread practice in the legal burden of proof specification on the understanding and application appear many contradictory phenomenon. Therefore, this article by reviewing the dual meaning of the foreign concept of responsibility to prove that the theory of historical change, combined with China since the founding of the burden of proof from the development of the theory, and scholars to debate the concept of burden of proof, burden of proof that the problem essentially is how the concept of responsibility to deal with the burden of proof to prove the concept of the association, then the starting point to deal with the burden of proof is on the way the concept of chaotic behavior of the sense of responsibility and the results show evidence of the sense of responsibility to completely separate the concept of the term. Key Words:The concept of burden of proof ；The double meaning of that；Discrete 目录 引言 1 一、双重含义说 1 （一）双重含义说的形成 2 1.大陆法系双重含义说的形成 2 2.英美法系类似学说的形成 2 （二）双重含义说在我国的引入和发展 3 （三）双重含义说的局限性 5 1.第一，双重含义说的概念框架既影响了概念使用的规范，又人为地增加了概念使用的成本。 5 2.双重含义说的概念框架妨碍了法官对证明责任与提供证据责任的有效区分，不利于对双重含义说的真正坚持，甚至有回到提供证据责任一元时代的危险。 6 3.双重含义说的概念框架妨碍了民众对证明责任作用机制的准确理解和认同 7 4.双重含义说的概念框架不利于法官与当事人的交流与沟通，进而不利于当事人对判决的认同 7 二、学界对于证明责任概念的争论 8 （一）证明责任的概念 8 （二）证明责任与举证责任关系的争议 9 通过研究发现，对于证明责任概念的争议主要体现在如何处理举证责任和证明责任的关系上。学界对举证责任和证明责任的