民事诉讼当事人陈述制度的正当化

Gap Filling after the Identification of Unfair Contract Terms

我国学界现有研究只是将民事诉讼当事人陈述框架性地区分为证据意义的和非证据意义的。当事人陈述制度因缺乏程序外观而呈现出体系凌乱和相应制度功能弱化的困境。为改善当事人陈述状况,保障当事人在民事诉讼中话语权实现,对我国民事诉讼当事人陈述制度正当化势在必行。立法上,宜将当事人陈述制度细化为在法庭辩论阶段具有阐明案情功能的当事人陈述和在证据调查阶段具有证明案件事实功能的当事人陈述。在具体实施上,应为不同制度功能的当事人陈述设置相应的程序机制。

How to fill the gap after the identification of unfair contract terms is a less focused theoretical problem in academia. The three existing criteria are most reasonable terms,penalty terms and minimally tolerable terms. Punitive terms doctrine can apply only on the basis of deterrence. In essence,the criterion of most reasonable terms should be punitive in many circumstances. The criterion of minimally tolerable terms has its justification of efficiency,and it is congruent with the most reasonable terms criterion. Some statute, judicial interpretations and judicial cases implement the criteria of minimally tolerable terms which should be the general criterion of gap filling after the identification of unfair contract terms.