“谁主张谁举证”规则的历史变迁与现代运用

“Who Claims,Who Proves”:Its Historical Evolution and Contemporary Application

在我国对规范说的理论继受和实践继受的过程中,具有实在法依据的"谁主张谁举证"规则遭受了严厉批评。通过统合古典罗马法的两项证明责任规则,优士丁尼时期的法学家抽象出"谁主张谁举证"规则,该规则基于"诉—抗辩"结构分配证明责任。注释法学家将"谁主张谁举证"规则曲解为消极事实理论,但他们完善该理论的方式表现出回归罗马法传统的倾向。"谁主张谁举证"规则在欧陆法典中获得普遍采纳,但"诉—抗辩"结构在主观权利体系下遭到瓦解。规范说是罗马法传统中的"谁主张谁举证"规则的现代运用,因为它的"基础规范—相对规范"结构为"谁主张谁举证"规则提供了新的解释模式。我国证明责任学说应当重构"谁主张谁举证"规则的理论脉络,梳理它与规范说的内在联系,在解释论上化解二者之间的法律适用冲突。

In the process of doctrinal and practical reception of the Normative Theory in China, the rule ＂who claims, who proves＂, as a substantive law basis, has suffered severe criticism. In Roman law, the first rule on the burden of proof was ＂actor non probante, reus absolvitur＂ and the second rule was ＂in excipiendo reus fit actor＂. By integrating these two rules, the jurists of Emperor Justinian established the ＂who claims, who proves＂ rule, which distributes the burden of proof on the basis of the structure of ＂action-exception＂. Through the misinterpretation of this rule, the glossators put for- ward the Negative Fact Theory, according to which the distribution of the burden of proof is based on the quality of the facts. However, the glossators＇ way of perfecting the theory showed a tendency to return to the Roman tradition. Although the rule has been widely adopted in European codes, the structure of ＂action-exception＂ disintegrated under the system of subjective rights, and the concep- tions of ＂action＂ and ＂exception＂ have experienced profound changes. The Normative Theory has be- come the modern application of the rule because its structure of ＂basic norm-relative norm＂ provides a new explanation model for the rule. Since the Chinese doctrine of burden of proof has misconstrued the ＂who claims, who proves＂ rule, it is necessary to first reconstruct the fundamental theory on the rule, then clarify the relation between the rule and the Normative Theory, and finally resolve the legal conflicts between them in positive law.