反思与重构:当事人陈述分化的中国进路

Reflection and Reconstruction: The Division of Litigants' Statement in China

当事人陈述的证据功能在我国民事诉讼中未得到较好发挥。该问题的产生既有历史原因,也有民诉体系构建过程中对精细化建设的忽略,如庭审阶段顺位的不合理设置和当事人陈述分化观念的错误。我国应在观念上依辩论主义之要义,以当事人陈述在诉讼中的功能为主要划分标准,将解明案情之当事人听取和证明事实之当事人询问相分离,在立法上使当事人双重身份明朗化;在实务上,应确立法庭辩论前置于法庭调查的庭审阶段顺位,使当事人询问在程序上标签化;在询问时设置特定的场景外观,将当事人置于证人席位,使其在角色上标识化。如此,才能使当事人陈述之证据功能得以分化并充分发挥作用。

The evidence function of the litigant＇s statement has failed to be well - played in China＇s civil litigation. For this problem, there are historical reasons as well as the neglect of fine construction of the civil procedure, such as the unreasonable setting of the trial order and the division mistake of the parties to state. According to the fundamental implication of the doctrine of debate, we should divide litigants＇ statements into two parts, inquiring the parties to state the case, and hearing the parties＇ statement to justify the case. At the same time, the stage of court debate should be before that of evidence investigation, which is the procedural mark. In the evidence investigation stage, the parties should sit in the witness seat to show their witness identity. Only in this way, can the evidence function of the parties be differentiated and given full play to.