证明责任之名与实的批判性审思

Critical Reflection on Name and Substance of Burden of Proof

证明责任是诉讼法上一种极为重要的制度机制,但其相关概念并未成为实践的良好指引,学界对此也聚讼纷纭。概念的混乱和不当,在根本上是因为对证明责任的规范特质缺乏妥当的理解。证明责任的规范特质应当包括责任针对事项、责任主体、责任内容、责任产生的诉讼时点和责任产生的条件五个方面的规范要素及其特定内涵。以此观之,既有理论不仅缺乏一个明晰的总括性概念,以其明确证明责任的制度疆域,并为概念的分类衍化提供包容空间,而且,诸多类型化的概念也不具备证明责任的完备规范要素和确当内涵,无法适应各种具体制度的现实需要。也许可取的应对之道是,以证明责任为总括性概念,以说服责任与动摇责任以及衍生概念为分类概念。

Burden of proof is an extremely important institutional mechanism in procedural law,but its related concepts have no much prescriptive value for guiding the practice,and the academic circles have also disputed on it. The improper definition is fundamentally due to the lack of proper understanding of the normative nature of the burden of proof. The normative traits of the burden of proof should include the normative elements and specific connotations of the five aspects of the responsibility,i. e. the object,the subject,the content,the act point of time of arising of the burden in the proceedings,and the conditions for raising this burden. From this point of view,the established theory lacks a general definition for clearly defining the institutional domain of the burden,and providing an inclusive space for the classification and derivation of definitions. The proper way to respond is to put the burden of proof as an umbrella definition and make the persuading burden and volatility burden and their derivative concepts as the classification concepts.