法律释明与法律观点释明之辨

Analysis of Legal Elucidation and Legal Viewpoint Elucidation

法律释明要求法官就法律问题向当事人进行解释、说明与提示。以《证据规定》第3条第1款和第35条第1款为标志,本土法律释明和法律观点释明呈现二元格局。《证据规定》第35条第1款在实践中遭遇两难,其理论根源是两种释明逻辑及其适用条件的混同。本土法律释明以抽象当事人形象为立足点,法律观点释明则以具体当事人为适用场景。不仅如此,本土法律释明旨在一般性弥补当事人法律知识的不足,故而可能尽早明确作出。法律观点释明意在避免突袭裁判,这有赖于案件事实的逐步揭示。《新证据规定》第53条第1款并不排斥释明,而是在充分保障当事人辩论权的同时,通过将法律关系性质或者民事行为效力作为焦点问题以框定和明确释明的边界与方式。这背后是从一般法律释明到具体法律观点释明的逻辑转换,据此实现当事人权益保障、纠纷一次性解决和法官依法审理的统一。

Legal elucidation requires the judge to explain, illustrate and prompt legal issues to the parties. With the implementation of Article 3(1) and Article 35(1) of" several provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on evidence in civil procedure" implemented in 2002, the local legal elucidation and legal viewpoint elucidation present a dual pattern. The confusion of the two kinds of elucidation logic and their application conditions is the theoretical root of the dilemma in practice of Article 35(1) of" some provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on evidence in civil procedure" in 2001.The legal elucidation takes the abstract party image as the foothold, while the legal viewpoint elucidation takes the specific party as the applicable scene. Moreover, local legal elucidation aims to make up for the lack of legal knowledge of the parties, so it may be made clear as soon as possible. The elucidation of legal point of view is intended to avoid attacking the judgment, which depends on the gradual revelation of the facts of the case. The first paragraph of Article 53 of several provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on evidence in civil procedure revised in 2019 does not exclude elucidation, but defines and clarifies the boundary and mode of elucidation by taking the nature of legal relationship or the effectiveness of civil act as the focus issue while fully protecting the parties’ right to debate. Behind this is the logical transformation from the general legal elucidation to the specific legal point of view, so as to further unify the protection of the parties’ rights and interests, the one-time settlement of disputes and the judge’s hearing according to law.