Abstract：Due to the limitation of the doctrine of disposition, autonomy in private law in the exercise of civil rights cannot be fully upheld in litigation, which goes against the principle inherent in the litigant doctrine. Given the connection between autonomy in private law and litigant doctrine, doctrine of disposition should include the content that “whether to exercise civil rights in litigation is up to the litigant”. As civil rights can only be acquired and changed on the basis of specific legal facts, and the claim and proof of essential facts are part of adversary system, the litigant's exercise of the right of defense or the right of formation in litigation is an act under private law and a litigation act as well, and thus should be regulated by both autonomy in private law and adversary system. To be specific, the litigant not only needs to provide essential facts to defend his civil rights, but also exhibit the intent of using civil rights for self-defense, and the judge can only give negative interpretation. However, as the right of defense can only prevent rather than eliminate the right of allegation, the defense of the right of defense is an exception to the common principle of claim. Therefore, both parties wrestle for rights in court. They defend their rights rather than argue over facts. Distinction between defense of rights and defense of facts is the result of the transformation of China's litigation model, and it is an important exemplification of the fact that the state respects the litigant's private rights in litigation.
2022, Vol. 39 
粤公网安备44030502007936号