|
|
|
| Jurisprudential Proof and Rule Correctness of Right of Defense |
| ZHUANG Shi-yue |
| Civil, Commercial and Economic Law School, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, 102249 |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Received: 20 June 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 许可. 论当事人主义诉讼模式在我国法上的新进展[J].当代法学,2016,(3):7.
[2] 刘哲玮. 论民事诉讼模式理论的方法论意义及其运用[J].当代法学,2016,(3):18.
[3] 江伟,肖建国.民事诉讼法[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2018.59.
[4] 张卫平. 民事诉讼基本模式:转换与选择之根据[J].法学论坛,1996,(6):16.
[5] 肖建国. 司法公正的理念与制度研究[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2006.
[6] (日)坂田宏.民事訴訟における処分権主義[M].東京:有斐閣,2001.
[7] (德)迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M].邵建东译.北京:法律出版社,2013.
[8] 廖永安,崔峰.当事人诉讼行为与民事法律行为关系考[J].法律科学(西北政法学院学报),2004,(1):83.
[9] (日)新堂幸司.新民事诉讼法[M].林剑锋译.北京:法律出版社,2008.303.
[10] 姜世明. 民事诉讼法基础论[M].台北:元照出版有限公司,2018.149.
[11] 邱联恭. 口述民事诉讼法讲义(三)[M].台北:元照出版有限公司,2017.
[12] 陈桂明,李仕春.论诉讼上的抵销[J].法学研究,2005,(5):55.
[13] 王泽鉴. 法律思维与民法实例[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.174.
[14] 王利明. 民法总则研究(第二卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012.437.
[15] 尹腊梅. 民事抗辩权研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2008.
[16] 钟淑健. 民事抗辩权及其基本规则研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.
[17] (德)罗森贝克,施瓦布,戈特瓦尔德.德国民事诉讼法(下)[M].李大雪译.北京:中国法制出版社,2007.
[18] (日)近江幸治.民法讲义Ι民法总则[M].渠涛等译.北京:北京大学出版社,2015.310-312.
[19] (德)卡尔·拉伦茨.德国民法通论(上册)[M].王晓晔等译.北京:法律出版社,2013.329-331.
[20] (韩)孙汉琦.韩国民事诉讼法导论[M].陈刚译.北京:中国法制出版社,2010.168.
[21] 李木贵. 民事诉讼法(上)[M].台北:元照出版有限公司,2010.6-21,6-23.
[22] (德)奥特马·尧厄尼希.民事诉讼法[M].周翠译.北京:法律出版社,2003.126,127,233-234.
[23] (日)山本敬三.民法讲义Ι总则[M].解亘译.北京:北京大学出版社,2015.477.
[24] 段文波. 规范出发型民事判决构造论[M].北京:法律出版社,2012.
[25] 刘哲玮. 论诉讼抵销在中国法上的实现路径[J].现代法学,2019,(1):151.
[26] (德)莱奥·罗森贝克.证明责任论——以德国民法典和民事诉讼法典为基础撰写[M].庄敬华译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.115.
[27] 王利明. 合同法研究(第二卷)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012.83-84.
[28] 韩世远. 合同法总论[M].北京:法律出版社,2015.296.
[29] 邵明. 正当程序中的实现真实——民事诉讼证明法理之现代阐释[M].北京:法律出版社,2009.309.
[30] 梁展新. 民法与民事诉讼法的协同[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2015.246-247.
[31] (日)中村英郎.新民事诉讼法讲义[M].陈刚,林剑锋,郭美松译.北京:法律出版社,2001.178.
[32] 苏志强. 民事诉讼律师强制代理:当事人主义诉讼模式的一种修正机制[J].政治与法律,2019,(12):20.
[33] 丁启明.德国民事诉讼中的强制律师代理制度[N].人民法院报,2015-09-18(08).
[34] 张卫平. 民事诉讼“释明”概念的展开[J].中外法学,2006,(2):135.
[35] 张海燕. 论法官对民事实体抗辩的释明[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2017,(3):183.
[36] 任重. 我国民事诉讼释明边界问题研究[J].中国法学,2018,(6):229.
[37] (日)高桥宏志.民事诉讼法制度与理论的深层分析[M].林剑锋译.北京:法律出版社,2003.366-367. |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 39 
