预决力批判与事实性证明效展开:已决事实效力论

The Criticism of Prepotency and the Development of Factual Effect of Evidence: the Theory on Decided Fact Effect

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

段文波

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

段文波

摘要：

关于确定判决中的事实认定对后诉的效力,学说上有预决力、非预决力以及证明效三种观点。我国理论实为承袭苏联法"预决性"的概念躯壳,以免证效力为内实,本质上系法定证明效。该规定弊端丛生,损害了法官认定事实的独立性,褫夺了后诉当事人的接受裁判权且有违程序保障的基本要求。就利用方法而言,判决书可作为书证,对后诉法官认定事实理应产生一定影响,但不宜由法律硬性规定其证明力强弱。从立法论上来说,今后应当废除已决事实免证效力规定,将已决事实评价放归法官自由心证评价。

语种：

中文

出版日期：

2015-09-10

学科：

诉讼法学

收录：

CSSCI

提交日期：

2018-01-11

引用参考：

段文波. 预决力批判与事实性证明效展开:已决事实效力论[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2015(05):106-114.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 预决力批判与事实性证明效展开:已决事实效力论
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 段文波
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Duan Wenbo
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学法学院;
  • dc.publisher
  • 法律科学(西北政法大学学报)
  • dc.publisher
  • Science of Law(Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law)
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2015
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 05
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.33;No.213
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 106-114
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2015-09-10
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 已决事实;;预决力;;程序保障;;证明效
  • dc.subject
  • decided facts;;pre-determined effect;;procedural protection;;evidential effect;;the criticism of pre-determined effect and the development of factual evidential effect;;the theory on predetermined effect of the decided facts.
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 关于确定判决中的事实认定对后诉的效力,学说上有预决力、非预决力以及证明效三种观点。我国理论实为承袭苏联法"预决性"的概念躯壳,以免证效力为内实,本质上系法定证明效。该规定弊端丛生,损害了法官认定事实的独立性,褫夺了后诉当事人的接受裁判权且有违程序保障的基本要求。就利用方法而言,判决书可作为书证,对后诉法官认定事实理应产生一定影响,但不宜由法律硬性规定其证明力强弱。从立法论上来说,今后应当废除已决事实免证效力规定,将已决事实评价放归法官自由心证评价。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • As to the impact of the fact- finding in the declaratory judgment on the latter suits,some scholars argue about its pre- determined effect while others consider it as evidence. In China,the theory on the pre- determined effect inherits the concept of " pre- determination" from the Soviet Law. The theory frees the decided fact in the former judgment from reconfirmation and essentially considers it as evidence with legal evidential effect. Such theory has many defects. It destroys the independence of the judge on finding fact and deprives of the right of the parties on receiving judgment in latter suits,violating the basic requirements of procedural justice. In terms of methodology,the verdict as documentary evidence should be effective to the judge of the latter suits,but its evidential value not be formulated by law. In terms of legislation,the regulation of emancipating the decided facts from proving should be repealed,and the evaluation of the finding facts be made by the judge.
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2015年国家社科基金西部项目(15XFX037)“迈向制度理性的民事庭审阶段化构造研究”
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 61-1470/D
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1674-5205
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 1.621
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D915;D916.2
回到顶部