earticle

영어

A successful evidence theory must explain or provide a plausible account for "Evidence Rules", "Facts" and "Proof Process". In traditional Chinese evidence scholarship system, it failed to explain or guild the rethinking of the rules of evidence. During the period of legal recovery after The Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee, due to the urgent demanding of reality to rebuild or creat the entire evidence rules system , in some extent the evidentiary practice was in chaos, and these situations was accompanied by separately local legislation, namely, many parts of the rules of evidence shows contradiction between the huge number of rules in the law and a few less of them that can be used effectively. As well as in different types of litigation, the confliction also exists in the different legal transplant system between Criminal Procedure Law and Civil Procedure Law; In Facts research level, adhering to the traditional research method of law, called Doctrinal Scholarship, which limited the deep understanding of the facts, and the research essentially focused on the rules itself, which caused the ossified explanation of facts, as well as these incoherence between related rules and theoretical research method; In the proof process, the traditional "subjective understanding correspond to the reality" still was prevalent in the court. The specter of the “objectivism” makes the study of proof process never touch the core of the problem. In a word, these problems fully exposed the weakness of this old system of evidentiary theory research. Although China traditional evidence theory scholarship, or the old system is gradually criticized by researchers for the above problems, there are giving birth to some new idea and conception about new evidence scholarship. Especially Evidence Science and its practice--to promote the research about the evidence theory and interdisciplinary range of structure optimization, to promote the diversified proof transformation, and the further development of epistemological research—reveal a new trend and development of China exclusive or even common sense of evidentiary scholarship.

중국어

對“規則制度”、“事實”、“證明活動”的描述與闡釋構成了評判證據理論研究的重要內容。中國傳統證據理論研究體系在這三個方面存在著不同程度的問題，在證據規則方面，十一屆三中全會後的法制恢復時期，因迫切的現實需求，造成了整個證據規則體系倉促的重建或創設，體系規則粗疏，實踐適用混亂，而伴隨著地方性的或多部門的分別立法，證據規則表現出了數量龐雜與無可依循的矛盾，以及在不同的訴訟類型中，刑隨英美與民效德法間的矛盾；在事實研究層面，秉承教義學研究（Doctrinal Scholarship）方法的傳統法學研究模式，限制了對事實問題的深刻認識，而實質上專注規則的研究現狀，導致了僵化的對事實的認識，以及相關規則與理論研究間的不融貫性；在證明活動中，傳統的“主觀認識符合案件客觀事實”的法庭認識局限，使得圍繞證明的研究始終未能觸及這一問題的根本，也充分暴露了舊的證據理論研究體系的學科封閉性弱點。儘管中國證據理論研究傳統的，或者說舊的體系正逐漸暴露出上述的問題，但孕育其中的新的理念與萌芽——證據科學概念的提出與踐行，推動和促進著證據理論研究的跨學科範圍的結構優化、向多樣化證明的轉變、立體化證據整理策略的適用以及認識論基礎的深入發展——從而揭示出了中國本土的甚至普遍意義上的證據理論研究發展的新趨勢。