Some Problems about the Evidence of Civil Action and the Corresponding Improvement

Dongdong Zhao

2003-01-01

Abstract:There exist some disadvantages about the distribution of the responsibility for proof materials, the putting of case to proof, and the judicial authentication and reasoning in the trial of civil action. Evidence Stipulation makes some concerned rules to compensate for and improve upon the contents of Civil Procedure Act.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Public Cases, Authentication Opinions, and Amendments to Law of Criminal Procedure

Hu Ming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8860.2012.04.020

2012-01-01

Abstract:Public cases with major social impact in recent years reflect issues in China's authentication system.Lack of public credibility in authentication opinions,lack of right to know and right to act of on the part of clients,and reluctant attitude of public security and judicial authorities towards court appearance of authentication appraisers,all these issues are hindering the perfection of China's authentication system.We should take the opportunity of amendments to Law of Criminal Procedure,with the guidance of proper legal principle,in an effort to perfect relevant system concerning authentication opinions used as scientific evidence.
Current status, obstacles and advice for improvement on expert assistant system

Guangjun Pan,Ji Chen,Ming Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-1226.2014.06.006

2014-01-01

Abstract:The expert assessor, which has been set up by the new Criminal Procedure Law, has great inlfuence on improving the quality of expert opinion, revolving the hearing process and the evidence system. However, the expert assessor has little effect since it is implemented because the relevant provisions in the new Criminal Procedure Law are ambiguous. The survey of legal professionals shows that they have quite big disagreements on the litigation status and opinions of the expert assessor. Therefore, in order to consummate the expert assessor system, we should deifnite the independent status of the expert assessor and guarantee the expert assessor can take part in the hearing process. Only in this way can the institutional design reach the ideal status.
Modification of Civil Procedure Law and Improvement of Civil Evidence System

Zhang Wei-ping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19563/j.cnki.sdzs.2012.03.007

2012-01-01

Abstract:Based on The Civil Procedure Law Amendment,this essay discusses several important issues about revising and improving Civil Evidence System.First,the author discusses the basic perspectives of Civil Evidence System adjustment during the modification of Civil Procedure Law,he argues that the modification and adjustment of Civil Evidence System should base on the construction of Evidence System’s structure.Second,the author raises questions about provision of evidence categories especially evidence sequence and presents his own opinion.Third,the author puts forward criticism as well as constructive suggestions about perfection of witness system,he argues that provision of reserving unit witness is inappropriate.Fourth,with regard to Amendment,he proposes different opinion about countermeasures of preventing proof delay and argues that time limit system of evidence should be confirmed.Fifth,he also analyzes the exemption items in civil evidence.Last but not least,he gives demonstration to the fundamental norms of documents command system which is the legal measure effectively coping"partial evidence".
Analyze on Countermeasures to Delay of Evidence Submission in Civil Procedures

Zhang Weiping

2012-01-01

Abstract:Taking the opportunity of a thorough study on the evidence system of Civil Procedural Law,this paper reexamines the present system of time limitation on evidence submission,and analyzes the influential proposed amendments or alternatives.The author maintains that,the present regulation on time limitation on evidence submission and the legal effect of elapse of time limitation on evidence submission in the preparatory stage of civil procedure should remain unchanged;however,the subjective intension of the party should be considered as the condition of denial of evidence submission when the elapse of time limitation occurs,so as to relax the tension among the prevention of delay of evidence submission,promotion of the litigation efficiency and realization of justice.Furthermore,the effective operation of the time limitation on evidence submission depends on the reform of judicial systems.In a judicial environment where the judge has judicial power but the judgment has no authority,the time limitation system on evidence submission would not operate smoothly.
The Burden of Proof in Civil Procedure

Yaxin Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-1226.2014.01.010

2014-01-01

Abstract:This article about the burden of proof and some related problems comes from one part of author’s recent writing civil procedure law textbook. Considering basic concepts on the burden of proof, general theories and the acceptance of these theories in our civil procedure system, this essay continues to reveal how burden of proof in reverse and mitigation on burden of proof contribute to the civil legislation and judicial practice in China. However, the author prefers to link these contents with the speciifc scene of civil judicial practice rather than focus on exact deifnitions or new theories, and tries to make a brief analysis of related basic knowledge.
A Tentative Exploration into the Feasibility of Administration of Justice's Interference with Domestic Violence

李华

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-3698.2003.02.007

2003-01-01

Abstract:This article tends to discuss whether a country should interfere with domestic violence cases. Through introducing America s legislative and judicial reforms and development in the aspect of domestic violence and centering on the dispute about the famous not renouncing prosecution policy, the essay points out although there are some certain faults in the administration of justice's interference with domestic violence in China, in general, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, hence, it is reasonable and practicable.
The General Principles of the Distribution of Burden of Proof in the Civil Procedure in P.R.China

Weng Xiao-bin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2003.04.010

2003-01-01

Abstract:The main content of this article is clearing up systematically and commenting on the general principles of the distribution of burden of proof in the civil procedure. In part one of the article, by analysis of the statements of other scholars, the author points out why article 1,section 2 of the Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings enacted by the Supreme Court has set up the general principles of burden of proof but not only did it dictate the general principles on distribution of burden of proof. In part two, the author has released the nature of the distribution of burden of proof which includes two main propositions: first, the burden of proof is imposed on the party who lodges a complaint based on certain facts meanwhile the other is responsible to testify the fact of pleading; second, the first mentioned proposition is an essential requirement of substantial law. Part three of the article concerns on the applied theoretic methodology of general principles of the distribution of burden of proof. The author recommends that the legal element taxonomy should be the principal choice and the author underlines that other theories may also apply in certain cases. In the last part, the author pays close attention to the exception of the general principals, that is to say, the issue of conversion of the burden of proof. The author finds that the general principles of the distribution of burden of proof can apply to most special tort cases listed by the current judicial interpretation and the conversion of the burden of proof is exceptional one which may apply in limited instances. 
Frontiers of the Civil Procedural Law Theory

Zhang Weiping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9428.2006.05.033

2006-01-01

Abstract:System is the most important issue in amending the civil procedural law:whether the evidence rule is necessary to keep in future code;retrial system,execution system and noncontentious proceedings need to be discussed in further;the bankrupt proceedings should be eliminated from the civil procedural law;and it should add personal procedure,trial of lave, small claims,litigation cost,revoke a suit by third party,and action of commercial instrument.In addition,it should ameliorate the system of commencement of action,principle of no matter is trialed twice,burden of proof,and procuratorial supervision to the civil procedure.
Reflect on the System of Evidence Spoliation in Civil Procedure —Perspective on Theory, Practice and System Optimization

Jing-ru HAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-769X.2012.06.004

2012-01-01

Abstract:The issue of evidence spoliation,as the focus of evidence system reform,is becoming an increasingly serious and universal trend.Taking this experiential fact as the object of study,following the logical route of issues identification,classification,causes exploration,theoretical foundation analysis and optimal measures design,to reflect on the features,causes and current system of evidence spoliation from the dimensions of theory,practice and legal norm as well as from both domestic and foreign perspectives.Under the revising background of the Civil Procedure Law of PRC,it is worthwhile to put forward some conducive and constructive ideas on the evidence spoliation system innovation through analyzing the concept,types,legitimacy and validity of evidence spoliation actions while corresponding to the current situation and indigenous resources of China.Further,on that basis,to promote the improvement of evidence system and advance the harmony relationship between judicial procedures and evidence rules.
The Differences of Standard Proof in the Civil Proceedings in Common Law and Civil Law and Their Reasons

Lou Zheng-qian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-0453.2004.03.002

2004-01-01

Abstract:For the improvement of standard proof in the civil proceedings, we need to study the related law in common law and civil law.The criterion in the common law is preponderance of probability, but it is highly probable in the civil law, at the same time they have respective exception.The reasons that result in these differences primarily consist in the history traditions and the theories.
Basic Research on the Transfer of Burden of Proof

Chen Hao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6274.2011.04.016

2011-01-01

Abstract:The burden of proof is the backbone of the theory of civil procedural theory,the transfer of burden of proof is the core of the civil case processes.For one fact which is waiting to be proved,the objective burden of proof is allocated to one party permanently.The party is forced to provide evidence first because of the risk of losing the case,so the starting point of the transfer of burden of proof is established.Later,the evaluation of evidence fluctuated constantly between True,False or Unknown,the transfer of burden of proof starts from one party to another in a case.The quantity of evidence increase constantly,the probative force of evidence rises alternately,so facts of the case become clear eventually.
The Practical Interaction and Institutional Coordination between Burden of Proof,Standard of Proof and Evaluation of Proof

DUAN Hou-sheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-4608-B.2007.03.004

2007-01-01

Abstract:There are interaction and mutual restraint between the three institutions in evidence law,namely,burden of proof,standard of proof and evaluation of proof.The manipulation of one of the three institutions can influence the effect of the other two.The basic ideas to harmonize and optimize the relations among the three in terms of institutions are spread in two aspects—one is to make the design of institutions closer to the practice in China and the other is to make the practical manipulation more conformed to the purpose of institutions.
Distribution,Inversion and Shift of Burden of Proof:In Perspective of Civil Litigation

Cheng Chun-hua

2008-01-01

Abstract:Distribution of burden of proof is center of centers in civil evidence institution.In order of importance of the substantial standards,distribution of burden of proof is subject to:(1)provisions of substantive law(including judicial interpretation and subsidiary statutes of substantive law,and latent law);(2)agreement of the parties;(3)customary rules;and(4)principle of justice or good faith.Both reversion and shift of burden of proof are designed to remedy misapplication of general distribution principles.Their difference lies in that reversion of burden of proof is described by law while shift of burden of proof is decided by a judge with his/her discretion in specific cases.
Online Testimony In Chinese Civil Litigation

XIN JIE CUI,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22397/wlri.2024.40.2.61

2024-06-30

Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute

Abstract:The role of witnesses in uncovering the truth of a case is very important, and witness appearances in court hold significant meaning in civil litigation. However, witnesses often hesitate to appear due to a lack of time or the court being located far away. Additionally, fear of retaliation from the parties involved leads many witnesses to refuse to testify in court. This results in a low rate of witness appearances, which is recognized as a serious issue in Chinese civil litigation. The advancement of internet technology offers a solution to this problem. By allowing witnesses to testify online, it saves time and costs associated with testifying, and reduces direct contact between witnesses and parties, effectively protecting the safety of witnesses. Therefore, this method of online testimony provides a potential solution to increase witness court appearance rates. However, the current online testimony method has issues such as unclear nature, difficulty in accurately verifying witness identity, and challenges in ensuring the credibility of the testimony. To resolve these issues, it is first necessary to legally clarify the online testimony method as a form of court appearance testimony. Additionally, measures to strengthen the verification of witness identity should be implemented. For example, legislative measures to clearly define penalties for identity theft of witnesses, reinforcing judges' obligations to verify identities, and directly connecting online litigation platforms with systems of third-party agencies like police and administrative authorities to facilitate thorough identity verification. Such measures will prevent identity theft and accurately confirm the identity of witnesses, thus protecting the legitimate rights and interests of parties and enhancing the fairness and efficiency of litigation. Furthermore, to strengthen the credibility of testimony, the following measures can be considered: 1. Establish an online oath system for witnesses, ensuring they understand the legal consequences of false testimony. 2. Emphasize the importance of adhering to court order, ensuring that witnesses follow the same rules online as they would in an offline court. 3. Adhere to the principle of isolated examination, preventing witnesses from being influenced by other witnesses or participants. 4. Utilize the cross-examination method from common law systems to enhance the credibility of testimonies. In conclusion, the method of online testimony can be a useful tool to increase witness court appearance rates, but effective utilization requires legal, technical, and institutional improvements.
The Rules of Evidence in Procedural Adjudication

CHEN Ruihua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16094/j.cnki.1005-0221.2011.03.012

2011-01-01

JURIST

Abstract:In the field of procedural adjudication,the issue to be resolved by the Court is not whether to establish the allegations of the prosecution or not,but how to settle the procedural disputes raised by the two parties.In this activity of the judicial adjudication,the accused will generally not face the danger of unfounded and unfair conviction,resulting in non-function of the presumption of innocence,therefore the activities of judicial proof need not to follow the guidelines for strict identification.At present,Chinese law has preliminarily established the mechanisms of procedural adjudication in the field of exclusionary rules of illegal evidence.Correspondingly,a series of rules of evidence need to be established,so as to set a series of rules of evidence access,burden of proof and standard of proof,which are different from that in substantive adjudication.With the gradual development of the procedural adjudication,such rules of evidence would also get a corresponding elaboration.
Constructivism of Civil Procedure with Argumentation on Proceedings and Trials: And Advice on Revision and Promotion of Civil Procedural Law

Duan Hou-sheng

2012-01-01

Abstract:In the fact that lack of social consensus constitutes the main national conditions,the constructivism shall play a leading role to agglomerate consensus on verdicts and judgments and to patch up social rift.We may consider Habermas' legal philosophy of argumentation as the methodology of building up the constructivism,and thus to construct a procedure to facilitate argumentation between the proceedings and the trials,and to promote the consensus basis of the verdicts and judgments through application of such argumentation.In view of the imperfect civil procedure being enforced and executed at present,measures shall be taken urgently to modify and improve such procedure,especially to regulate additionally the judges' obligations to make their mental testimony public at any time and to fully clarify their legal points of view,so as to promote argumentation between the proceedings and trials,and thus to easily reach verdicts and judgments on the base of the consensus of the proceedings and trials.
Civil Procedural Duties System in the Modern Society: A Research on the Different Roles of Judges and Parties in Clarifying Facts of Cases

Zhou Cui

2012-01-01

Abstract:Judges and parties play the different roles in clarifying facts of cases;thereby the civil procedures can basically be classified to three models worldwide: the Dialog Procedure in Germany,the Adversary System in the USA and the Cooperative Adversary Process in Japan.Comparatively,in the German civil justice system,which encourages the dialog between judges and parties and follows the principle of party presentation,judges play an active role and take the responsibility of materielleProzessleitungspflicht in the civil proceedings,which greatly contributes to the concentration of the trial procedure and represents the trend of the modern civil procedure development.The judges in China play an active role historically,but now this "active" role has to be adapted from the inquiry system to the party-presentation system.So we are facing the following questions: What role should Chinese judges play during the clarifying of the facts in issues? Should the cooperation duty,the duty of truth,the duty to accelerate the process and etc.be applied in China? The answers will be also important to improve the confession,the evidence-presenting limits and the abuse of litigation.Only with the help of the procedural duty system it can be guaranteed that every action will be determined justly,speedily and intensively.
Simplified Trial:Challenges and Responses in the Reform Process

Sun Guoxiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9428.2008.05.002

2008-01-01

Abstract:The implementation of the simplified trial of general criminal cases improved the efficiency of procedure, however because of the lack of accessorial system and the understanding bias, many obstacles exist in the practice and the procedural rights and substantial interests of the accused are often out of guarantee. Some problems appeared technical reflect the balance and choice between the impartiality and the efficiency. The ongoing practice of simplified trial should be ameliorated with the advance of the evidence discovery system, the legal aid system and the criminal law.
New Doctrine of Legal Evidence

Chen Ruihua

2012-01-01

Abstract:The doctrine of regulating the weight of evidence prevails in Chinese evidence legislation,namely the new doctrine of legal evidence.Accordingly,Chinese evidence law establishes many regulatory rules based upon the different weight of evidence.In particular,the different weight of evidence,including direct evidence and indirect evidence,original evidence and unoriginal evidence,testimony and written testimony,are prescribed in evidence law.Besides,the relationship between witness and case is also a necessary consideration when determining the weight of relevant evidence.Meanwhile,evidence law emphasizes that evidence should be verified mutually,otherwise they might be excluded.As for the standard of fact-finding,many objective standards,such as verifying mutually,corroboration of confession,system of proof and exclusiveness of any other possibility,are established for judges' discretion.The priority for genuine evidence,limitation of discretionary power and the tendency of inquisition and administration in criminal procedure are the three main reasons for the new doctrine of legal evidence.Although it seems practicable and reasonable in current situation,this new doctrine has brought about many adverse impacts as well.For example,this doctrine confuses the weight of evidence and its competence,makes some individual thumb rules and logic rules become the universal rules inappropriately,formalizes the process of admitting evidence and fact-finding if some rules were obeyed strictly,and leads to the abuse of discretionary power in order to meet the required standards of proof.In order to improve Chinese evidence legislation in the future,we have to rethink about the new doctrine of legal evidence and its related statute laws,and try to eliminate the systematic and cultural factors causing this doctrine.
On the Legitimation of Scientific Evidence

Chong-yi FAN,Yong-sheng CHEN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16700/j.cnki.cn41-1157/c.2005.02.018

2005-01-01

Abstract:As the judicial reform strongly emphasizes human rights protection, to prescribe scientific evidence in the criminal procedure law is very important for the balance of crime control and human rights protection. The evolution of scientific evidence has undergone a long history. In order to prevent scientific evidence from inflicting too much impairment on civil rights, we should prescribe the requirement and procedure of the scientific evidence strictly in the legislation.

Some Problems about the Evidence of Civil Action and the Corresponding Improvement

Public Cases, Authentication Opinions, and Amendments to Law of Criminal Procedure

Current status, obstacles and advice for improvement on expert assistant system

Modification of Civil Procedure Law and Improvement of Civil Evidence System

Analyze on Countermeasures to Delay of Evidence Submission in Civil Procedures

The Burden of Proof in Civil Procedure

A Tentative Exploration into the Feasibility of Administration of Justice's Interference with Domestic Violence

The General Principles of the Distribution of Burden of Proof in the Civil Procedure in P.R.China

Frontiers of the Civil Procedural Law Theory

Reflect on the System of Evidence Spoliation in Civil Procedure —Perspective on Theory, Practice and System Optimization

The Differences of Standard Proof in the Civil Proceedings in Common Law and Civil Law and Their Reasons

Basic Research on the Transfer of Burden of Proof

The Practical Interaction and Institutional Coordination between Burden of Proof,Standard of Proof and Evaluation of Proof

Distribution,Inversion and Shift of Burden of Proof:In Perspective of Civil Litigation

Online Testimony In Chinese Civil Litigation

The Rules of Evidence in Procedural Adjudication

Constructivism of Civil Procedure with Argumentation on Proceedings and Trials: And Advice on Revision and Promotion of Civil Procedural Law

Civil Procedural Duties System in the Modern Society: A Research on the Different Roles of Judges and Parties in Clarifying Facts of Cases

Simplified Trial:Challenges and Responses in the Reform Process

New Doctrine of Legal Evidence

On the Legitimation of Scientific Evidence