Study On The Potency Of Opinions Of People With Specific Knowledge In The Perspective Of Civil Procedure

Currently, judicial authentication is the main method in China to settle professional and technical problems in civil cases. However, the scope of application of judicial authentication is limited according to the current norm. That is to say, judicial authentication is not available to every professional and technical problem in civil cases. Judges who are lack of professional and technical skills are confronted with decision and judgment of such professional and technical problems in civil cases, along with more and more cases involving original and technical problems arising, especially in the field of intellectual property, medical malpractice, financial trade and environment. Besides, judicial authentication enjoys superpower in judicial practice in that the exercise of judgment relies a lot on judicial authentication and in this sense, judicial authentication has the power to predict the result of judgment in a case, which is against the principle of unpredictability. Against this background, legal institutions concerned need to be probed into, modified and optimized.“People with specific knowledge” are legally allowed to enter civil procedure since Article 61 stipulates in Some Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures. The number of studies concerning expert systems in mainland China is on the rise. The judicial practice with regard to the “people with specific knowledge” in mainland China is still in the juvenile stage. Theoretical studies and judicial practice in the system of “people with specific knowledge” is restricted in some sense. Lots of professionals and experts in academic circles as well as in theory fields come up with various ideas about the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge”. However, when I study the different ideas about the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge”, I find that there is rarely no thesis which specializes in the study of the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge”. Therefore, I studied articles, theses, papers and other literature publicly available which focuses on or refers to the system of “people with specific knowledge”, summarized some representative and constructive opinions and analyzed the differences and similarities among these opinions while made an effort to uncover the reason behind the controversy over the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge”. In the process of analyzing and uncovering the reasons behind the controversy, I probed into the foundation of the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge” and came up with my considerations and proposals with regard to the improvement and optimization of institutions concerned.This dissertation is divided in to three chapters. The first chapter is subdivided into two sections. The first section mainly focuses on concept definition of “people with specific knowledge” and the difference with other related concepts; The second section deals with legislative status quo, representative academic reviews, current judicial practice and my view of the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge”. The second chapter is about main reasons behind the current controversy over the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge”. This chapter is subdivided into five sections. The first section deals with the existing problems in judicial authentication; The second section deals with problems in current categories of legal evidence; The third section deals with problems in introducing foreign legal institutions; The fourth section deals with problems in current legislative files related to “people with specific knowledge” in China; The last section of this chapter points out potential problems in judicial practice. The third chapter mainly focuses on the foundation of the potency of opinions of “people with specific knowledge” and came up with my considerations and proposals with regard to the improvement and optimization of institutions concerned. The third chapter is subdivided into three sections. The first section deals with coexisting status of institutions of experts in the field of civil litigation. The second section deals with my suggestions to perfect the current categories of legal evidence, especially statement of the parties. The last section is my proposals with regard to the improvement and optimization of institutions of “people with specific knowledge”.