Research On The Individual Justice Evaluation Standard Of Civil Cases

The Decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18 th CPC Central Committee on "Implementing Several Issues Concerning the General Administration of the State According to Law" and the "Several Opinions on Deepening the People's Court Reform" of the Supreme People's Court and the report of the Nineteenth Congress clearly stated that the judicial actions should be further standardized and will be steadily advanced.To supervise judicial activities,we must accelerate the construction of a fair and highly efficient and authoritative socialist judicial system,earnestly safeguard the rights and interests of the broad masses of the people,and enable the masses of the people to feel fairness and justice in every judicial case.Introduce dialogue theory into civil lawsuits,propose fair evaluation criteria for civil cases under the visual field of dialogue,and test and promote the organic unity and integration of society through the establishment of a common dialogue platform to overcome the tradition of judges' monologues and ensure dialogue participants In the procedural space enjoys equal status and expresses opinions freely,so that the judgment of the court from the judge monologue to the judges,the parties and the public.To achieve the unity of substantive justice and procedural fairness,the unity of trial results and benefits,and the unification of legal effects and social effects.The judicial referee condenses the wisdom of judges,handling techniques,and referencing methods.However,due to the personalization of the evaluation criteria of court decisions,the recognition of the results of the referees varies.The study of fair evaluation standards for civil cases is an objective requirement for ensuring judicial justice,an inevitable requirement for guiding trial practice,and an objective requirement for safeguarding judicial reform.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the full text is divided into four parts:The first part is the significance analysis of the fair evaluation standards of civil cases.First of all,the concept of a fair evaluation standard for civil cases was proposed,and a clear definition was given to clarify its internal meaning.Secondly,it discusses the characteristics of the fair evaluation criteria of civil cases,categorizes different evaluation criteria,and introduces the dialogue theory into the field of fair evaluation of civil cases.The second part is an extraterritorial investigation of the fair evaluation standards of civil cases.Inspected the actual operation of the fair evaluation criteria for extraterritorial civil cases.The Anglo-American law countries established the fair standards of procedural justice.The civil law countries established the fair standards of substantive justice.They compared the specific systems of Britain,the United States,Germany,and Japan respectively.It draws lessons from the fact that the dialogue has played an important role in the pretrial preparation procedures of the aforementioned countries,the measures and means for the parties to collect evidence,the openness of the judges,and the promotion of the party's dialogue status.With the development of the international community,the evaluation criteria of the two major legal systems countries have converged.However,this is not enough for dialogue elements among litigation entities.Therefore,it is necessary to base ourselves on the fair evaluation mechanism of dialogue-style civil cases in China and to seriously consider and adjust them in due course.Modify and improve domestic legislation.The third part is the analysis of the status quo of the fair evaluation standards of civil cases in our country.This paper expounds the current status of China's civil case evaluation criteria and analyzes some difficulties in practice.It requires urgent breakthrough: At present,the criteria for the fair evaluation of civil cases in China is not clearly defined;the parties lack a sense of recognition for the outcome of specific case judgments;Due to the variability due to time and place,the traditional procedural ideology has made the status of the procuratorial case unequal;the general justice concerned by the legislature is also flawed when encountering individual case problems;in addition,there are procedurally imperfect procedures and judicial etiquette are not standardized.The problem exists.The fourth part is the improvement of the fair evaluation standards for civil cases in China.First of all,it analyzes and argues that the standard of case-by-case fair evaluation reflects the values of equality,freedom,reason,and self-government,as well as the effectiveness of program promotion,transparency of referee,balance of “two rights” relations,prevention of referee alienation,and achievement of substantive justice.Secondly,it proposes the path of fair evaluation criteria for dialogue cases.Starting from the perspective of how to better promote judges' right to exercise their rights and ensure litigants' litigation rights,the dialogue between litigation subjects needs to focus on finding the dialogue space in the existing system and overcoming the program setting.The tradition of referee judges and the protection of dialogue participants enjoy equal status in the procedural space,free expression of opinions,and from the establishment of the concept of dialogue and referee,improve the dialogue legislation,improve the dialogue process,etc.,so that the court judges from the judge to the judge,the parties and the society The general consensus of the masses eliminates misunderstandings between plural subjects and makes them believe that the conclusions made under this procedure are fair and acceptable.It has not only surpassed the one-way approach of “intervention and intervention”,but also overcome the process of bringing lawsuits to competition.It has transformed the process into a “party-oriented” litigation structure of strategic battles to ensure that the parties reach the public.Acceptable results of the referee peacefully resolved the litigation goals of the dispute.