The Western Samples And Chinese Path Of The Obligation To Provide Factual Information

With the rapid development of economy and society and the increasing number of modern litigations,based on the needs of fairness and efficiency,all countries in the world are faced with perfect evidence collection procedures,increasing the evidence collection methods of the parties,and requiring the parties who do not bear the burden of proof to provide corresponding assistance.In this respect,the common law system headed by the United States created a duty to issue evidence,while the civil law countries such as Germany and Japan developed an exceptional case-solving obligation.As far as China is concerned,the Supreme People’s Court tried to deal with this issue by formulating judicial interpretations,using the inversion of the burden of proof,proof of obstruction,legal presumption,and reduction of proof.But the question is,can these strategies solve the problems and propositions that the parties face,and can the obligations of the case be even added to this strategy group? Looking back at many changes in China’s civil litigation legislation,although the legislators are trying to restore the substantive equality between the two parties,there are still many shortcomings,which leaves room for us to introduce a case-solving system.In a nutshell,based on the two perspectives of burden reduction and court-centeredness,in order to promote real discovery,equal arms and centralized trials,consideration should be given to introducing accountability obligations.Based on legal culture,legal awareness,trial methods,legal occupations and other factors,it is impossible for China to choose the generalization of the evidence system of the Anglo-American legal system.Starting from China’s civil litigation model,proof of responsibility system,and trial mode,it is the most reasonable way to choose the exception law of the civil law system to resolve the obligation.In order to maximize the function of this system,under the premise of rational internal system design,it is necessary to strengthen the judge’s obligation to explain and the obligations of the parties to court,set up claims and denial of specific obligations,and improve the pre-trial preparation procedures.The facts of the parties’ cases are clear and the obligation system enters a benign development track.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this article is divided into five parts:The first part analyzes the status quo and prospects of the obligations of the parties in China.For the national civil law scholars,the system is actually no stranger.At the level of civil legislation and judicial practice,although the current Civil Procedure Law and judicial interpretation have made certain restrictions on the parties’ clarification obligations,the Supreme People’s Court has also developed some strategies to deal with the parties’ claims and proofs.However,the existing means are not sufficient to solve the above dilemma,and the parties lack the means of evidence collection.In order to promote real discovery and centralized trial,it may consider introducing the obligation to resolve the case.The second part is to sort out the obligation model of the typical representative of the civil law system.In Germany,although Stürner’s general case of clarification of the obligation theory has a significant impact,it has not been accepted by the mainstream German academic and practical circles.In the judicial practice,the German Federal Court of Appeal adopted the unique case factual clarification obligation from the attribute claim and the proof responsibility.Similar to Germany,most Japanese literature also believes that the obligation to resolve a case is a specific factual statement and evidence-based obligation derived from the principle of good faith.It is a special case to resolve the obligation.The third part is to investigate and analyze the obligation system of the representative case of the common law system.The US obligation to issue evidence can be divided into a unilateral disclosure obligation and an antagonistic disclosure obligation.If the obligation is violated,the judge has various sanctions.However,due to the wide disclosure,many drawbacks have been brought about,and the scope of the obligation to issue evidence has gradually narrowed.In a nutshell,the common law countries try to jump out of the thinking mode of the procedural law based on the substantive legal relationship.Usually,the parties are not allowed to conceal the unfavorable facts and evidence.Most of them use the general case facts to resolve their obligations.The fourth part analyzes the basis of the construction of the obligation model of the two major legal systems.In the face of almost the same subject,the two major legal systems have made two distinct choices,namely,the solvency of the exception case and the obligation of the general case.The reason for this is that it is based on both the normative and fact-based thinking modes,parallel trials and centralized trials.The jury,referees and attorneys with special status in the common law system play in the trial.The different roles,as well as the different legal traditions and legal culture and many other factors.In the fifth part,the design case explains the detailed implementation path of the Sinicization of the obligation system.The above analysis of the basis for the construction of the obligation model for different cases is ultimately to serve the theme of Sinicization.Based on legal culture,legal awareness,trial methods,legal occupations and other factors,China should choose the exceptions of the civil law system to resolve obligations.After that,determine the scope of application,the applicable requirements and applicable content,and grasp the boundaries of their application.Furthermore,with the establishment of the relevant supporting system,we will achieve a good operation of the obligation to resolve the case.