Procedural Jurisprudence Explained By The Judge

Article 35 of the old "Provisions of Evidence",as the rudiment of my country’s interpretation rules,made preliminary provisions for the interpretation of relevant litigation claims.However,in practice,due to the vague interpretation standards,the disputes on the interpretation targets,and the inconsistent methods of judicial judgment,the application of this rule exposes the issue of judges breaking through their neutral status,and the parties’ right to dispose of,and the right to debate,etc.,to be impaired.The fundamental reason is that there is a tendency to materialize in the definition and interpretation of the purpose,and the emphasis is on adopting substantive standards to guide practice.Article 53 of the new Evidence Regulations amended the interpretation rules,and established a dialogue mechanism between the judge and the plaintiff and the defendant through the trial of focus issues,highlighting the protection of the parties’ procedural interests.Achieving the correct understanding and application of the rules of interpretation must be based on a clear understanding of the procedural legal principles.According to the requirements of due process,the purpose of interpretation should be to enrich the parties’ right to debate,to help the parties to correctly exercise the right of punishment,and to prevent raid judgments;The boundaries of interpretation should still be bound by the basic principles of argumentation and cannot go beyond the facts stated by the parties.At the same time,the interpretation of the norms must also give the parties the minimum procedural guarantees.The main body consists of five parts.The first part explains the core issues and research ideas of this article.By examining the existing problems in Article 35 of the old Evidence Regulations in judicial practice,and sorting out the inadequate understanding of the purpose of interpretation in the existing research,we can know the purpose of interpretation from the perspective of procedure,and then the specific rules of interpretation Making corrections can be described as pertinent.Accordingly,Article 53 of the new Evidence Regulations came into being.In order to realize the correct understanding and application of this regulation,the article uses procedural jurisprudence as an analysis tool to conduct explanatory research,hoping to clarify that the practical application of rules conforms to the expectations of due process.In the second part,after reflecting on the substantive tendency of the purpose of interpretation,under the perspective of due process,and from the perspective of the essential characteristics and functions of interpretation,the purpose of interpretation is re-interpreted-interpretation must The purpose is to respect and protect the parties’ right to debate and disposition,and to achieve the purpose of clarifying and preventing adjudication raids through the judge’s timely public evidence.At the same time,this part demonstrates the meaning and realization of the above-mentioned purpose.The third part defines the boundaries of interpretation based on the requirements of due process.The purpose of interpretation under the substantive standard will cause the judge to over-intervene in the litigation and ignore the party’s procedural subject status,break through the basic principle of argumentation,and create a situation where everything can be explained.The correct positioning of interpretation should be an amendment or supplement to debate doctrine,so the judge should still limit the interpretation to the facts stated by the parties.In addition,when the plaintiff refuses to change the litigation request,how the judge conducts the judgment within the specified boundary should also be included in the scope of research.This part combines case studies since the implementation of the new Evidence Regulations,and closely follows the analytical tool of procedural jurisprudence,and analyzes and demonstrates different adjudication methods in different situations.The fourth part studies the procedural safeguards of the parties in the interpretation process.In order to achieve the purpose of interpretation and the proper procedures,judges must give the parties the minimum procedural guarantees when they play their active role in questioning and prompting,including giving the parties full hearing requests and perfecting remedies for improper interpretation.The fifth part analyzes the understanding and application of Article 53 of the new "Evidence Regulations" under the guidance of the above-mentioned normative purposes and combined with specific cases in practice.The change in the period of proof was demonstrated.