In Chinese civil procedure law,the effect of an admission has always been the focus of theoretical research.When the parties admit the fact in court,it is still under dispute weather the matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established.The exclusion effect of an admission is the binding force of an admission on the court,and it is the foundation on which the system of self-confidence depends.However,the effect of an admission has not been recognized by my country’s civil procedure law,and there are still doubts in our country’s practice circles whether it can be granted to an admission as a matter of course.This reveals the problem of "acclimatization" in the process of localization of the self-confessed system.Looking back at the literature in the past,the research on the trial exclusion effect in Chinese academic circles is influenced by two distinct theories,the Soviet law and the German and Japanese law.Although the academic community has basically reached a consensus that an admission has the effect of trial exclusion,the theoretical viewpoints on key issues such as the standards established by self-confessed trial exclusion,the theoretical basis for self-confessed trial exclusion,and the relationship with the Soviet theory are vague.A certain trend of reflection based on the balance between the self-confessed system and the real obligation and the related theories of free evidence-in-chief appeared in the civil law countries,which made the theory of self-confessed trial exclusion to be impacted.On the other hand,in my country,the basic theoretical research on the exclusion effect of self-admission trial is seriously insufficient,which is reflected in the lack of research on the core connotation and the basis of legitimacy of the exclusion effect of self-admission,and also in the boundary theory related to the exclusion of self-admission.The refined analysis needs to be strengthened.Therefore,these questions will be the focus of this study.Using normative analysis,comparative analysis and empirical research methods,this paper takes the relevant theories of the Soviet Union,Germany and Japan as the reference object,and takes the judicial practice cases in my country as the support to analyze and discuss the origin,difficulties and future of my country’s establishment of self-confessed trial exclusion effect.way out.The first chapter points out the tendency of self-confession trial exclusion effect alienation in our country’s self-confession system.The investigation of the legislative origin found that "no need to provide proof" in Chinese law is in the same line as the expression in German and Japanese law.Under the debate-based litigation model,the self-confessed "no need to prove" and "the court is bound" are two sides of the same coin.The parties have binding force on the court,and such binding force should include the binding on the judgment process and judgment result.On the contrary,there is a phenomenon of self-certification evidence in Soviet theory.From the three dimensions of the establishment of self-confession,the validity of self-confession,and the method of court’s review of self-confession,the evidence-based representation of self-confession can be summarized.Taking this as a benchmark to benchmark the practice of our country’s self-confession system,we can see that the tendency of self-confession trial exclusion effect alienation presented by our country’s legislation and precedents has led to self-contradictions and ambiguity in the judgment of self-confession’s validity in our country,leading to self-recognition rules.The main cause of confusion applies.The second chapter seeks to establish the justifiable basis for the exclusion of self-confessed trial.The basis of legitimacy is divided into two parts: the theory of nature and the theory of evidence.In the part of the nature theory,it is an inevitable trend to separate the self-confession from the evidence from three dimensions: the decomposition of the concept of the party’s statement,the maintenance of the independence of the self-confidence system,the recognition of the evidence,and the distinction of the recognition of the fact.From the two dimensions of focusing on factual cognition or non-dispute,and whether the authenticity of self-confession should be regarded as the establishment requirements,it is pointed out that in maintaining the stability of the exclusion effect of self-confession,the statement of intention is more advantageous.According to the theory part,it is clear that the extension of dispositionism and debateism negates the rationality of dispensationism,and points out that the analytical framework of the dichotomy between formal truth and objective truth is complicated and easy to misread,and advocates that only by following debateism Only under the premise of self-confession can it have the effect of binding the court,that is,the effect of trial exclusion.The third chapter discusses the relevant boundary theory of trial exclusion effect and its game.From the point of view of internal limitations,the limitations on the scope of subjects and scopes of the debate theory itself determine that the self-confessed trial exclusion effect is relative.Its scope of action is limited to the court in this case,and cannot be expanded to bind courts in other cases,and it prohibits self-recognition of matters involving public interest and belonging to the exploratory doctrine of authority.The external limit is determined by the game situation between the debate theory and the real duty and liberal evidence theory.First,the theory of limited duty of truth should be adopted.Under the premise that the court cannot take the initiative to review the authenticity of the confession,if the confession is found to be obviously incorrect,it is not bound by the confession.However,the obvious inaccuracy should be further explained from the perspective of realizing litigation efficiency and litigation justice,taking the legitimacy of the source of the untruth and the obviousness of the degree of untruth as the standard.Second,the limitation of the theory of liberal evidence on the exclusion of self-confessed trial is manifested in the narrowing of the scope of self-confessed objects.In theory,the facts admitted are limited to the main facts,which are the specific facts corresponding to the constituent elements of the party’s enjoyment of substantive rights.The fourth chapter analyzes the obstacles of establishing the exclusion effect of self-confessed trial in my country and its solution.The need to regulate hypocrisy and self-confession constitutes a realistic obstacle to the establishment of self-confessional trial exclusion in my country,which reflects that there are errors in cognition of hypocrisy and self-confidence in our country’s practice and wrong choice of means to regulate hypocrisy and self-confidence;the establishment of self-confessional systems lacks binding.The design constitutes an institutional obstacle to the establishment of self-confessional trial exclusion in my country,reflecting the lack of constitutive elements for the establishment of an admission and the non-disputed will confirmation procedure in my country’s legislation.Recognizing the value obstacle of trial exclusion reflects the lack of refined consideration of the rationality and feasibility of empowerment in my country while empowering.The fifth chapter proposes the specific path to establish the exclusion effect of self-admission trial.The perfection of an admission should start from three aspects:clarifying the applicable conditions of the an admission system,restricting the improper expansion of the judge’s right not to confirm the self-recognition,and clarifying the relativity of the exclusion of the trial of an admission.First,it is necessary to clarify that the object of the confession is limited to the basic facts,and the confession must be made in the procedure of confirming the intention not to dispute.The establishment of an admission should include oral and written methods,but it must have a clear meaning to exclude disputes.Second,Article 8 of the "Civil Evidence Regulations" should be interpreted narrowly.Identifying the source of the discrepancy should be legitimate and the discrepancy standard should be sufficient to refute the assertion.For the judgment raid caused by the judge’s finding of inconsistent facts,it should be resolved by the judge’s explanation and allowing the parties to debate.Third,clarify the relativity of the exclusion effect of self-admitted trial,and the fact that self-confessed facts are not invoked by a third party will not be binding on the court. |