On The Regulation Of False Self-identification In Civil Litigation

False self-identification in civil litigation has two levels of problems: legislative system and judicial operation.At the legislative level,there are four problems: the constitutive elements of false self-identification are still unclear,it is difficult for the third party to participate in the litigation,the third party’s revocation suit is still imperfect,and the lack of mandatory punitive measures for false self-identification.China has further refined the self-identification system through the new "Evidence Provisions",including the expansion of the subject of self-identification and the field of self-identification.However,the elements and effects of false self-identification have not been clearly stipulated.The determination of false self-identification should take into account both objective and subjective aspects.The objective aspect of false self-admission is clearly defined as the main facts of the case,excluding indirect facts and auxiliary facts,and the subjective aspect is the intention of the false self-admitter,excluding negligence.Most of the cases of false self-recognition involve damage to the interests of third parties,however,in judicial practice,it is difficult for the third parties outside the case to participate in the litigation and defend their legitimate rights and interests due to lack of knowledge and narrow scope of the third party subjects.Therefore,it is necessary to introduce the introduction of fraud to prevent the third party to participate in the litigation system,through the prior relief to kill the false self-identification in the litigation.The system of third party revocation due to the existence of subject matter eligibility,impact res judicata and other issues,to the false self-recognition when the relief increased the difficulties.Broaden the scope of the third party revocation of the initiating subject,can better regulate false self-identification.At present,China also lacks special punitive measures on false self-identification,which makes false self-identification can obtain higher income through less cost,resulting in the current situation of frequent false self-identification in recent years.Specifying penalties for false self-admission according to the severity of the circumstances and including false self-admission in the credit system can restrain the relevant speculators.At the judicial level,there are three problems: debate doctrine limits judges’ identification of false self-admission,lack of systematic analysis of false self-admission situations,and insufficient supervision of false self-admission by the prosecutor’s office.Debate doctrine requires that once a party makes a self-admission,the fact is deemed true and the other party is not required to prove that the fact is true;the court is bound by the party’s self-admission and no longer conducts a separate investigation into the self-admitted facts,and thus the judge is unable to identify false self-admissions.By importing the duty of truth into the debate doctrine,the statements of the parties are based on subjective truth,which can reduce the occurrence of false self-identification to a certain extent.The lack of systematic analysis of false confessions makes it difficult for judges to identify false confessions,and the common areas of false confessions can be summarized and summarized to help screen whether a particular litigation act constitutes a false confession.Because of the difficulty of identifying false self-identification clues,the procuratorate will not directly take the initiative to intervene,and secondly,the legislation does not provide for the right of an outsider to bring a retrial,reflecting the insufficient supervision of the procuratorate on false self-identification and the difficulty of protecting the rights and interests of third parties.The government should expand the qualifications of the subjects of retrial applications,increase the number of reasons for retrial applications,and lower the standard of proof of false self-recognition by outsiders,so as to give full play to the supervision function of the procuratorate on false self-recognition.