RAN Bo. From the Perspective of “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” Re-discussion on the Effect of Preclusion of the Self-admission System[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2021, 37(2): 177-185.
Citation: RAN Bo. From the Perspective of “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” Re-discussion on the Effect of Preclusion of the Self-admission System[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2021, 37(2): 177-185.

From the Perspective of “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” Re-discussion on the Effect of Preclusion of the Self-admission System

  • Received Date: 2020-12-18
    Available Online: 2021-05-19
  • The “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” as a whole affirmed and expanded the self-admission rules, but the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” Article 8 paragraph 2 continued the legal spirit of Article 92, Paragraph 3 of the “Comprehension and Application of Judicial Interpretation of the Procedural Law” stipulates that the effect of preclusion of the self-admission system is restricted. Why the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigations” restrict the effect of preclusion of self-admission system? The fundamental reason is the traditional inertia of the absoluteness of facts exploration and the pursuit of substantive justice values. The direct cause is the actual demand for regulating collusive litigation. However, to construct a normative self-admission system should adhere to the relativization of facts exploration, coordinate the relationship between party autonomy and facts exploration, and pursue a balance between procedural justice and substantive justice. The practice of restricting the effect of preclusion to regulate collusive litigation does not pay for the gains. The most preferable way to regulate collusive litigation should be to abolish pre-determinant force and set an honesty obligation for the parties. Tracing back to the source, the self-admission system originated from the doctrine of debate and naturally should return to the doctrine of debate. The self-admission system that returns to the doctrine of debate centers on the effect of preclusion. Article 8 paragraph 2 of the “Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation” loses legitimacy. The application of the effect of preclusion of self-admission system must consider the difference and relativity of the litigation environment of different cases.

     

  • Relative Articles

    [1]QIAO Fang-e, WANG Facai. The “Trial Restraint Effect” of Civil Self-Admission from the Perspective of Argumentalism[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2023, 39(6): 789-797. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2022070071
    [2]CHI Da-kui. The Trial Avoidance Effect of Guilty Plea[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 36(5): 84-90,97.
    [3]WANG Gen-lian. An Interpretation of the Syntactics and Semantics of “Fact” Projection[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2014, 30(3): 10-16.
    [4]CAO Guang-yuan. The Effective Ways to Improve the Accountant System——With Universities under the Ministry of Education as Examples[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2014, 30(1): 108-113.
    [5]WEI Zeng-chan. A Window of National Guardianism——Critiques on “Comparation Study on Guardianship System”[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2010, 26(3): 170-172.
    [6]XIAO Jian-guo, HUANG Zhong-shun. Research on Problems in the Application of Discretional Undertaking[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2009, 25(1): 54-62.
    [7]XIAO Jian-guo, XIE Jun. Research on the Distribution of Burden of Proof to Limitation of Action[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2007, 23(1): 55-61.
    [8]KE Yang-you. On The Theory of Issue Preclusion Validity in Civil Litigation[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2007, 23(3): 59-64.
    [9]XIAO Jian-hua, LI Zhi-feng. From Adversary System to Cooperative System[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2006, 22(3): 55-62.
    [10]KE Yang-you, WU Ying-qi. Research on the Litigant's Truthfulness Obligation in the Civil Procedure[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2005, 21(3): 26-32.
    [11]WANG Meng-fei. New study on the Object of Criminal Procedure[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2004, 20(3): 48-51.
    [12]LI Chao. Establishment of Judiciary Power in Modern China: Reconstruction of Power System and Transplantation of Institution[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2004, 20(4): 19-23.
    [13]LIAO Yong-an, ZHAO Xiao-wei. The Comparative Study of Civil Expense of Proceeding System between Japan and China[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2004, 20(2): 41-47.
    [14]ZHANG Ji-cheng. Logic Foundation of Matter-of-Fact Inference[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2002, 18(2): 74-78.
    [15]XIAO Jian-guo, XIAO Jian-guang. Research on the Trial Committee in China[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2002, 18(3): 60-66.
    [16]XIAO Jian-hua. Analysis of Subjectivity on Process of Judicial Provement[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2001, 17(2): 53-60.
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(4)

    1. 蒋玮,丁艺伟. 解释论下限制自认构成要件的司法适用. 山东法官培训学院学报. 2024(02): 170-182 .
    2. 黄敏. 新规下鉴定文书异议在投诉处理中的运用研究. 法制博览. 2024(32): 91-93 .
    3. 乔芳娥,王发财. 辩论主义视角下民事自认的“审判拘束效”. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版). 2023(06): 789-797 .
    4. 张波. 民事诉讼自认制度在诉前调解阶段的扩张适用. 应用法学评论. 2023(01): 91-107 .

    Other cited types(14)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-042025-05051015202530
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 13.8 %FULLTEXT: 13.8 %META: 81.5 %META: 81.5 %PDF: 4.8 %PDF: 4.8 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 4.4 %其他: 4.4 %Central District: 0.2 %Central District: 0.2 %China: 0.2 %China: 0.2 %Macau: 0.2 %Macau: 0.2 %San Lorenzo: 0.2 %San Lorenzo: 0.2 %上海: 1.5 %上海: 1.5 %乌鲁木齐: 0.2 %乌鲁木齐: 0.2 %北京: 4.4 %北京: 4.4 %南京: 0.4 %南京: 0.4 %南充: 0.2 %南充: 0.2 %哥伦布: 0.4 %哥伦布: 0.4 %大连: 0.2 %大连: 0.2 %天津: 0.2 %天津: 0.2 %宜宾: 0.2 %宜宾: 0.2 %宜昌: 0.7 %宜昌: 0.7 %宣城: 0.4 %宣城: 0.4 %广州: 0.9 %广州: 0.9 %张家口: 1.1 %张家口: 1.1 %扬州: 0.2 %扬州: 0.2 %昆明: 0.2 %昆明: 0.2 %杭州: 0.6 %杭州: 0.6 %武汉: 0.7 %武汉: 0.7 %济南: 0.6 %济南: 0.6 %济宁: 0.6 %济宁: 0.6 %淄博: 0.2 %淄博: 0.2 %深圳: 0.2 %深圳: 0.2 %湖州: 0.6 %湖州: 0.6 %湘潭: 0.2 %湘潭: 0.2 %漯河: 1.1 %漯河: 1.1 %珠海: 0.4 %珠海: 0.4 %盐城: 0.2 %盐城: 0.2 %石家庄: 0.7 %石家庄: 0.7 %芒廷维尤: 12.1 %芒廷维尤: 12.1 %芝加哥: 1.1 %芝加哥: 1.1 %衡阳: 0.2 %衡阳: 0.2 %衢州: 0.4 %衢州: 0.4 %西宁: 57.4 %西宁: 57.4 %郑州: 6.2 %郑州: 6.2 %鞍山: 0.6 %鞍山: 0.6 %其他Central DistrictChinaMacauSan Lorenzo上海乌鲁木齐北京南京南充哥伦布大连天津宜宾宜昌宣城广州张家口扬州昆明杭州武汉济南济宁淄博深圳湖州湘潭漯河珠海盐城石家庄芒廷维尤芝加哥衡阳衢州西宁郑州鞍山

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Article Metrics

    Article views (443) PDF downloads(26) Cited by(18)
    Proportional views
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return