Abstract: The binding effect of self-admission on the court is the core of self-admission system effectiveness under the polemicism. In contrast, it is confirmed that self-admission has non–“judicial constraint effect “at the level of legal norms. In this regard, the pursuit of true discovery, the prevention of false litigation, the limitation of litigation mode and the status quo of self-identification of evidence are the “Chinese reasons” for this theory. With the continuous improvement of legal norms and the deepening of judges’ understanding, the reasons mentioned above have been shaken or even untenable. On the contrary, the changes in self-admission revocation rules, the strict restrictions on the revocation rules and the generalization of the self-admission objects in practice suggest that the restrictive effect on the activities of court review and recognition of the self-admission fact should be recognized. However, in order to fully implement the substantive connotation of argumentalism, the self-admission object should be strictly limited to the main facts. In order to respect the autonomy of the parties to the greatest extent, the field of self-admission establishment should not be limited to the formal trial, and at the same time, the mechanism of self-admission revocation and overruling should be unified with “truth” as the center.