摘要
我国书证提出义务客体范围的规范体系缺乏类型思维的运用,具言之,《民诉证据规定》第四十七条第一款的兜底条款过于抽象、概念描述型条款缺乏可操作性、具体列举型条款未形成逻辑周延的分类标准。书证提出义务的客体范围在义务一般化与权利保障之间呈现出显著的弹性失调,难以兼顾实践中多样化的类型。为纾解上述困境,应重构客体分类框架以弥补类型化不足,以义务来源与利益权重为依据分为实体法授权型、程序关联型、利益平衡型三种类别。此外,还应补充“涉及家事诉讼”“当事人双方并无不平等诉讼地位”的不成文消极要件,创构关联性、必要性、比例性、保障性的动态审查规则。
The normative system for the scope of obligation objects proposed in China’s documentary evidence lacks the application of typological thinking.Specifically,the fallback clause in Article 47(1)of the Civil Procedure Evidence Regulations is too abstract,the conceptual descriptive clause is not practical,and the specific enumeration clause has not formed a logically comprehensive classification standard.The scope of obligations proposed by documentary evidence shows a significant elastic imbalance between the generalization of obligations and the protection of rights,making it difficult to balance the diverse types in practice.The object classification framework should be restructured to make up for the lack of typification to tackle these difficulties,including three categories based on the source of obligations and the weight of interests:substantive law authorization type,procedural association type,and interest balance type.In addition,unwritten negative elements such as“involving family litigation”and“no unequal litigation status between the parties”should be added to establish dynamic review rules for relevance,necessity,proportionality,and protection.
作者
程张哲
Cheng Zhangzhe(College of law,Wuhan University,Wuhan Hubei 430000,China)
出处
《河北科技师范学院学报(社会科学版)》
2025年第3期91-99,共9页
Journal of Hebei Normal University of Science & Technology(Social Sciences)
关键词
书证提出命令制度
书证提出义务
类型思维
利益平衡
system of documentary evidence proposal command
obligation to provide documentary evidence
typological thinking
interest balance
