【作者】 张嘉军；

【导师】 章武生；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 在当前广泛开展的民事审判方式改革中，我国理论界和实务界对民事诉讼证据种类的划分是否科学以及证据种类存在哪些问题，这一关涉证据制度的根本性、全局性的重大理论问题关注甚少。为了构建科学的证据制度，为了对未来民事诉讼证据法的制定提供一些理论上的支撑，本文在对国内外有关国家或地区民事诉讼证据种类予以比较并对我国民事证据种类的划分历史予以考察的基础上，指出了我国民事诉讼证据种类存在的问题及其成因，并针对这些问题提出了具体的改革方案。本文分为六大部分：第一部分：引言。在引言中笔者分析了证据是诉讼的核心，证据种类又是证据制度中及其重要的问题之一。证据种类是一关涉证据制度全局性、根本性的问题，而我国无论理论界抑或实务界对证据种类的划分是否科学以及如何划分等问题关注甚少。以此引出了本文的写作意旨。第二部分：国内外有关国家或地区民事诉讼证据种类之比较。在此部分笔者将我国同两大法系一些国家或地区的民事证据种类予以比较，同时对与我国民事诉讼证据种类渊源较深的前苏联和其它社会主义国家的证据种类也进行了比较。通过比较发现，我国的证据种类具有以下特点：首先，我国的民事证据种类之设立深受前苏联的影响；其次，我国的证据种类比较多；再次，我国同所有的社会主义国家一样都将当事人的陈述作为独立的证据；最后，我国将物证和勘验笔录并列作为证据种类，其它国家或地区一般是在二者中择其一，并不同时作为证据。第三部分，我国民事诉讼证据种类的历史考察。有人认为我国的证据种类是历史形成的，是不能变的，为此本部分对我国民事证据种类的历史变迁予以考察，以期通过考察寻求有益于改革的历史资源。在考察中发现我国的民事证据种类大致经历了古代、近代和现代三个时期，发生了两次大的历史变迁。第一次是在清末修律时，由古代的证据种类向近代的转变，转变为人证、书证、勘验和鉴定四类；第二次是在新中国成立后，此时由近代证据种类向现代的转变，即为现行的<WP=4>七大证据种类。由我国证据种类的历史变迁，我们大致可以窥出我国民事证据种类发展、演进的历史轨迹：其一，在我国历史上，人证、物证、书证比较发达，口供“证据之王”的地位逐渐降低，鉴定和勘验仅是调查证据的手段，鉴定结论和勘验笔录并不是独立的证据；其二，两次历史变迁都是在学习、借鉴国外经验背景下发生的。第一次是借鉴德国、日本，第二次是借鉴前苏联的立法例；其三，我国的证据种类有些是历史形成的，如人证、物证、书证，有些是引进的，如当事人的陈述、鉴定结论和勘验笔录。第四部分，我国民事诉讼证据种类存在的问题及其成因透视。此部分指出了我国民事诉讼证据种类存在以下问题：首先，我国的民事诉讼证据种类太多，不利于当事人和法官实践中的运用；其次，我国证据种类的分类标准不科学，具有多重性，导致有些证据种类的外延重合、交叉；再次，对证据的分类比较抽象，缺乏与之相配套的规则，不利于诉讼证据在诉讼实务中的操作应用；第四，将“当事人的陈述”作为一独立的证据种类，并不科学；最后，立法上将物证和勘验笔录同时规定为独立的证据也不科学。而导致上述问题的原因主要有以下几个方面：其一，理论上关注不够；其二，对证据种类的划分没有一个明确的科学的划分标准；其三，我国的证据理论深受前苏联法的影响，现仍未走出前苏联的阴影。第五部分，我国民事诉讼证据种类重构。针对我国民事诉讼证据种类存在的问题，本部分提出了以下具体改革措施：首先，确立科学、清晰的划分证据种类的标准。我国证据种类的划分标准并没有严格按照“证据的表现形式”来划分，实际上其划分标准是多重的、模糊的。为确立科学、清晰的标准，应遵循以下原则：其一，应坚持证据的分类在司法审判过程中的可操作性；其二，应当坚持严谨、合理的逻辑性分类；其三，每一种分类应坚持一个标准。为此应重树“以证据的表现形式”这一划分证据标准之地位，应严格按此标准对我国证据予以划分。其次，将我国现行的七大证据种类重组为人证、物证、书证和视听资料四大类。取消当事人的陈述这一证据种类，将当事人纳入证人范畴；取消鉴定结论，将鉴<WP=5>定人纳入证人范畴，鉴定人以专家证人身份出现；将勘验笔录和物证合并，勘验仅为证据保全或查验证据的方法；证人证言因与物证、书证不在同一序列改称为人证，物证、书证和视听资料仍保留。最后，建立与证据种类完全相配套的民事诉讼证据规则。第六部分，结语。在此部分笔者指出了本文观点的实施可能会遇到的阻力。更多还原

【Abstract】 As the reform in the field of civil trial is being carried out, problems still remain concerning whether the classification of the evidences made by the theoretical and practical circles in China is scientific and how many kinds of evidences there are. But, this problem of theory is of essential and overall significance. To construct the evidence system of our country, to supply more theoretical support for the future law of civil court evidence, this paper points out the problems existing in the classification of the civil case evidence and proposes the concrete plan for the reform based on the comparison of the classification of the civil case evidences of various countries and areas, and on the historical investigation on the issue. The paper consists of six parts.Part one is an introduction. Evidence is the core of lawsuit. The type of the evidence is the core of and is essential to the evidence system. But little attention is paid either by the theoretical or practical circle in China to the classification of evidence, specifically, whether the classification is scientific and how to classify the evidences. This is where the goal of writing the paper lies.Part two is a comparison among various classifications of civil case evidence made by different countries and areas. Comparison is made between the Chinese classification of civil case evidence and those of the countries and areas belong to the two big law families. A comparison is also made between classification of civil case evidences in China and those of the S.V.O. and other socialist countries, to which our classification is closed related. Several characteristics are identified through the comparisons. First, the establishment of the types of civil case evidence of China is greatly affected by those of the former Soviet Union. Second, there are more types of evidence in China. Third, as other socialist countries, China takes the narration of the privies as the individual evidence. Forth, material evidence and investigation record are both taken as the evidence, other countries and areas only take one of the two, rarely take both.The third part is a historical review of the types of civil case evidence in China.<WP=7>Some people believe that our types of evidence are developed through history and can not be changed. In answer to this kind of view, this part makes an investigation to the historical changes concerning the types evidence so as to get some historical resources for the sake of reform. The findings are the types of evidence experienced three periods (namely, the ancient times, the neoteric times and the modern times) and two big changes (one is in Ming and Qing dynasties when laws are changed, which signifies the change from ancient to the neoteric times, change to the testimony of witness, script evidence, investigation and appraisal; the other is after the finding of P.R.C, which signifies the changes types of evidence from the neoteric to the modern times, namely to the present seven types of evidence). From the historical changes of the types of the evidence of our country, we can have a general view of the course of the development and change of the civil case evidence types. First, testimony of witness, material evidence and script evidence are well developed in the history of China, the position of "the king of evidence", i.e. affidavit is relatively low. Appraisal and investigation are merely the main ways of investigation. But, the result of the appraisal and the investigation scripts are not taken as independent evidence. Second, both of the two changes took place under the background learning and borrowing the experience of foreign countries. The first change learned something from German and Japan. The second change took the former Soviet Union’s legislation as the example. Third, some of the types of evidence of our country are developed from history, e.g. testimony of witness, material evidence and script evidence; others are introduced from foreign countries, e.g. the narration of privies, appraisal result and i更多还原