2025年6月23日 周一
On the extension of the applicable scope of order for production of a document in China: In the perspective of the duty of putting forward evidence to court of the third party
CSTR:
Author:
  • Article
  • | |
  • Metrics
  • |
  • Reference [19]
  • |
  • Related [20]
  • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    The establishment of the order for production of a document seems to be significant for promoting civil parties' evidence-gathering capacity, protecting their legitimate rights and interests, as well as ensuring the accuracy of the people's court ascertaining the facts of a case. On the basis of the related rules in Continental Legal System, section 112 of the Judicial Explanation of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China has been promulgated this system, by contrast, there are still inadequacies in the design of the order for production of a document in China, among the most outstanding is the order for production of a document which has very narrow applications, providing only the duty of putting forward evidence to court of parties in civil, and ignoring the third party. Therefore, it is necessary to learn from extraterritorial experience in legislation on the duty of putting forward evidence to court of the third party, to extend the scope of civil subject of the duty of putting forward evidence to court in China, so as to establish the duty of putting forward evidence to court of the third party as quickly as possible.

    Reference
    [1] 杨锦炎.武器平等原则在民事证据法的展开[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2013.
    [2] 王亚新.对抗与判定:日本民事诉讼的基本结构[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002:178.
    [3] 唐力.辩论主义的嬗变与协同主义的兴起[J].现代法学,2005(6):78-85.
    [4] 田平安,刘春梅.试论协同型民事诉讼模式的建立[J].现代法学,2003(2):83-88.
    [5] 吴如巧.论协同主义民事诉讼模式下的证据收集[J].海南大学学报(人文社会科学版),2012(2):85-92.
    [6] 吴如巧.试论我国民事诉讼证据收集制度的模式选择[J].河北法学,2011(5):144-149.
    [7] 占善刚.证据协力义务之比较法分析[J].法学研究,2008(5):86-96.
    [8] 米夏埃尔·施蒂尔纳.德国民事诉讼法学文萃[M].赵秀举,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:340-358.
    [9] 新堂幸司.新民事诉讼法[M].林剑锋,译.北京:法律出版社,2008:433.
    [10] 占善刚.第三人之文书提出义务初探[J].华中科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008(3):29-34.
    [11] 德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法[M].谢怀栻,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2001:103-105.
    [12] 李昕.德、日两国民事证据收集制度及其对我国的启示[J].昆明理工大学学报(社会科学版),2009(1):94-100.
    [13] 陶婷.文书提出命令的适用范围探讨[J].西南政法大学学报,2008(2):65-70.
    [14] 罗森贝克,施瓦布,戈特瓦尔德.德国民事诉讼法[M].李大雪,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2007:889.
    [15] 常怡.比较民事诉讼法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002:519.
    [16] 白绿铉.日本新民事诉讼法[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2000:86-89.
    [17] 张卫平.外国民事证据制度研究[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003:373.
    [18] 王梦飞.论我国民事诉讼书证收集制度的缺陷与重塑[J].江淮论坛,2007(4):73-78.
    [19] 吴伟华.文书提出命令制度司法适用研究——以2015年《关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉解释》和中国台湾地区立法为中心[J].河北学刊,2015(6):181-187.
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

吴如巧,郭成,谢锦添.论中国文书提出命令制度适用范围的扩展——以第三人文书提出义务为视角[J].重庆大学学报社会科学版,2017,23(1):94~100

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:1277
  • PDF: 1868
  • HTML: 1307
  • Cited by: 0
History
  • Received:December 18,2016
  • Online: January 21,2017
Article QR Code