|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]张宝亚.作为定案依据的案件事实之探讨 ——兼论不同诉讼的证明标准[J].长安大学学报(社科版),2001,3(02):42-45.
　ZHANG Bao -ya.A Probe into Case Facts According to Which a Case is Judged —— Also on the Testifying Criteria of Different Lawsuits[J].Journal of Chang＇an University(Social Science Edition),2001,3(02):42-45.
点击复制

作为定案依据的案件事实之探讨 ——兼论不同诉讼的证明标准 (PDF)
分享到：

《长安大学学报（社科版）》[ISSN:1671-6248/CN:61-1391/C]

卷:
第3卷
期数:
2001年02期
页码:
42-45
栏目:
法学研究
出版日期:
2001-12-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
A Probe into Case Facts According to Which a Case is Judged —— Also on the Testifying Criteria of Different Lawsuits
作者:
张宝亚
西安工程科技学院法律系,陕西西安　 710048)
Author(s):
ZHANG Bao -ya
Department of Law, Xi′an College of Science and Technology, Xi′an,710048, China
关键词:
诉讼法; 客观事实; 案件事实; 法律推定; 证明标准
Keywords:
procedural law; objective facts; case facts; legal inference; testifying criteria
分类号:
D925
DOI:
-
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
针对把“以事实为根据,以法律为准绳”原则中的“事实”理解为“客观事实”的抽象化作法,提 出以事实为根据中的“事实”是指诉讼中的“案件事实” ,而不是哲学范畴中的“客观事实”。同时,针对 三大诉讼所追求的价值目标相异,提出在不同诉讼中作为定案依据的案件事实证明具有不同的标准。
Abstract:
Seeing that there existing a theory that the“ facts” in the principle of“ Having the facts as basis and the law as criteria” are the“ objective facts” which is abstract and simple practice, here it advances that the“ facts” referred to in“ Having the facts as basis” should be the“ case facts” ,but not the“ objective facts” in philosophical meanig.Meanwhile,considering that the three main lawsuits aim at different targets,the theory which should be diffrent testifying criteria on “ case facts” used in judging cases in different lawsuits was presented.

参考文献/References:

[1]　王怀安.中国民事诉讼法教程[M].北京:人民法院出 版社,1992.
[2]　祝铭山.中国刑事诉讼法教程[M].北京:人民法院出 版社,1990.
[3]　姜明安.行政诉讼法学[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1993.
[4]　陈光中.诉讼中的客观真实与法律真实[N].检察日 报,2000,7.
[5]　 DAVID A Bider paul bergrman : Fact Investigation from Hypothesis of Proof.West Publishing CO.1984.
[6]　孙再思.试论中国法律和司法实践中的高度必然性原 则[J].求是学刊,1991,(3).

相似文献/References:

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期: 2001-10-16
作者简介:张宝亚(1960-),男,陕西周至县人,副教授,主要从事法学研究及律师实务。
更新日期/Last Update: 2001-12-20