论当事人陈述-诉讼法学专业论文.docxVIP

摘 摘 要 当事人陈述在传统理论中被视为一种独立的证据形式，其一元的证据功能仅 在证明案件事实上发挥作用，而现行有效的法律只对当事人陈述作了粗略的规 定，具体操作规制缺失。在实践中，由于当事人与案件有着直接的利害关系，人 们通常认为当事人陈述是不可信的。此外，当事人在陈述时，其主张、辩解、自 认、情绪性话语和作为证据使用的陈述在现有立法下难以区分，这导致了当事人 陈述作为一种独立证据的功能被边缘化，其他功能更是无法实现。 本文中，笔者着眼于目前理论界和实务界对当事人陈述的概念与分类的认识 仍有不清的情形，在文章开头对此进行分析。之后，通过对我国当事人陈述的功 能演变进行梳理，分析现行有关当事人陈述的法律规制与转向辩论主义的诉讼体 制之间的脱节和冲突之处。其次，重点阐述辩论主义诉讼体制下的当事人陈述， 通过比较法的深入研究，分析其诉讼体制要求当事人陈述所具备的功能、具体制 度设置及背后原因、现行制度运作效率等，以期对我国理论实践有所裨益。最后， 从重塑我国当事人陈述制度必要性入手，结合我国现阶段的国情，对如何重塑进 行理论探讨。 关键词： 当事人陈述辩论主义诚信原则当事人听取当事人询问 万方数据 AbstractLitigant’S Abstract Litigant’S statements in the traditional theory is regarded as an independent form of evidence，the one-dimension evidence function only play a role in proving the fact in case，but the law in force only have the rough regulations of litigant’S statements and the specific operating regulmions are missing．In practice，since the litigant has a direct stake with the case，people often consider that litigant’S statements are not credible．In addition，it is difficult to distinguish advocates，excuse，self-admission， emotional discourse and statements as evidence from the litigant’S statements under the existing legislation，which led to the marginalization of litigant’S statements’ independent evidence function，let alone other functions to be achieve． In this paper，the author focuses on the situation that theoretical field and practice circle’S cognition to the concept and classification of litigant’S statements are still unclear，SO the author will analysis it at the beginning of this paper．Thereafter，the paper combs the evolution of litigant’S statements’function in our country，analyses the conflict and disj ointed condition between existing relevant legal regulations about litigant’S statements and debate doctrine’S lawsuit system．Secondly，focusing on the litigant’S statements under the debate doctrine’S lawsuit system，through in—depth study of comparative law to analyze its lawsuit system，including the required functions of the litigant’S statemen