论法官在民事诉讼中释明权的运行与规制

发布时间：2018-06-12 02:36

本文选题：法官释明权 + 证据规则　；参考：《黑龙江大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：到目前为止，在我国《民事诉讼法》中还没有明确的释明权概念，仅在《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》中引入了释明权的规定，由于法官对释明权的规定存在不同的理解，在民事审判实践中，法官对案件是否释明存在较大的任意性。对释明权的时间、程度、方式和遵循的原则等操作不一致，所以应亟需对释明权的行使予以规范和完善。这正是我国正确行使释明权和现代化司法改革和民事诉讼大发展的形势相适应的，法官释明权成功的运用，达到了案件纠纷的妥当解决。法官不可以随意放弃行使的释明权利。否则案件将造成严重后果。当事人期待的公正是程序与实体的双重公正。法官要做到实体公正和程序公正的统一，争取最好司法效果的产生。在诉讼过程中法官适时适度地行使释明权是相当重要的，释明权滥用造成案件没有达到定分止争的结果，而且起到了负面影响严重。司法为民是实际的，具体的，不是抽象的、空洞的。由于法官在具体应用中较为混乱，释明规制还没有真正的建立起来，所以需要明确法官行使释明权应当遵循三个原则（诚实信用原则、释明适度原则、法官中立原则）。一个良好的裁判既应有良好的法律效果，同时也应具有完美的社会效果。法官的职责和智慧正是将两者有机地统一起来。这就要求法官在行使释明权时，遵循诚实的态度，使用适度的方式，以中立方式公开发问、提示，，来积极引导协助当事人进行充分陈述事实，明确争点和进行有效辩论的角度来行使释明权，从而有针对性地发现真实问题，而不能过多地介入当事人之间的攻防过程。法官要从源头上预防、减少和缓解社会矛盾，努力做到胜败皆服，案结事了。通过法律观点的指导,使双方当事人就事实问题和法律问题都能充分地表明自己的见解和想法,进行辩论,有利于防止突袭裁判,又能使审判达到良好的效果。只有了解了立法原意，真正理解法律精神，以自己的丰富的社会知识和良好的法律素养去作出正确的裁判，而避免释明不当的行为发生，消除了当事人的合理怀疑。为此，需要及时更新法律知识、提炼司法经验、统一裁判尺度，确保取得最好的办案效果。
[Abstract]:Up to now, there is no clear concept of the right of interpretation in the Civil procedure Law of our country. Only the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on evidence in civil proceedings have been introduced into the definition of the right of interpretation. Because the judge has different understanding to the stipulation of the right of interpretation, in the practice of civil trial, the judge has greater arbitrariness about the interpretation of the case. The operation of the right of interpretation is inconsistent in time, degree, way and principle, so it is urgent to regulate and perfect the exercise of the right of interpretation. This is the correct exercise of the right of interpretation and modern judicial reform and civil litigation development of the situation, the successful use of the right of interpretation of the judge, to achieve a proper resolution of the case dispute. The judge is not free to give up the exercise of the right of interpretation. Otherwise, the case will have serious consequences. The justice expected by the parties is the dual justice of procedure and entity. Judges should achieve the unity of substantive justice and procedural justice and strive for the best judicial effect. In the process of litigation, it is very important for the judge to exercise the right of interpretation in a timely and appropriate manner. The abuse of the right of interpretation results in the failure of the case to settle the division and the dispute, and it has a serious negative impact. Justice for the people is practical, concrete, not abstract, empty. Because the judge is more confused in the concrete application, the interpretation regulation has not really been established, so it is necessary to make it clear that the judge should abide by three principles (the principle of good faith, the principle of explanation and moderation, the principle of the neutrality of the judge). A good judge should not only have good legal effect, but also have perfect social effect. The duties and wisdom of a judge combine the two organically. This requires the judge to follow an honest attitude in exercising his right of interpretation, to use a moderate manner, to openly ask questions and prompts in a neutral manner, to actively guide and assist the parties in making a full statement of the facts. It is clear that the point of contention and the angle of effective debate should be used to exercise the right of interpretation so as to find out the real problem and not to intervene too much in the process of attacking and defending between the parties concerned. The judge should prevent, reduce and alleviate the social contradiction from the source. Through the guidance of legal point of view, both parties can fully express their opinions and ideas on both factual and legal issues, which is conducive to preventing the surprise judgment, and can also make the trial achieve a good effect. Only understand the legislative intent, truly understand the spirit of the law, with their own rich social knowledge and good legal literacy to make the correct judgment, and avoid the interpretation of improper behavior occurred, eliminating the reasonable doubt of the parties. Therefore, it is necessary to update legal knowledge, refine judicial experience, unify judgment standards, and ensure the best result of case handling.
【学位授予单位】：黑龙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D925.1;D926.2

【参考文献】