西方庭审模式的研究论文

中文:在现代司法领域，无论是在大陆法系，还是在英美法系，无论是实行当事人主义或是实行职权主义的民事诉讼模式，审前准备程序已经成为各国民事诉讼制度上的一个不约而同的选择，均已经形成各具特色的审前程序。我国的“审理前的准备活动”已经成为我国民事审判制度改革的重要内容之一，针对目前的理论和实践，从美国、英国、法国、日本等英美法系和大陆法系的法学理论和法律条文异同进行对比，结合我国民事诉讼法的具体规定，以完善我国民事审前准备程序，具体为民事诉讼失权制度（答辩失权制度和证据失权证据）、证据开示与交换制度、设置审前会议制度、建立健全多元化的纠纷解决机制，以便有利于维护程序公正，又有利于提高诉讼的效率与效益，使我国的民事诉讼法更加适应司法现代化的客观需要，健全我国的民事诉讼体系，实现我国民事诉讼的公正、公平、效益的目标。民事诉讼审前程序是当事人跨入法律大门的第一关卡。作为开庭审理前的诉讼环节，我国尽管并未形成一个完整的审前准备程序，但仍有与之相类似的规定，即“审理前的准备活动”。我国审前准备活动的特点是法官主导下的从程序到实体的准备，这其中，法官主导下的实体性准备，即全面了解案情，调查必要的证据是审前准备的核心，而且审前准备鲜有当事人参加，即使当事人参加，也经常是法院与当事人的单方面接触，这种做法使法官难以保证中立性和公正性，致使开庭审理形式化。改革审前准备程序已经成为我国民事审判制度改革的重要内容之一。在审前准备程序改革的议论中，前几年，“不经准备直接开庭”的做法为众多学者极力推崇，但实践表明，这种直接开庭容易导致证据突袭与重复开庭，降低诉讼效率，这种方式并不足取。针对目前的理论和实践，笔者拟从美国、英国、法国、日本等英美法系和大陆法系的法学理论和法律条文异同进行对比，并结合我国民事诉讼法的具体规定，提出几点对民事审前准备程序的建议。一．国外民事审前准备程序的对比研究在现代司法领域，无论是在大陆法系还是在英美法系，无论是实行当事人主义还是实行职权主义的民事诉讼模式，审前准备程序已经成为各国民事诉讼制度上的一个不约而同的选择，均已经形成各具特色的审前程序。我国一些学者认为，出现这种现象绝不是偶然的，反映了民事诉讼的发展趋势。国外民事诉讼审前准备程序的共同点主要表现在一下几个方面：（一）审前准备程序受到高度重视，未经准备程序就不能进入法庭审理和辩论德国创设了准备法官制度，每一案件在法院系属时就指定一个准备法官，由其专门负责审前准备，并在开庭审理时向会议庭其他法官报告案情（准备法官本身是合议庭成员），以确保审前准备在法院的指挥下进行，并节省开庭审理时间。法国也很早就对民事诉讼准备程序作出了详尽的规定。在日本，修改的民事诉讼法规定的民事诉讼准备程序制度吸收了英美法和大陆法准备程序的长处，充分反映了各国互相借鉴、互相吸收的不断融合的趋势。（二）审前准备的主要目的在于防止法庭突袭，确保诉讼公正，提高诉讼效率审前准备使当事人在充分准备的基础上进入法庭，从根本上保证当事人享有充分、平等的辩论机会，防止法庭突袭，确保诉讼公正。同时，还可以将当事人之间没有争议的主张和证据排除在法庭审理范围之外，简化法庭审理，加快诉讼进行，提高诉讼效率。（三）审前准备以当事人活动为主，法官的作用相对弱化尽管德国和日本的法官在审前准备程序中的作用相对积极一些，但从总体上看，民事诉讼审前准备程序还是以当事人的活动为主的；由当事人提出主张并确定争点，由当事人收集和提出证据，由当事人决定审判对象（最终进入法庭审理的内容），由当事人决定程序的开始或终结，如此等等。而法官一般以中立的的见证人身份参与审前准备程序，最多也只是一个程序进行的指挥者，一切重大的实体问题均由当事人自己决定，充分体现了当事人的意思自治。同时，外国审前准备程序和我国的规定有很多不同点：（一）诉答阶段1诉讼文书送达。在美国，送达诉讼文书是原告的义务，而中国、德国则是法院的职权行为。但在具体送达方式上，中、德又略有不同。德国的诉讼文书均由法院以职权通过邮寄送达。为简化诉讼程序，双方当事人都由律师代理时，书状的送达可以由为送达的律师把应交付的书状转交给另一方律师，此即律师向律师的送达。中国目前诉讼文书仍是以法院工作人员直接送达为主，以邮寄、委托送达等为辅。在案件量居高不下、法院辅助人员相对少的情况下，直接送达显然是一种效率低下的方式。2未提交答辩状的法律后果。被告在法定期限内未答辩，在美国和德国均产生失权的效果，将导致法院根据原告的诉讼请求作出缺席判决。中国民事诉讼法将提交答辩状作为被告的诉讼权利，被告不提交答辩状的，不影响法院的审理（第113条第2款）；审前不提交答辩状，到开庭审理时再陈述答辩意见，已成为被告进行“法庭突袭”一种诉讼策略。3诉答方式。美国和德国的诉答方式都体现为“起诉、答辩、反答辩……”的互动过程。德国法的诉答方式还使争点和攻击防御方法明朗化、集中化。中国的诉答方式只有起诉状和答辩状，但法院一般不会在审前送达给被告。就是说，中国的诉答方式是静态的。4诉答文书的形式要求。在德国民事诉讼中，起诉状、答辩状以及其他诉讼文书非常不拘形式，但它们必须指明各方当事人与法院，包括对诉讼请求的目标，请求的理由的简要陈述和抗辩及要求。预备性诉讼书状必须由一名律师签署，该律师应已经获准在特定法院执业。相比之下，在美国民事诉讼程序中，诉讼书状十分格式化，仅仅提供一些与本案有关的具体情况，并不作出接受证据的提议。而德国诉讼程序中的诉讼书状恰好相反，提议接受某项证据是必不可少的。中国对诉答文书的形式要求与德、美两国比较，更不拘形式。民事诉讼法要求起诉状中写明诉讼请求、事实与理由、证据和证据来源以及证人姓名和地址，在实务中，起诉状内容只要足以立案即可，并无律师签署或附上宣誓书等特别要求。被告则仅需写明答辩意见。（二）准备阶段这里的“准备阶段”作狭义理解，即诉答阶段之外的审前阶段。准备阶段是审前程序的重心。只有准备阶段程序化了，审前程序才真正成为相对于“开庭审理”的独立程序。美国的审前准备主要是证据开示和审前会议，德国主要是书面诉讼准备或初步审理，中国则体现在以证据交换为核心的有关审前改革。德国没有证据开示程序。其理由主要在于：在德国民事诉讼中，一方当事人不能强迫对方披露其所掌握的与诉讼有关的信息。如果当事人不愿提交书证，这一证据只有通过法院的命令方能获得。这一差异与德美两国“开庭审理”方式的不同有关。而在美国，一次性集中审理是当事人证明其主张并辩驳对方证据的唯一机会。证据开示使当事人在进入开庭审理时就已经充分准备好所有的诉讼细节。尽管我国法律更接近于大陆法系，但在准备程序的建构上，更多的是采用英美法系的术语，但是在中国的法律文化背景下，几乎不可能建立美国法意义上的“证据开示”，而对于“通约性”比较强的“审前会议”，也不可能与德国法上的“初步审理”相提并论。（三）法官角色美国法官在审前程序中呈现一定的“消极性”，崇尚当事人主义，但是法官的消极性也是令人满意地控制拖延的关键。与美国相比，德国法官在诉讼中的角色显然是积极主动的，在民事诉讼集中审理的改革中，德国人并没有采用传统对抗制的做法，而是赋予法官更大的指导权，指导双方集中的对争议的问题按时提出诉辨理由与证据。 二．完善我国民事审前准备程序的几点建议（一）．完善民事诉讼失权制度失权，即原有权利的丧失。民事诉讼中的失权是指当事人（含第三人）在民事诉讼中原本享有的诉讼权利因某种原因或事由的发生而丧失。和证据的功能，应建立证据失权制度。民事诉讼中失权的正义性原理源于人们对诉讼效率性和时间经济性的认同。诉讼效率和时间的经济性与民事诉讼失权制度的关联点在于，欲求时间的经济性，就必须对诉讼主体的诉讼行为在实施时间上予以限制。民事诉讼失权主要有答辩权的丧失、上诉权和申诉权的丧失、管辖权的丧失、证据提出权的丧失。审前准备程序功能的实现离不开失权制度的保障，因为如果允许证据不受时间限制可以随时提出，答辩可以随时进行，审前准备程序整理争点、证据及防止诉讼突袭的设定意旨就会落空。要使审前准备程序发挥整理争点和证据的功能，应建立答辩失权制度和证据失权制度。1．建立答辩失权制度。被告在法定期限内未答辩，在美国和德国等国家均产生失权的效果，将导致法院根据原告的诉讼请求作出缺席判决。例如，《美国联邦地区法院诉讼规则》规定，“民事诉讼从原告向法院提交起诉状时开始”。而被告应诉不仅是他的权利，同时也是他的义务。被告应诉有两种方式。第一是提交答辩状，第二是不提交答辩状，而提交“申请书”（即“动议”），请求法院根据法定理由驳回诉状。《德国民事诉讼法》第273条第1款规定，“法院应及时地采取必要的准备措施。在诉讼的任何阶段，法院都应该使当事人为及时而完全的陈述。”同时，当事人亦被课以两种促进诉讼的义务：（1）一般的诉讼促进义务，即“当事人各方都应该在言词辩论中，按照诉讼的程度和程序上的要求，在为进行诉讼所必要与适当的时候，提出他的攻击和防御方法，特别是各种主张、否认、异议、抗辩、证据方法和证据抗辩”（第282条第1款）。如当事人违反一般诉讼促进义务，逾期提出攻击或防御方法，法院有权予以驳回。（2）特殊的诉讼促进义务，即当事人应于法院所定答辩状提出期间或反答辩状提出期间内提出之答辩或反答辩中，依诉讼程度与诉讼程序之要求，在为进行诉讼所必要与适当时期，提出攻击或防御方法。此外，如果原告的事实主张不够明确，被告甚至可以不对起诉作出任何回应，但从实务角度看，对有欠缺的诉讼请求不作出任何回应而坐等法院驳回起诉，是个极其危险的诉讼策略。所以，被告往往会在其答辩状中陈述抗辩，提出原告的起诉不符合《民事诉讼法》的“明确标准”，否则原告的陈述将被视为没有争议而被采纳。当法院决定采用书面准备时，它并不事先确定开庭日期，这根以前的情况一样。在送达起诉状的同时，法院仅仅命令被告：一是在其收到起诉状之后两周内，由律师书面通知法院他对诉讼是否提出抗辩。二是在由法院确定的至少两周的期间内，提交对起诉状的答辩状。如果被告没有将其抗辩的意向通知法院，法院就可根据原告的特别请求，缺席判决原告胜诉，这种特别请求可以作为起诉状的一部分提出。当然，法院会在其命令中说明这一点的。中国民事诉讼法将提交答辩状作为被告的诉讼权利，被告不提交答辩状的，不影响法院的审理（第一百一十三条第二款）。所以，在中国民事诉讼中审前不提交答辩状，到开庭审理时再陈述答辩意见，已经成为被告进行“法庭突袭”的一种诉讼策略。如果仅要求原告提交起诉状给被告，使被告能充分了解原告的诉讼请求及策略，而不强制被告提交答辩状给原告，则原告无法掌握被告的主张及态度，这种做法违背了当事人诉讼权利平等原则，造成双方对抗失衡，某种程度上是放任当事人搞诉讼突袭，使司法公正的实现打上折扣。因此，应将被告人提交答辩状规定为一项诉讼义务。具体要求是：被告人必须在案件起诉、受理阶段提交包含对原告诉讼请求基本态度、诉讼理由、证据材料等内容的答辩状，以使原告在审前了解被告的与案件有关的信息材料。如果被告不依法答辩，则意味着其对原告诉讼请求、事实和理由的承认，从而在庭审中丧失攻防诉讼手段的权利，承担未提交答辩状的法律后果。2．建立证据失权制度。由于被告在整理证据时必然提出答辩意见，故在审前程序建构中证据失权问题更为关键。证据开示是指一方当事人向对方当事人提供和展示与案件有关的事实、文件以及与其诉讼请求和抗辩有关的其他材料的审理前程序，目的在于它允许各方刺探对方的证据，并允许各方取得有助于证明其案件的证据，为当事人精确评估自己在审理中的获胜机会提供依据。根据《美国联邦地区法院诉讼规则》，“双方当事人必须主动向对方当事人出示与请求有关的信息和证据。”否则今后将丧失提出证据的权利。法国民事诉讼实行书证优先主义，书证是最主要也是最重要的证据。在辩论以前将己方书证传达给对方阅读，有利于对方做好攻击防御准备，避免“法庭突袭”，并提高法庭辩论效率。根据法国民事诉讼法的规定，当事人在审前程序中，必须向对方送达准备书状，传达书证，否则其主张和证据资料将不会被法庭采纳。根据我国《民事诉讼法》第一百一十三条规定，是否答辩是当事人的诉讼权利；第一百二十五条规定，当事人可以在法庭上提出新的证据。因此，从证据方面而言，我国理论界和实务界普遍认为立法采取的是“证据随时提出主义”。2001年最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》对此进行了变革。其第三十三条规定举证期限可以由人民法院指定，或由当事人协商一致，并经人民法院认可。第三十四条规定“当事人应当在举证期限内向人民法院提交证据材料，当事人在举证期限内不提交的，视为放弃举证权利。对于当事人逾期提交的证据材料，人民法院审理时不组织质证。但对方当事人同意质证的除外。当事人增加、变更诉讼请求或者提起反诉的，应当在举证期限届满前提出。”同时，《民事证据规定》第四十一条通过限缩性解释方式，对《民事诉讼法》第一百二十五条规定的“新的证据”范围作出严格界定。因此，现在我国司法实务界已经认同并采用“证据适时提出主义”。下一步，应该从立法上加以确定并完善证据失权制度，当事人收集的证据无正当理由未经审前开示交换的，不予质证和认证，即承担证据失效后果。英文:In modern judicial field, whether in the civil law or in the common law, both parties to implement Marxist or Marxist terms of implementation of the civil model Pretrial proceedings have become a civil institutional coincidentally choice, have already formed their own pre-trial procedures. China's "pre-trial preparations" has become our civil justice system reform one of the important contents. In view of the current theory and practice from the United States, Britain, France, Japan and other common law and civil law theory and the differences in legal provisions for purposes of comparison, China's civil law with specific provisions to improve our civil pre-trial preparation procedures, specific loss of civil rights system (right of reply system and the loss of evidence missing evidence right), open evidence and exchange system, Pre-trial conference set up the system, and establish and improve a wide range of disputes settlement mechanism, in order to facilitate maintenance procedures fair, litigation will also be conducive to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our civil justice law more responsive to the objective needs of modernization, China's civil sound system, and realizing China's civil justice, fairness, and efficiency goals. Civil pre-trial procedures are legal parties to enter the door of the first hurdles. As a hearing before the proceedings links, although China has not become a complete preparations for the pre-trial procedures, But still with a similar requirement that the "pre-trial preparations." My pre-trial preparation is characterized by the judges led to the entities from the process of preparation, in this, Judge led preparations for the entity, that is, to fully understand the case, the investigation of the evidence necessary pre-trial preparation is the core Pretrial but rarely participate in the party, even if the parties participate, but often the court and the parties to the unilateral contacts Such practices make it difficult to guarantee that the judges neutrality and impartiality, causing formal hearing. Pretrial reform process has become China's reform of the civil justice system one of the important contents. In pre-trial preparation procedural reform debate, a few years ago. "not prepared to sit directly," the practice of many other scholars, philosophy, but practice shows, Such direct evidence sit easily lead to surprise attacks, and repeat trial and reduce the efficiency of the proceedings in this way and undesirable. In view of the current theory and practice, the author intended from the United States, Britain, France, Japan and other common law and civil law theory and the differences in legal provisions for purposes of comparison, and the combination of our civil law specifies that a few civil pre-trial preparation procedures. 1. Foreign civil Pretrial proceedings in the comparative study of modern justice, whether in the civil law or common law, both parties to implement Marxist implement the terms of the civil Marxist model, Pretrial proceedings have become a civil institutional coincidentally choice, have already formed their own pre-trial procedures. Some Chinese scholars believe that this phenomenon is not accidental, which reflect the trend of development in civil proceedings. Foreign civil pre-trial preparation procedures common in this key performance areas : (1) pre-trial preparation procedures are highly valued and without the preparation procedures can not enter the court to hear and debate the creation of a German judge prepared, In each case, when the court system is prepared on the designation of a judge, who is responsible for special pre-trial preparations, and the trial court session to the other judges report the case (for the judges themselves are members of the full court), to ensure that pre-trial preparation in the courts under the command and tried to save time. France also very early on civil procedures prepared a detailed provisions. In Japan, revise the civil law of civil procedure system ready to absorb the common law and civil law procedures for preparing the strengths, fully reflect the countries learn from each other and keep each other to absorb the fusion trend. (2) pre-trial preparations main objective is to prevent the court attack, to ensure fair proceedings. improve the efficiency of the proceedings pre-trial preparation in the client fully prepared on the basis of access to the court. from the fundamental guarantee for the parties to enjoy full and equal opportunities for the debate to prevent the court attack, to ensure fair proceedings. Moreover, it also can be no dispute between the parties and the idea of the evidence excluded from the scope of the court to simplify court proceedings, expedite the proceedings, the efficiency of the proceedings. (3) pre-trial preparation activities to the main parties, Judge relative weakening of the role of Germany and Japan despite the judge in the pre-trial proceedings in preparation for a relatively active role. But generally speaking, civil pre-trial preparation process or client-based activities; by the parties and determine advocacy strive, by the parties to collect and present evidence, The court decided by the trial Objects (eventually enter the court), the party decision-making process from the beginning or the end. and so on and so forth. The judge generally neutral in 1937 as part of pre-trial preparation procedures, only at most a command procedures, all of the major substantive issues by the parties to decide. fully embody the party's autonomy. Meanwhile, foreign pre-trial preparation procedures and the provisions of our country there are many different points : (1) v. FOR stage of a litigation papers served. In the United States, service of process is the plaintiff's obligation and China, Germany is the competence of the court acts. But in the specific service mode, and Germany is slightly different. German court proceedings were instruments in terms of service through the mail. To simplify proceedings, the parties by counsel. Pleadings can be served by lawyers for the service delivery should be put pleadings transmitted to the other lawyers, namely lawyers to the Bar of the service. At present, China is still litigation instruments court staff directly served mainly by mail, and other authorized service supplemented. In the high volume of cases, the court support staff relatively few cases, direct service is obviously a inefficient manner. Two did not submit pleadings legal consequences. Defendant within the statutory time limit did not reply, in the United States and Germany both have lost the right results, According to the court would result in the plaintiff's request for litigation judgment in absentia. China Civil Procedure Law will be submitted to the pleadings as the defendant's right of action, the accused did not submit pleadings. Without prejudice to the trial court (Article 113, paragraph 2); Pretrial not submit pleadings, hearing that statement when the respondent, the defendant has become "the court assault" a litigation strategy. V. A three ways. The United States and Germany v. FOR embodiment of the way, "prosecution, the respondent, anti-reply ..." interactive process. Germany and France the way v. A point also made for defense and attack methods clearer concentration. China v. FOR complaint and the only way pleadings, the court generally will not reach the pre-trial to the accused. In other words, China v. FOR approach is static. 4 v. FOR instruments in the form requested. In Germany civil proceedings, the complaint, other pleadings and proceedings instruments very informal, But they must identify the parties and the courts, including the right of the claim, the reasons for the request for summary statement and defenses and requirements. Preliminary litigation pleadings must be signed by a lawyer, the counsel should have been practicing in a particular court. By contrast, the United States civil proceedings, litigation is formatted pleadings, just provide some connection with the case on the specific circumstances, the evidence does not make the proposal acceptable. German proceedings litigation pleadings to the contrary, it is proposed to accept a certain evidence is essential. V. A pair of Chinese instruments in the form of requirements and Germany, the United States, the more informal manner. Civil law requires the complaint states a claim, the facts and reasons, evidence and sources of evidence and the names and addresses of witnesses, in practice, as long as the complaint can be enough to file. no lawyers or be accompanied by an affidavit signed, and other special requirements. The defendant has just written replies. (2) preparation phase here of the "preparatory phase" narrowly understood that v. FOR stages of the pre-trial stage. Is the preparatory stage of the pre-trial procedures focus. Only the preparatory stage of the procedure, pre-trial procedures before they become real as opposed to "hearing" an independent process. American pre-trial preparation is open e