Civil Proof of Responsibility Research (17)

Author: Li Hao
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2003-09-01
Features: Since its establishment, Southwest University of Political Science and Law has gone through 50 years of hardship. Although it faced the chaos of the "Cultural Revolution" and was closed for nearly 10 years, it still educated over 100,000 students. The spirit of Mount Gulong nurtures integrity, while the Jialing River nourishes the humanistic spirit. The 100,000 graduates have been active across the country, contributing their talents to the construction of the nation's legal system, forming a widely recognized group of Southwest legal professionals, and shaping the unique character and spirit of Southwest legal education and its graduates. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the university's founding, the Beijing Alumni Association of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, in collaboration with Legal Press, has launched the "Academic Works of Southwest University of Political Science and Law," as a gift to our alma mater's 50th anniversary. It is also a review of the achievements of this major center of Chinese legal education and academic research. At the same time, we hope these 50 works can serve as stepping stones for future scholars in the fields of legal research and legal education. Additionally, we hope these works can demonstrate the traditions and spirit of Southwest University of Political Science and Law to readers.
The character and spirit reflected in the educational process, students' writings, and actions is primarily a strong sense of vigilance. The sense of vigilance is an enduring tradition of Chinese intellectuals. "A scholar must be resolute and enduring, for the burden is heavy and the journey is long. To take benevolence as one's duty is not heavy enough? To die without rest is not far enough?" Zeng Can's words can embody the strong sense of vigilance and responsibility of Chinese intellectuals. However, since modern times, with the introduction of Western academic and educational systems, intellectuals have had different specialties, creating a certain tension between their pursuit of national well-being and their professional goals. But for legal professionals, a new profession in the history of this country, they are destined to face more hardships compared to people in other fields in contemporary China.
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, legal education quickly fell into a state of suppression. In fact, the establishment of law and politics colleges like Southwest University of Political Science and Law in the early 1950s was more a measure to restrict legal education than a starting point for its development. Because each law and politics college was established by merging several departments of law from comprehensive universities, the emergence of law and politics colleges actually greatly reduced the overall scale of legal education in China. More significant than the scale was the break with existing traditions in the content and objectives of legal education implied by concepts like "law and politics." Therefore, both teachers and students in law and politics colleges were initially in a state of suppression.
If we look at the mainstream discourse on legal education at the time, it was completely hostile to the rule of law. By the 1960s, this hostility intensified, ultimately leading to a complete halt in legal education. Teachers were sent to labor, and schools were disbanded one after another. In such circumstances, the sense of vigilance of legal intellectuals was truly profound and inescapable.
After the Cultural Revolution, legal education was restored, and the construction of the rule of law gradually became a priority. However, the vast gap between legal theory in books and the actual situation in society remains a constant source of pain for legal professionals. Although located in Southwest China, somewhat "far from the center of power," this sense of vigilance, intensified by the of their profession, has not diminished for a moment. In fact, the distance from the political center may have even strengthened it.
If proof burden is the core of the civil evidence system, then the allocation of proof burden is the core of the core. The allocation of proof burden spans both civil procedural law and civil substantive law. Determining the allocation of proof burden must take into account both the inherent rules and requirements of the civil litigation system and the legislative purpose and specific provisions of civil substantive law. Compared to Germany and Japan, which have always attached great importance to the study of civil proof burden, our civil liability and proof burden research are still relatively weak. The main manifestations are: first, there is still a certain degree of ambiguity in understanding some basic issues in proof burden theory. Second, a considerable number of judges have not fully grasped the essence of proof burden, nor have they fully recognized the intrinsic connection between responsibility and the state of unclear facts, and thus have unconsciously used proof burden to handle cases where disputes cannot or are difficult to be clarified. Third, there is a lack of close integration between theory and practice. Fourth, current research on proof burden still faces at least two problems: first, it does not examine the state of unclear facts in litigation in relation to proof burden, nor does it recognize the main function of proof burden in civil litigation is to deal with phenomena where disputes cannot be clarified, thus failing to fully grasp the essence of proof burden; second, the research perspective is not broad enough, and some issues closely related to proof burden, such as the admission of parties, presumption, and proof requirements, have not been studied in depth, resulting in a lack of systematicity.