正義標尺還是烏托邦？──比較視野中的民事訴訟證明標準

Justice Scale or Constructed Utopia? – A Comparative Perspective of standard of Proof in Civil Litigation

對證明標準制度功能的不同期待，構成了兩大法系民事訴訟證明標準的關鍵差別。基於職業法官專司審判的司法組織方式，德國法將民事訴訟證明標準定位於法官個人的內心確信；二元制司法組織方式以及陪審團集體裁決的決策機制，則讓英美民事訴訟證明標準最終落腳於蓋然性優勢。同樣因為制度背景的差異，證明標準的制約功能僅僅在英美法系獲得了較多發展；在大陸法系，人們轉而依靠法官的事實說理來對事實認定加以控制。認識到證明標準的功能限度，對於我國民事訴訟證明標準的未來設計具有重要意義。The basic difference of standards of proof between common law and continental law systems is the distinct expectations of their functions. Based on professional judges-trail system, German law settles judges' inner belief as its standard of proof, and common law countries, consistent with the jury-trail system, settles preponderance of probability as their standards of proof in civil procedure. Also derived from the institutional distinctions, the constraining function of standard of proof is only developed in common law countries, while in continental law countries, people resort to judges' reasoning to control the fact-finding process. In the future devising of standard of proof in China law, it is of great significance for the lawmakers to be aware of its functional limits.