證明責任“規範說”理論重述

Norm Theory' on the Burden of Proof: A Restatement

證明責任理論包含三個層次的方法論，即案件事實真偽不明時的裁判方法、證明責任分配方法及對這種分配規則的具體化與正當化方法。證明責任的實質是法律適用問題，而法律解釋是法律適用的基礎性作業，對實定法規範解釋方法的選擇不構成規範說的“本質缺陷”。《侵權責任法》第79條規定的動物致害案件可作為依“規範說”分配證明責任的一個適例而非反例。“規範說”與“修正規範說”存在著形式與實質的區別，但依兩種理論分配證明責任的結果基本是一致的。尊重實體法的立法宗旨與目的以分配證明責任是兩種學說一貫堅持的核心思想，也是該派學說與其他競爭性學說的本質區別。

The burden of proof consists of three levels methodology: the referee method to non-liquet, the burden of proof allocation method and specific and legitimate method to this allocation rule. The essence of the burden of proof is about legal application, and the interpretation of the law is the basic operations of legal application. The Article 79 of CHinese Fort Law does not constitute the essential defect of the Norm Theory. Animals' Injuring case in 'Chinese Tort Law' of legal interpretation is a case in point, rather than counter¬examples on the burden of proof allocation according to Norm Theory. In many ways the difference between Norm Theory and Modified Norm Theory is about form and substance. And in the allocation of the burden of proof of the results, according to the two theories it is basically the same. To respect the legislative purpose and object of the substantive law to allocate the burden of proof is the core idea that two theories always insisted on, which is also the essential difference between this theory and other competitive theory.