證據法體系問題與體系化路徑檢討

為規範訴訟中的事實認定，中國已形成一個龐雜的規範系統，構成了證據法部門。然而證據法規範及其學理均存在體系問題。在外部體系上，體系界限不清，規範性質雜糅，基本範疇與統括邏輯不統一。在內部體系上，基本理念有方向性分歧，原則體系與價值位階混亂。體系問題投射在裁判規則上，表現為對司法實踐涵括性差，難以提供填補規範漏洞的體系脈絡等。體系問題源於外部給定式路徑，表現為證據規範制定的實用主義導向和證據法學研究內部立場的缺失。應面向司法實踐，採取參與者視點，轉換體系化路徑。首先，以司法為場域，識別事實爭點，進行類型化提煉，形成問題定向的關聯脈絡。其次，以論題學方式統括證據規範、證據分析方法和各類體系性理論，搜集和儲備解決事實爭點的論題性材料。最後，遵循方法論規則，在使用論題解決爭點的過程中生成法教義學語句，建構裁判規則和理由。最終形成基於司法語用學情境的證據法規範體系和理論體系。

To standardize the factual determination in litigation, China has established a complex normative system, forming the evidence law department. However, both the evidence law norms and their theories have problems of systematization. In terms of the external system, the boundaries are unclear, the nature of the norms is mixed, and the basic categories and the organizing logic are not unified. In terms of the internal system, there are directional differences in rationale, and the principle system and value hierarchy are chaotic. The systematization problems are reflected in the judicial rules, manifested as poor inclusiveness of judicial practice and difficulty in providing a systematic framework to fill the normative loopholes. The systematization problems stem from the externally given path, manifested as the pragmatic orientation of evidence norm formulation and the lack of internal stance in the study of evidence law. We should face judicial practice, adopt the perspective of participants, and transform the systematization path. First, in the judicial field, identify the factual disputes, conduct typological refinement, and form a problem-oriented connection framework. Secondly, in the way of Topica, integrate evidence norms, evidence analysis methods, and various systematic theoretical viewpoints, collect and reserve materials of Topica for solving factual disputes. Finally, following the rules of methodology, convert into legal dogmatics language during the process of using these materials to solve disputes, and construct judicial rules and reasons. Eventually, a normative system and theoretical system of evidence law based on the pragmatic context of judicial practice can be formed.