摘要
当事人真实义务与民诉法诚信原则,不管在理论上的涵摄关系如何,二者都具有同质性,在立法上具有相互替代和相互说明的效果。新《民诉法》第13条第1款规定的诚信原则,迄今在裁判中被援引适用的情形极少,这从侧面说明,真实义务原则的立法在我国当下并不急需,也无实效。在现有民诉法框架内,通过直接援引适用诚信原则条款和强制措施来规制当事人的虚假陈述,条件成熟时再将诚信原则的适用主体予以细化,并对虚假陈述的具体制裁或程序救济予以完善,不失为明智和务实之举。
No matter what theoretically subsumtion relation between the litigant＇s truthfulness obligation and the good faith principle in Civil Procedure Law,they have homogeneity to replace and explain each other in legislation. The good faith principle in the article 13 and paragraph 1 of the new code of civil procedure haven＇t been quoted. It seems that the legislation of litigant＇s truthfulness obligation is not necessary and effective. We should prevent false statement with the application of the good faith principle in civil procedure and compulsory measures directly in the current frame of the civil procedure code. It＇s a sensible and pragmatic move to refine the subject of the good faith principle and complete the compulsory measures and procedure relief.
出处
《政法论丛》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第1期104-110,共7页
Journal of Political Science and Law
基金
2012年国家社科基金一般项目"沉默权
真实陈述义务和诚信原则立法的伦理基础研究"(批准号:12BZX067)的阶段性成果
关键词
当事人真实义务
民诉法诚信原则
裁判适用
虚假陈述
强制措施
litigant＇s truthfulness obligation
good faith principle in civil procedure law
application of the judgments
false statement
compulsory measures
