The Boundaries In Interpreting Of Judges And System Design

When talking about interpreting in Civil Procedural Law, there are two kinds of meaning. The first meaning is interpreting which is the opposite of fully prove; the second meaning is the litigation action carried with authority principle from judge, which is called as clarify in Taiwan. Interpreting doesn’t belong to Chinese language. Conversely, it is seen in 1989 Japan Civil Procedure Law first, translated from German ” Aufkl?rung”. Judge can implement interpreting behavior in both civil law system and common law system. In other words, judge can urge client to correct it by inquiring, informing or explaining for realizing the justice of procedures, when the facts and evidence of a case are not so clear, complete or inconsistent.This thesis will launch the research from the introduction of judge interpreting theory, which briefly introduces the region and content of “interpreting”, how interpreting affects the mainland and then realizes localization, and that the attention to interpreting goes with reforming the civil procedure system. On account of interpreting’s multiple connotations, such as right, obligation and duty, they are collectively called “Interpreting of judges” in this thesis instead of interpreting rights, interpreting obligations, or interpreting duties. “Interpreting of judges” is a imported concept so that it must be unaccustomed if it hasn’t been located. How to clarify the boundaries of interpreting which is corresponding to client’s disposal is the bridge between the judge and the client challenges judges. Therefore, we must master the basic concept and the boundaries of interpreting to apply it skilfully. In our country interpreting isn’t regulated expressly on neither legislation or practice, so Chapter two and three will introduce both the theory and the practice of interpreting, based on which we divided “Judge Interpreting” issue into factual issue and legal issue to research the boundary of interpreting. Chapter 4, as the ending and research result, is the last chapter based on chapter 2 & 3 in this thesis, and seeks the rule of building Interpreting of judges system and the relief system. This thesis is divided into four chapters, whose structure is simple and clear. Concretely speaking:The first chapter is the starting point of the full text`s research, namely the basic introduction of the judge interpretation theory. The interpretation originated in the civil lawsuits of the civil law countries. After Japan’s study and the scholars` introduction in Taiwan, Chinese scholars discussed the interpretation, and made it as a kind of trail skill to make up for a lack of the adversary system. From the etymology of interpretation, this paper definite the characteristics and discusses the value of litigation by introducing the connotation, and then to realize the spanning from theory to practice. Due to the code of civil procedure in our country did not make clear a regulation for the interpretation right, the provisions on interpretation are still visible in the judicial interpretations and individual local authority files. However, in judicial practice, the phenomenon of judges use interpretation is relatively common, and the lack of legislative level causes the confusion in the judicial level. These are reflected in: the basic rules for the interpretation are not clear. There is so much subjective randomness for judge to implement interpretation behavior, and it leads to many differences in standard around the difference place. Absence of relief procedure make the parties cannot protect the damaged interests of litigation timely and effectively, which is due to the judge`s inappropriate interpretation. So it is necessary to establish a systematic interpretation system. Traditional theory knows that, under the principle of the judge knows the law, the object of interpretation is limited to question of fact. This paper is based on favor of the standpoint of parties participated in legal issues. With the facts and the law binary classification as a breakthrough point to discuss, and want to study on the objects of judge interpretation in time and space. Ultimately, definite the limit of interpretation.Chapter 2 and chapter 3 respectively carries on the first chapter, the two chapters make the issues involved in the lawsuit divided into two aspects. One is question of fact, the other is legal problems. From the interpretation activities of the two aspects, which including the facts and legal issues, the two chapters analysis the basic boundary of the judge interpretation and the corresponding security measures. This paper has a basic understanding about the degree of interpretation from the aspects of fact and law of the interpretation, and puts forward corresponding measures to guarantee the judge interpretation not crossing the limit. In the aspect of ascertaining the facts, the object of judge interpretation is the parties` propositions and proof behaviors. The boundary of interpretation is to exhaust the parties` lawsuit resources and prevent the foray of the fact finding. As a compulsory attributive safeguard measures, interpretation is a mental impression system. In terms of the application of law, the interpretation points to the identification of the small premise in judicial syllogism. Which is the fact that claimed by the parties whether be corresponding and tolerance by legal norms. It means subsumption. Subsumption is the thinking process to evaluate the relationship between natural facts and legal norms. Based on the compulsory attribute of the judge interpretation, the judge should prevent the production of the surprise of judgment. Hence it asked a judge to have open law point of view and guarantee the parties` right to debate.Under the unit perspective, chapter 4 from the premise and principle of interpretation, designs the interpretation rules in the trial practice and the relief system of the parties. In order to form a systematic design of the interpretation system.Prophesying, first of all, for the idea request of the basic boundary and measures from the second chapter and the third chapter, the premise of definiting interpretation is to reform the debate principle in our country and confirm the restrictive debate principle on the legislation. And make that to explore the parties` meaning and observes a strict neutrality as a principle. Secondly, combined the judge`s general trial requirements and targets in various stages,to build up a completed rules of interpretation system.