| The judicial sector has embraced the new changes brought about by the new technology.In recent years,with the booming development of e-commerce platforms and the all-round popularity of mobile payment,the number of cases has increased year by year and has shown characteristics such as cross-territory.In response to this problem,three Internet Courts in Hangzhou,Guangzhou and Beijing have been established and have gradually issued their own trial specifications.At the same time,in April 2018,the Hangzhou Internet Court created the world’s first asynchronous trial model for cross-border and inter-temporal issues in online litigation,offering big growth and prosperity of the Internet Court and an emerging face.The most noteworthy aspect of the asynchronous trial model is its "asynchronous nature",which means that the requirement for time synchronisation is abandoned in the trial.This leap forward,of course,also raises a number of questions,such as whether it has weakened the rituals of the trial? Does it conflict with the principle of direct expression and the principle of centralised hearings? Can it be successfully promoted in judicial practice? And so on.In the face of these questions and reflections,this article takes the relevant trial rules as the basis and combines them with the theory of civil procedure law,summarises the existing problems of the asynchronous trial model and seeks to justify its existence and development through the analysis of the problems,and puts forward suggestions for improvement in order to make a relatively successful step forward in the application of the asynchronous trial model in judicial activities.The first part introduces the basic aspects of the asynchronous trial model,including its connotations,background,status and characteristics.In this part,the "past life" of the asynchronous model and its unique features that distinguish it from previous models are discussed in a more complete manner.The second part discusses the problems with the current asynchronous trial model,including the damage to the rituals of the trial,the violation of the principle of centralised trial,the conflicts of the principle of direct expression,the inconsistent scope of cases,the inconsistent initiation of proceedings,the difficulties in applying the rules of evidence,the difficulties in achieving open trials,and the over-reliance on internet technology.The third part focuses on the rationality of the asynchronous trial model,including the practical necessity of preventing surprise decisions,improving the efficiency of litigation,and alleviating the uneven distribution of judicial resources;and the theoretical justification of conforming to the jurisprudence of procedural rituals,having no conflicts with the principle of centralised trial,and not impeding the realisation of the principle of direct speech.The fourth part makes relevant suggestions for improvement,including five aspects:firstly,limiting the types of cases to be applied;secondly,safeguarding the parties’ right of procedural choice;thirdly,improving the rules of evidence applied by the Internet Court;fourthly,promoting the construction of open trials;and fifthly,strengthening the construction of network infrastructure. |
