Judge’s Legal Opinion Interpreting Obligation In Civil Litigation

The obligation to point out the legal point of view is also called the obligation to explain the law,the obligation to disclose the legal point of view or the obligation to disclose the legal point of view.The legal point of view points out that obligations are derived from the right of broad interpretation,which is the applicable content of law in the broad interpretation,and together with the fact interpretation(narrow interpretation),constitute the core of the court’s "substantive litigation command".Some countries of the civil law system have made clear the legal view of the court and pointed out the obligation long ago.In Article 53 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Civil Litigation Evidence(Revised in 2019)(hereinafter referred to as "Article53 of the New Provisions on Evidence"),China first mentioned the legal point of view pointing out the obligation of the court,so that the court can better respect the autonomy of the parties’ will and protect the procedural rights of the parties,which created the evolution of Chinese judges from "fact interpretation" to "legal point pointing out the obligation".The establishment of the obligation to point out the legal point of view in Article 53 of the new "Evidence Provisions" constitutes the starting point of the construction of the obligation system to point out the legal point of view in China.Only the general provisions in Article 53 cannot ensure the perfect construction of this system.Our country has not clearly pointed out the specific contents of the applicable object,time,content,method,effect,and consequences of breach of the obligation from the legal point of view,which leads to the court having greater discretion in this part.Various practical explorations are quite different from the provisions of Article 53 of the new "Evidence Provisions",resulting in many new problems.In practice,judges often have different understanding and operation of Article 53 of the new Rules of Evidence,different understanding of the orientation of this Article,and different ways of handling the parties’ refusal to change the litigation request,which makes the parties appeal and appeal against the results of the judgment,affecting the harmony of justice to a certain extent.This has resulted in the parties’ right to participate in the litigation not being fully guaranteed,the cooperative trial not being fully implemented,and the dispute not being resolved at one time.Article 53 of the new Evidence Provisions should not be blindly applied,but should be applied on the premise of fully protecting the parties’ right to debate and dispose.Therefore,China should improve the legal point of view obligation system on the basis of Article 53 of the new Evidence Provisions,reference and learn from the mature legislative and judicial experience of foreign countries on the legal point of view obligation system,comprehensively integrate and innovate the legislative concept and practical experience of the legal point of view obligation system in China,and guide practice through cases.Under the principles of "safeguarding the litigants’ right to sue","parties and the court resolve disputes in coordination",and "one-time settlement of disputes",the contents of Article 53 of the new Evidence Provisions are amended,and the contents of how the court specifically performs the obligations pointed out in the legal opinion based on Article 53 are improved.