Research On The Self-recognition System Of Civil Litigation Restrictions In China

The self-identification system,based on debatocracy and fully respecting the party autonomy,is used as a litmus test for the success of the civil litigation system in shifting from ex officio to partyism.The self-identification system has long been closely followed by the theoretical and practical circles,and has been continuously developed and improved.The 2019 New Civil Litigation Evidence Regulations further refine the system,among which,it is worth noting the system of restricted self-identification.Restricted self-identification system is incomplete self-identification,a special form of self-identification,the emergence of the system is the progress of China’s civil procedure law,plays an important role in the judicial practice of dispute resolution,but the system has limitations such as vague legislative provisions,imperfect provisions,no uniform rules of adjudication,judicial misidentification,the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case,will lead to litigation instability,attrition of judicial authority.This paper studies and analyzes the problems related to the restriction of self-identification system in order to expect to improve the system.In addition to the introduction,this paper is divided into four parts,as follows.The first part mainly discusses the concepts related to the restriction of self-recognition.The first part discusses the meaning of self-identification in a broad sense,and then discusses the two forms of self-identification,namely"partial self-identification" and "conditional self-identification".Then,we discuss the nature of restriction of self-recognition from three perspectives,namely,"evidence","meaning" and "notice of concept",and conclude that we should insist on the view that restriction of self-recognition is the meaning of the parties.Then,in order to better identify restrictive self-identification,we discuss the differences and similarities between restrictive self-identification and "full self-identification","indirect denial","presumption of defense",and "conditional recognition"Then,we analyze the similarities and differences of "conditional recognition" and "full self-recognition","indirect denial","presumption of defense",and "conditional recognition".Finally,we discuss the three types of effects that arise from restrictive self-identification,namely,"trial preclusion," "non-proof," and"irrevocability.The second part discusses the current situation and the problems of self-identification.The current situation is discussed from two perspectives: the current legislative situation and the current judicial situation;the problems are discussed from five perspectives: firstly,the allocation of the burden of proof in the system of self-certification is not regulated,and the allocation of the burden of proof is still left to the discretion of the judge;secondly,the exercise of the judge’s discretion is not regulated,and it is mainly reflected in Articles 7 and 8.2.Thirdly,there is no provision for the withdrawal of self-identification,and the withdrawal of self-identification is still applied,without taking into account the special nature of self-identification;fourthly,in judicial practice,there is the phenomenon of misidentifying other concepts as self-identification;fifthly,there is the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case based on the inconsistency of adjudication rules.The third part mainly elaborates on the system of restriction of self-identification in the major countries and regions of civil law and common law systems,then compares the similarities and differences between the two systems,and finally draws suggestions for improving the system of restriction of self-identification in China from the separability of self-identification,the allocation of the burden of proof of restriction of self-identification and withdrawal in the two systems.The fourth part mainly proposes solutions to the problems in the second part in order to improve the system of self-identification in China,and the suggestions are as follows: First,the allocation of the burden of proof according to the type of self-identification.For partial self-identification,the non-self-identifying party is exempted from the burden of proof for the part of facts admitted by the self-identifying party,and continues to bear the burden of proof for the part not admitted;for conditional self-identification,when the conditions attached by the self-identifying party contradict the admitted facts,the non-self-identifying party bears the burden of proof for the untruthfulness of the conditions attached by the self-identifying party;when the conditions attached by the self-identifying party do not contradict the admitted facts,the self-identifying party bears the burden of proof for the When the conditions attached by the self-identifying party are not contradictory to the admitted facts,the self-identifying party shall bear the burden of proving the truthfulness of its additional conditions.The second is to restrain the form of the court’s discretionary power.First,to clarify the types of restriction of self-admission and the way to determine them;second,to strengthen the supervision of judges’ discretionary exercise;then,to narrow the scope of the restrictions of the law;and third,to clearly provide for the withdrawal of the restriction of self-admission system in the legislation.The third is to clearly stipulate the withdrawal of self-identification,how to withdraw it,and the conditions and effects that should be met.Fourthly,to address the problem of misidentification of self-identification restriction,the composition elements of self-identification restriction are stipulated.Firstly,the subject of restriction of self-identification is clearly applicable,i.e.,the eligible parties;secondly,the object is the fact that is unfavorable to oneself;and then,the time of making is in the process of litigation;finally,the substantive condition is to attach restrictions or conditions to the recognition.