Study On The Institutional Review And Improvement Paths Of Document Issuing Orders

As an important system to enhance the ability of parties to collect evidence,the issuance of orders in documents is of great value in ensuring the equality of weapons in civil litigation and the discovery of case facts.The Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation,implemented in 2020,have improved and supplemented the application procedures and sanctions consequences of China’s system of filing orders.However,overall,the system design still tends to be conservative and has not achieved good judicial practice results.This article analyzes the problems and reasons of the current system of issuing orders in documents,and proposes the direction for improving the system from two aspects:examining the value of the system and improving the litigation model.Finally,based on extraterritorial legislative experience and China’s judicial practice,corresponding improvement suggestions are proposed.The first part is the analysis of institutional related concepts and the proposal of the current situation of the problem.Compared to "documentary evidence","document" as the object of evidence investigation is more in line with conceptual logic;The obligation to file a document"is defined from the perspective of the holder,compared to the obligation to file an order.Through empirical analysis of the existing system,it can be concluded that there are four main practical situations: firstly,the overall applicability of the system is not high;Secondly,the application of the system focuses on traditional cases;Thirdly,the degree of formalization of articles has a significant impact on judicial application;Fourthly,the rule design of the existing system tends to be conservative.The second part is an analysis of the issue of issuing orders in documents.Based on the current practical situation,the existing system has three problems: the evidentiary interests of the parties need to be implemented,the difficulty of applying the system to the witnesses is high,and the procedural interests of the parties are not guaranteed.The main reasons for the problem include two aspects: firstly,there is a deviation between the design of institutional rules and the basic value,mainly manifested in the functional alienation of litigation synergy and the lack of the principle of substantive weapon equality;Secondly,there is a problem of improper selection in the process of improving the litigation model,which overemphasizes the litigation autonomy of the parties and neglects the role of judges in litigation.The third part is about the direction of improving the order proposed in the document.According to the analysis of the problem,the order proposed in the document can be improved in three directions: firstly,to deepen the depth and breadth of the collection of relevant documents,including optimizing the scope of the obligation proposed in the document and expanding the scope of the applicable subject of the system;Secondly,strengthen the litigation coordination and command functions of judges;The third is to improve the corresponding procedures and implement the protection of the rights and interests of the parties involved.The fourth part is about the optimization path for document submission commands.According to the improvement direction proposed in the second part,combined with extraterritorial legislative experience and China’s judicial practice,the improvement of the system of issuing orders for documents mainly starts from three paths: first,to achieve institutionalized expansion of the system of issuing orders for documents.Establish a relative generalization of the scope of obligations proposed in the document,with the boundary of the scope of obligations clearly defined as the standard of "subjective knowledge+interest correlation";Expanding the subject of the application to the opposing party;The respondent expands to a third party outside of the case.The second is to clarify and standardize the interpretation power of judges,and to achieve it in the form of normative legislative or judicial policy documents.The third is to establish and improve the safeguard procedures,improve the review procedures for filing orders,establish the trial procedures for filing orders,and reconstruct the legal consequences of violating the filing orders.