東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

非法證據非證據？ --論非法證據在民事訴訟中的可採性 = = Is Il...

Chen, Yi.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

非法證據非證據？ --論非法證據在民事訴訟中的可採性 = = Is Illegal Evidence Non-Evidence? --Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Proceedings.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	非法證據非證據？ --論非法證據在民事訴訟中的可採性 =/
Reminder of title:	Is Illegal Evidence Non-Evidence? --Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Proceedings.
Author:	Chen, Yi.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2020,
Description:	295 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-09, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International82-09A.
Subject:	Law. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28317576
ISBN:	9798582517030

非法證據非證據？ --論非法證據在民事訴訟中的可採性 = = Is Illegal Evidence Non-Evidence? --Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Proceedings.
Chen, Yi.

非法證據非證據？ --論非法證據在民事訴訟中的可採性 =Is Illegal Evidence Non-Evidence? --Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Proceedings. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2020 - 295 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-09, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Macau, 2020.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

國內證據法學理論主流觀點認為，在法律語境中，合法性是證據的一個重要屬性，非法證據非證據。本文主要以民事訴訟中非法證據的可採性為視角來對上述理論命題進行檢視。通過對兩大法系證據可採性理論和有關國家立法、司法實踐的歷史性考察，本文認為，18世紀至20世紀上半葉，基於查明真相的訴訟目的，取證手段合法與否，基本不影響该證據在民事訴訟中的可採性；20世紀下半葉開始，受刑事非法證據排除規則與理論的影響，民事訴訟領域重新審視非法證據的可採性問題。 20世紀後期開始，為兼顧查明真相與保障人權，民事訴訟非法證據部分排除、部分可採的折中立場成為理論及司法實務的主流觀點。儘管如此，本文始終認為，鑒於民事訴訟在訴訟目的、訴訟主體等方面有別於刑事訴訟，刑事非法證據排除規則及理論並不適用於民事訴訟。基於實體法-程序法兩分理論、證明權的保護理論以及正當程序理論，民事訴訟中實行非法證據排除的正當性有待進一步商榷。無論現代民事訴訟中是否應實行非法證據排除，本文對非法證據在民事訴訟中可採性問題的考察及討論結果均表明，通過非法手段獲得或以非法方式形成的證據在民事訴訟中並非不具有可採性；即使在實行民事非法證據排除的現代法律制度中，也並非所有非法獲得的證據都不具有可採性。由此可見，從民事訴訟取證手段的角度來看，合法性是證據的構成要件（或非法證據非法證據）這一命題不成立。.

ISBN: 9798582517030Subjects--Topical Terms:

600858
Law.
Subjects--Index Terms:

民事訴訟

非法證據非證據？ --論非法證據在民事訴訟中的可採性 = = Is Illegal Evidence Non-Evidence? --Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Proceedings.
LDR:05372nmm a2200433 4500 001 2285333
005 20211129133341.5
008 220723s2020 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798582517030
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28317576
035 $a AAI28317576
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Chen, Yi. $3 1277337
245 1 0 $a 非法證據非證據？ --論非法證據在民事訴訟中的可採性 = $b Is Illegal Evidence Non-Evidence? --Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Proceedings.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2020
300 $a 295 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 82-09, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Tong, Io Cheng.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Macau, 2020.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a 國內證據法學理論主流觀點認為，在法律語境中，合法性是證據的一個重要屬性，非法證據非證據。本文主要以民事訴訟中非法證據的可採性為視角來對上述理論命題進行檢視。通過對兩大法系證據可採性理論和有關國家立法、司法實踐的歷史性考察，本文認為，18世紀至20世紀上半葉，基於查明真相的訴訟目的，取證手段合法與否，基本不影響该證據在民事訴訟中的可採性；20世紀下半葉開始，受刑事非法證據排除規則與理論的影響，民事訴訟領域重新審視非法證據的可採性問題。 20世紀後期開始，為兼顧查明真相與保障人權，民事訴訟非法證據部分排除、部分可採的折中立場成為理論及司法實務的主流觀點。儘管如此，本文始終認為，鑒於民事訴訟在訴訟目的、訴訟主體等方面有別於刑事訴訟，刑事非法證據排除規則及理論並不適用於民事訴訟。基於實體法-程序法兩分理論、證明權的保護理論以及正當程序理論，民事訴訟中實行非法證據排除的正當性有待進一步商榷。無論現代民事訴訟中是否應實行非法證據排除，本文對非法證據在民事訴訟中可採性問題的考察及討論結果均表明，通過非法手段獲得或以非法方式形成的證據在民事訴訟中並非不具有可採性；即使在實行民事非法證據排除的現代法律制度中，也並非所有非法獲得的證據都不具有可採性。由此可見，從民事訴訟取證手段的角度來看，合法性是證據的構成要件（或非法證據非法證據）這一命題不成立。.
520 $a The dominate view of domestic evidence doctrine holds that legitimacy is an important attribute of evidence in the legal context, and illegal evidence is non-evidence. This thesis examines the above theoretical propositions from the perspective of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in civil litigation. Through historical investigations on the admissibility theory of evidence and the relevant legislation and judicial practice in common law and civil law, this thesis finds that: a) based on the purpose of finding the truth, the admissibility of evidence in civil litigation regardless of the manner by which the evidence is obtained from the 18th century to the first half of the 20th century; b) affected by exclusionary rules and theories of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceeding, the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence was reexamined in the civil litigation in the second half of the 20th century. Finally, a compromise position, which the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence is evaluated mainly on the balance of interest has become the dominant opinion in doctrine and judicial practice since the late 20th century. Nevertheless, this thesis maintains that exclusionary rules and theories of illegally obtained evidence in criminal litigation are not applicable to civil litigation since civil litigation is different from criminal litigation in terms of litigation purpose and litigation subject. Based on the segregation theory, the theory of the protection of the right of proof and the theory of due process, evidence illegally obtained should be admissible.Whether illegally obtained evidence should be excluded in modern civil litigation, the historical investigation and discussion of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in civil litigation shows that evidence obtained illegally or formed illegally is not inadmissible; even in the modern legal system that exclude evidence illegally obtained in civil litigation, not all evidence illegally obtained is inadmissible. Therefore, it can be seen that the proposition that illegal evidence is non-evidence is false from the perspective of the legitimacy of evidence collection.
590 $a School code: 1382.
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
653 $a 民事訴訟
653 $a 證據的可採性
653 $a 證據能力
653 $a 非法證據
653 $a 非法證據排除
653 $a Exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence
653 $a Evidence illegally obtained
653 $a Admissibility of evidence
653 $a Competence of evidence
653 $a Civil litigation
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0422
710 2 $a University of Macau. $b Law. $3 3561994
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 82-09A.
790 $a 1382
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2020
793 $a Chinese
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28317576