曹建军

（天津大学法学院，天津 300072）

【摘 要】我国民事诉讼法规定的书证收集渠道十分有限，不足以应对现代型诉讼中证据偏在的问题，应当在自愿型取证程序之外强化对强制型书证收集程序的建构。为弥补客观证明责任理论在强制收集书证上的乏力，主观证明责任领域发展出事案解明义务理论，英美法系的证据开示与大陆法系的文书提出命令皆是落实事案解明义务的具体体现。但是，双方当事人主导的扩张型证据开示制度根植于英美法系的独特制度环境，在内在理念与外在机制上与大陆法系均有所差异。鉴于我国与大陆法系民事诉讼在诸多方面的极强亲和性，我国应当继续借鉴大陆法系的文书提出命令制度，构建我国的强制型书证收集程序。

【关键词】书证收集；证据开示；文书提出命令；事案解明义务

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2019）05-0537-12

The realistic dilemmas and mode selectionof documents collection procedure. Cao Jianjun Law School of Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072

【Abstract】Measures of collecting documentary evidence stipulated by China's Civil Procedure Law are very limited and not sufficient to deal with the problem of uneven evidence distribution in modern litigation. So,the construction of compulsory documents collection procedure should be strengthened besides the voluntary documents collection procedure. In order to make up for the deficiencies of objective burden of proof theory on compulsory collection of documentary evidence, a theory of the obligation to clarify the facts of the case is established in the area of subjective burden of proof. The evidence discovery in the Anglo-American law system and the order for production of documents in the Civil law system are both concrete embodiment of the obligation to clarify the facts of the case. However, the expansive evidence discovery system led by parties is rooted in the unique institutional environment of the Anglo-American law system, which is different from the Civil law system in internal philosophy and external mechanism. Considering the strong affinity of China with the Civil law system in many aspects, we should refer to the order for production of documents in Civil law system to build a compulsory procedure of documents collection in our country.

【Key Words】Documents collection, Civil discovery, Order for production of documents, Obligation to clarify facts of the case