【作者】 肖健民；

【导师】 傅廷中；

【作者基本信息】 大连海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2001， 硕士

【摘要】 由于船舶碰撞案件证据的专业性极强、复杂性高以及证据不易调查等特点，船舶碰撞案件的审理一直是我国司法实践中的难点，长期以来困扰着诉讼当事人和法院。对于船舶碰撞案件中举证问题的深入研究和探讨对于船舶碰撞案件事实的明确，对于正确判定船舶碰撞案件当事人碰撞责任的大小，对于船舶碰撞案件司法实践的顺利进行无疑具有重要意义。 本文注重从诉讼法的基本理论着手，力求避免缺乏理论依据和理论深度的泛泛之谈，并且注重对立法发达国家法律制度的比较探寻，希冀能够借鉴和吸收立法发达国家立法的有益成分，以他山之石，来攻我之朴玉，对于船舶碰撞案件审理中的举证问题作了研究和论述。全文分为两大部分，一是船舶碰撞案件中举证责任的具体适用，二是船舶碰撞案件审理中的举证时限制度。 在船舶碰撞案件举证责任的具体适用问题上，以明确举证责任的含义和法律性质为基础，为论述和阐明此问题作了理论上的铺垫。详细论述了船舶碰撞案件诉讼当事人的过失举证问题，鉴于《1972年国际海上避碰规则》对于确定船舶碰撞案件当事人过失方面的指导和决定作用，笔者特别对此作了分析，提出了船舶碰撞案件诉讼当事人举证中的要素过失举证法，包括了望要素过失举证、安全航速要素过失举证、碰撞危险判断要素过失举证、避碰行动要素过失举证以及航行要素过失举证。 对于船舶碰撞案件审理中的举证时限制度问题，本文从我国诉讼立法的现状出发，深入剖析我国现有的诉讼立法中因未建立举证时限制度而产生的种种弊端，通过对世界上两大法系国家诉讼制度的比较探寻，论证在我国诉讼法领域中确立举证时限制度的必要性。文中分析和阐述了我国诉讼立法中未建立举证时限制度的成因、建立举证时限制度所面临的阻碍以及举证时限制度的诉讼价值，并且作了对于在我国建立举证时限制度所面临阻碍的辩证思考。得出的结论是：在我国建立举证时限制度不仅是必要的，而且有着重要的诉讼价值，举证时限制度的建立有助于程序公正、有助于程序安定和有助于诉讼效益的提高。特别是联系到我国船舶碰撞案件审理实践，结合《中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法》的 有关规定，明确船舶碰撞案件审理中确立举证时限制度的必要性，并通过分析现 行立法而找出不足，提出了积极具体的完善建议。 笔者认为现行的《海事诉讼特别程序法》关于船舶碰撞案件审理中举证时限 的规定存在以下重大缺陷：一是举证时限制度中举证期限何时届满的问题，二是 举证时限制度中举证期限届满后的法律后果问题。本文对此作了深入的分析，并 且提出了积极的立祛完善建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The judgement of ship collision case is a difficult point in our country’ s judicial practice, and has perplexed litigant and court for a long time. The main reasons are that the proof of ship collision case is very professional, complicated and hard to be investigated. So deep research on the matter of adducing proof of ship collision case is be of great important for clearing case fact, judging ship collision liability and ensuring smooth progress of judicial practice of ship collision case.The paper attaches attention to the theory of procedure law, and tries to avoid prating without theoretical foundation and depth, moreover lays stress on comparison of the legal system of different countries, hoping that our legislation can absorb some beneficial elements. The paper makes a full research and expounding for some aspects on adducing proof of ship collision case. The paper has two main sections, the one is concerning concrete application of burden of adducing proof in ship collision case, and the other one is concerning the legal system of limitation of adducing proof in ship collision case.In the first section, based on clearing implication and legal nature of burden of adducing proof, makes a detailed expounding on the fault adducing proof. In view that international Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972> has a leading and crucial role in clearing fault of litigant of ship collision case, the paper puts forward the method of vital factor on fault adducing proof which includes the fault of look-out, safe speed, risk of collision, action to avoid collision and navigating.In the second section, the paper begins from the present procedure legislation of our country, and analyzes the malpractice that was caused by no limitation of adducing proof in present legislation of our country. The paper analyzes the reason that our present legislation makes no regulation on limitation of adducing proof, the obstruct that was encountered by establishing such legal system, and the litigation value of limitation of adducing proof, furthermore makes a dialectical ponderation on the obstruct. The paper draws a conclusion that establishing of limitation of adducing proof in our country’ s legislation is not only necessary, but also has important litigation value such as helping impartial procedure, stable procedure and improvement of litigation afficacy. Especially combining judicial practice of ship collision case and relevant regulation of <the People’ s Republic of China Maritime Special Procedure Law>, clears the necessity of establishing limitation of adducing proof, finds the defect of present legislation, and presents a positive suggestion for perfection of present legislation.The paper considers that the major defects of our present legislation are as followings: the one is the expired time of limitation of adducing proof, the other one is the legal consequence after the expired time. The paper makes a deep expounding on this matter, and puts forward some positive suggestions for perfection of legislation.更多还原