【摘要】：民事專家輔助人是指為了解決民事訴訟中案件涉及的具有爭議的專業(yè)性問題，由當事人申請，法院審查決定其出庭參與訴訟，對鑒定意見或者其他專業(yè)問題進行闡釋、說明和提出專家意見，以排除當事人質證和法院事實認定中對有關專業(yè)問題的認知障礙，協(xié)助法院發(fā)現(xiàn)事實真相。專家輔助人在訴訟中的身份既不同于專家證人、也有別于鑒定人，其在我國民事訴訟中應屬于裁判輔助主體，具有特殊的訴訟地位。關于專家輔助人的資格要求、選任、權利義務、法律責任以及專家意見效力等一系列問題的規(guī)范總和即為專家輔助人制度。 專家參與訴訟的模式在兩大法系國家都經(jīng)歷了較長時間的發(fā)展，，由于科學技術的迅猛發(fā)展，專家在訴訟中的作用日趨明顯，兩大法系開始致力于相關制度的改革與創(chuàng)新，使其逐漸趨于完善。我國也結合自身的司法實踐經(jīng)驗并借鑒國外的專家證人制度等先進的司法經(jīng)驗，建立了獨特的專家輔助人制度。但是，從現(xiàn)有的專家輔助人制度的立法狀況與司法實踐來看，該制度在諸多方面還有待進一步完善。例如，專家輔助人的資格如何確定、法院主導專家輔助人的選任問題、資格審查為何種標準、權利義務和法律責任不明確的缺陷、專家意見可采性標準缺失等等問題的存在，都昭示著我國專家輔助人制度的完善之路還很漫長。另外，該制度中處于核心地位的專家輔助人的法律定位問題學界也未能達成共識，以致于學者們就專家意見的效力問題也眾說紛紜，進一步阻礙了人們構建統(tǒng)一的專家輔助人制度體系。 要保障專家輔助人制度的順利運行，我們應當在保留職權主義的背景下，對英美法系的專家證人制度和大陸法系的鑒定人制度推陳出新，完善新興的專家輔助人制度。從專家輔助人制度的立法背景入手，對法條和司法解釋關于該項制度的規(guī)定進行解讀，比較其中的一致性和區(qū)分點。然后進一步分析學界對專家輔助人法律定位的理論觀點，準確認定專家輔助人裁判輔助主體的訴訟地位，并建立以實質要求為主導，形式要求服務于實質要求的專家輔助人資格標準。通過削弱專家輔助人制度中的職權主義色彩，賦予當事人在選任專家輔助人方面更多的主動權。同時具體規(guī)定專家輔助人擁有的權利、承擔的義務和法律責任。彌補專家意見可采性規(guī)則的缺失，規(guī)范專家意見的認定標準，進一步確定專家意見的法律效力。
[Abstract]:A civil expert assistant means that in order to solve the controversial professional issues involved in a civil action, the parties apply, and the court examines and decides to appear before the court to participate in the proceedings, and to interpret the appraisal opinion or other professional issues, To explain and provide expert opinions in order to remove the cognitive barriers to relevant professional issues in the cross-examination of the parties and the court's factual determination, and to assist the court in discovering the truth of the facts. The status of expert assistant in litigation is not only different from expert witness, but also different from expert witness. The standard sum of the qualification requirements, selection, rights and obligations, legal responsibility and the effectiveness of expert opinions is the system of expert auxiliaries. The mode of expert participation in litigation has experienced a long period of development in the two legal system countries. Due to the rapid development of science and technology, the role of experts in litigation is becoming more and more obvious. The two legal systems began to devote themselves to the reform and innovation of relevant systems. Make it tend to perfect gradually. Our country also combines own judicial practice experience and draws lessons from the foreign advanced judicial experience such as expert witness system, has established the unique expert assistant person system. However, from the current legislative situation and judicial practice of the expert Auxiliary system, the system needs to be further improved in many aspects. For example, the question of how to determine the qualifications of expert auxiliaries, the choice of expert auxiliaries by the courts, the criteria for qualification review, the shortcomings of rights, obligations and legal responsibilities, the absence of criteria for the admissibility of expert opinions, and so on. It is also a long way to perfect the expert assistant system in our country. In addition, the legal position of expert auxiliaries in this system has not reached a consensus, so that scholars have different opinions on the validity of expert opinions. Further hinders the people to construct the unified expert assistant person system. In order to ensure the smooth operation of the expert assistant system, we should, under the background of the retention of authority, bring forth new ideas to the expert witness system in the Anglo-American law system and the expert witness system in the continental law system, and perfect the emerging expert assistant person system. Starting from the legislative background of the expert assistant system, this paper interprets the provisions of the law and the judicial interpretation about the system, and compares the consistency and distinction between them. Then it further analyzes the academic theory of the legal positioning of the expert assistant, and accurately determines the litigation status of the expert assistant referee, and establishes the substantive requirements as the leading role. The qualification criteria for expert auxiliaries serving substantive requirements. By weakening the functions and powers in the system of expert auxiliaries, the parties are given more initiative in the selection of expert auxiliaries. At the same time, it specifies the rights, obligations and legal responsibilities of the expert auxiliaries. To make up for the deficiency of the rule of admissibility of expert opinion, to standardize the standard of recognition of expert opinion, and to further determine the legal effect of expert opinion.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 季美君;;英國專家證據(jù)可采性問題研究[J];法律科學(西北政法學院學報);2007年06期

2 陳志興;;論民事訴訟中的專家輔助人制度[J];海峽法學;2010年02期

3 鄭昱;;論英美法系專家證人制度對我國的借鑒[J];海峽法學;2011年02期

4 汪建成;;專家證人模式與司法鑒定模式之比較[J];證據(jù)科學;2010年01期

5 邵劭;;論專家證人制度的構建——以專家證人制度與鑒定制度的交叉共存為視角[J];法商研究;2011年04期

6 胡震遠;;我國專家證人制度的建構[J];法學;2007年08期

7 黃學賢;;行政訴訟中的專家輔助人制度及其完善[J];法學;2008年09期

8 樊永富;專家意見證據(jù)地位的確立與理解適用[J];江蘇警官學院學報;2003年03期

9 張嘉軍,李莉;鑒定結論和勘驗筆錄作為證據(jù)種類的困境與未來[J];廣西政法管理干部學院學報;2005年01期

10 韓靜茹;;專家參與民事訴訟的類型化分析——以我國民事證據(jù)立法的最新動向為背景[J];西部法學評論;2013年02期

本文編號：2285691