兴奋剂违规案件的证明责任问题——以“Contador案”为视角
Consideration of Proof Liability in Doping Violation Cases: From the Perspective of the “Contador Case”
投稿时间:2019-07-03  
DOI:
中文关键词:法定说服责任  提供证据的责任  否定事实  证明标准
英文关键词:Legal Persuasive Burden  Evidential Burden  negative facts  proof standard
基金项目:国家社会科学基金项目(17BTY007)
作者单位E-mail
柴毛毛 苏州大学 王健法学院 18238835728@163.com 
摘要点击次数: 28
全文下载次数: 35
中文摘要:
      运用案例分析法,将证据法学和体育法学交叉综合,对国际体育仲裁院仲裁庭(CAS)就“Contador案”所作的裁决进行分析。以从CAS的裁决中寻找有益的观点,为完善《世界反兴奋剂条例》及以之为蓝本的其他反兴奋剂条例中关于证明责任分配与证明标准的规定提供借鉴。“Contador案”的裁决采纳了证据法学中将证明责任分为法定说服责任与提供证据的责任的观点,认为不承担法定说服责任的当事人在对方当事人举证困难的情况下,也应承担提供证据协助查明案情的责任。这一观点应当为《世界反兴奋剂条例》所借鉴,以补充细化第3.1条中关于证明责任的规定。
英文摘要:
      This paper uses the case analysis method and the inter-disciplinary theory of evidence law and sports law to analyze the ruling of CAS on the Contador case, so as to draw on useful ideas from the ruling and to offer reference for the improvement of provisions involving proof liability and proof standard of the World Anti-Doping Code and other related anti-doping regulations. The ruling of the Contador case adopted the view of evidence law that divides proof liability into Legal/Persuasive Burden and Evidential Burden, insisting that the party who does not bear Legal/Persuasive Burden is also liable to provide evidences to assist in identifying the case if the other party has difficulties. The World Anti-Doping Code should draw on the view to complement the Article 3.1 on proof liability.
查看全文  查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭