作者：王杏飞
作者介绍：西南政法大学法学院副教授，法学博士
出版日期：2014年6月9日
内容提要 释明在两大法系主要国家的存在形式有别，但其功能与价值有共通之处， 即追求实质正义与程序正当的统一，实现“该胜者胜诉，该败者败诉”; 保障当事人的程序 主体性，避免“突袭性裁判”; 促进纠纷在一审程序中“一揽子”解决，提高裁判结果的可接 受性从而提升诉讼效率。释明要求法官是中立的裁判者，但不是旁观者，其理念与规范在 我国民事诉讼立法、司法解释及规范性文件中已有初步体现，尚待进一步科学化与体系化。 当前亟需明确释明的具体对象与界限，健全释明的激励与约束机制。释明的方式是审判的 艺术，对法官的素养有较高的要求。
关键词 释明 法官中立 事实证明 法律适用 买卖合同
Abstract: Aufklarungsrecht is expressed by different forms in the countries of two law system，but they have commonality in function and value，pursuing the unification between essential justice and procedure legitimacy，realizing that “the two parties all get what they deserve”; guaranteeing the subjectivity of the parties during the procedure， avoiding “surprise judgment”; promoting package solution for dispute in the first instance procedure， improving the acceptability of judgments， so as to improving litigation efficiency． Aufklarungsrecht require the judge to be as a neutral party but not a bystander． This philosophy and regulations have preliminarily showed in our civil action legislation，judicial interpretation and normative documents and it needs to be further more scientific and systematic． The first thing is to specify the specific object and limit of aufklarungsrecht and perfect incentive and constraint mechanism of aufklarungsrecht． The way of aufklarungsrecht is an art of trial，it needs judges to be equipped with higher qualities．