作者：张卫平
作者介绍：烟台大学黄海学者特聘教授、实体与程序交叉研究中心研究员
出版日期：2026年8月9日
内容提要 虽然“优势证据”一词为我国司法实践活动所常见，尤其是在民事诉讼领域，但这一概念既没有制度根据，也缺乏理论基础，仅仅是作为证据采信、事实认定的抽象符号。优势证据源于英美证据法上的理念，其体制基础是英美法的诉讼对抗制。优势证据的实际运用依赖于英美证据法体系中诸多证据规则的支撑。在我国，优势证据概念没有相应的体制基础和制度支持，无法成为具有实质规范内容的证据规则，无论是作为证据采信、证明标准，还是事实认定的方法，都应当予以摒弃。基于我国的法律体制，民事诉讼事实认定应当遵循充分确信原则，也就是大陆法系国家通行的自由心证原则。但人们对自由心证原则这一称谓的顾虑，阻碍了对该原则内涵及其保障制度的研究和建构，致使我国尚未形成完善的事实认定体系。因此，应以充分确信为原则，加强对民事诉讼法上证据规则与民事实体法上证明责任规则的完善，并继续深化司法体制改革，推进法官队伍专业化职业化发展，以保障案件事实揭示的高度还原。
关键词 优势证据 对抗制 事实认定 经验法则 证据规则
Abstract: Although the term ‘preponderance of evidence’ is frequently invoked in China’s judicial practice, particularly in civil litigation, it lacks both institutional grounding and theoretical foundation, merely used as an abstract symbol for evidence admission and fact-finding. Originating from Anglo-American evidence law, this concept is inherently tied to the adversarial litigation system and its practical application relies on the support of a comprehensive framework of evidentiary rules unique to common law traditions. In China, however, the absence of a compatible institutional framework renders the ‘preponderance of evidence’ incapable of evolving into a substantive evidentiary rule. Whether applied to evidence admission, the standard of proof, or fact-finding methodologies, this concept ought to be abandoned. Under China’s legal system, the proper approach to fact-finding in civil litigation should adhere to the principle of full corroboration — equivalent to the free evaluation of evidence prevalent in civil law jurisdictions. However, apprehensions surrounding the term ‘free evaluation of evidence’ have stifled the research and construction of its doctrinal essence and corresponding safeguards, hindering the development of a robust fact-finding system. Consequently, grounded in the principle of full corroboration, China should refine evidentiary rules under civil procedure law and the rules of burden of proof under civil substantive law, deepen judicial system reform, and promote the professional development of the judiciary team, so as to ensure a high degree of fidelity in the reconstruction of case facts.