The distinction between proof and preparatory access to information in civil procedure
Downloads
Abstract
This paper proposes to adopt the distinction between proof and preparatory access to information when taking a comparative approach to civil procedure. It provides means for functional differentiation of procedural rules regarding factual decision-making. It allows identifying rules aimed at forming the basis for the factual decision making by a judge or a jury (proof) and to distinguish them from rules aimed at providing information to the parties and enabling them to understand the strength of their positions and to make informed decisions on how to further proceed with the case (preparatory access to information). This paper will show how failing to distinguish these two categories can lead to faulty comparative reflections and promote procedural transplants that do not contribute to the improvement of the procedural systems of civil law countries.
Keywords
comparative law, civil procedure, access to evidence, discovery, disclosure of documentsDownloads
References
Anderson, T., Schum, D. y Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence (2a Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Armour, J., Parnham, R. y Sako, M. (2020). Augmented Lawyering. European Corporate Governance Institute - Law Working Paper 558/2020. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3688896
Cerrato, E. (2021). Análisis de la exhibición documental de terceros y la disclosure against a person not a party en el proceso civil. Revista Ius et Praxis, 27(1), p. 3-16.
Damaška, M. (1997). Evidence Law Adrift. Yale University Press.
Gottwald, P. (2005). Zum Stand der Zivilprozessrechtsvergleichung. En B. Bachmann et al. (Eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen – Beiträge zum Internationalen Verfahrensrecht und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Festschrift für Peter Schlosser zum 70 (p.227-245). Mohr Siebeck.
Jansen N. (2019). Comparative Law and Comparative Knowledge. En M. Reinmann y R. Zimmerman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2a Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kischel, U. (2015). Rechtsvergleichung. C.H.Beck.
Langbein, J. (1985). The German Advantage in Civil Procedure. The University of Chicago Law Review, 52(4), p. 823-866.
Legrand, P. (2003). The Same and the Different. En P. Legrand y R. Munday (Eds.)., Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions (p. 240-311). Cambridge University Press, 240 – 311.
Michaels, R. (2019). The Functional Method of Comparative Law. En M. Reinmann y R. Zimmerman (Eds.)., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (2a Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Nance, D. (2016). The Burdens of Proof – Discriminatory Power, Weight of Evidence, and Tenacity of Belief. Cambridge University Press.
Peña Mardones, C. (2017). Traduciendo el discovery al civil law chileno: Su aporte a los procesos de reforma procesal civil. Revista Ius et Praxis, 23(2), p. 79-120.
Steinitz, M. (2019). Follow the Money? A Proposed Approach for Disclosure of Litigation Finance Agreements. UC Davis Law Review, 53, p. 1073-1116.
Stürner, R. (1976). Die Aufklärungsplicht der Parteien des Zivilprozesses. JBC Mohr.
Stürner, R. y Stadler, A. (1995). Eigenarten der Prozeßrechtsvergleichung. En P. Gilles (Ed.), Transnationales Prozessrecht (p. 263-292). Baden-Baden.
Taruffo, M. (2010). Simplemente la verdad – el juez y la construcción de los hechos (trad. D. Accatino). Marcial Pons.
Vogt Geisse, T. (2020). Aufklärung und Informationskontrolle im Zivilprozess. Eine vergleichende Studie zum deutschen, englischen und US-amerikanischen Recht. Mohr Siebeck.
Zweigert, K. y Kötz, H. (1998). Introducción al derecho comparado. Oxford University Press.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i3.22711Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Thomas Franz Vogt Geisse
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.