一很少有人去注意举证责任与证明责任之间的差别。在民事诉讼理论中,更多的人是将举证责任等同于证明责任。在一般的教科书中,往往认为举证责任即证明责任,或者举证责任又名证明责任。具有权威性的《中国大百科全书·法学卷》对二者的区别似有察觉:虽在“举证责任”和“证明责任”条目后所附的英文名称均为burden of proof,但又把它们分别作为民事诉讼和刑事诉讼中的概念,籍以分别二者。视为二为一的见解是因袭了传统的理论,而未及实质的区别也难使人看到问题的症结所在。人们为什么会将举证责任与证明责任视为等同的呢?先回顾一下诉讼史吧。在诉讼史上,举证责任或证明责任历来是一个不能得到统一的概念的事 Few people pay attention to the difference between the burden of proof and the burden of proof. In civil litigation theory, more people equate the burden of proof with the burden of proof. In a typical textbook, the burden of proof is often found to be the burden of proof, or the burden of proof, also known as the burden of proof. The authoritative “Encyclopedia of China Encyclopedia of Law” may be aware of the difference between the two: Although the “proof of responsibility” and “proof of responsibility” entry attached to the English name are burden of proof, but put them Respectively, as the concept of civil litigation and criminal proceedings, membership respectively to the two. The idea of ​​treating one as one is due to the traditional theory, and it is hard to see the crux of the problem without any substantial difference. Why do people treat the burden of proof and the burden of proof as equal? ​​Let us first review the history of litigation. In the history of litigation, the burden of proof or burden of proof has always been a concept that can not be unified