二战后英美民事对抗制的演变

详细信息    本馆镜像全文|  推荐本文 |  |   获取CNKI官网全文

英文题名：The Evolution of Adversary System in Civil Practice from1945to2011 副题名：以美国的案件管理制度为切入点 英文副题名：Based on the Case Management in U. S. 作者：张婷 论文级别：博士 学科专业名称：法律史 中文关键词：英美 ; 民事对抗制 ; 程序自由主义 ; 案件管理 英文关键词：UK ; U.S. ; Adversarial System in Civil Practice ; Procedural Liberalism ; Case Management 学位年度：2012 导师：何勤华 学科代码：030102 学位授予单位：华东政法大学 论文提交日期：2012-03-01

摘要

没有对抗，就没有审判。法官与当事人的地位，是一切民事诉讼制度的中心问题。以英美审判制度为代表的民事对抗制，在司法审判中强调当事人对于程序的主导权，反对法官职权专断，突出体现了程序自由主义基本思想的精髓。民事程序是一个不断变化的领域，研究程序原理、价值和历史背景，有助于理解和把握这一动态的领域，及其发生变化的背后意义。现代各国的民事诉讼法改革，无论是吸收、借鉴，抑或是批判、改造，都无法离开对抗制诉讼模式这一基点。本文是在中国语境下对英美民事对抗制度的历史，进行的一次全面、系统考察的大胆尝试，试图透过思想家的理论，去观察今天的英美社会，及其民事审判权力的运作状况。
     本文的初衷是向人们展示一幅关于民事对抗制运转的全景图：在过去的半个多世纪以来，民事对抗制经历了一些什么变化，正在经历着什么样的变化。文章以美国案件管理运动为切入点，对于民事对抗制的起源、蓬勃发展时期、衰落时期进行了全景式的考察；并就审前程序的证据开示、庭审程序的交叉询问以及陪审制度等进行专题分析，阐述对抗式程序原理，以及受这些原理影响的背景和实践环境，详细描述了近来对抗制自身的修订情况；揭示了自由主义与民事对抗制之间存在的内在的规律性联系，对于民事对抗制未来发展趋势进行了展望，以及对于中国的民事司法改革的相关启示。
     本文所做的努力之一，是提供一个详尽记录着关于民事对抗制系统各个部分以及彼此之间关系的丰富资料的法学文献，力图做到相关信息最大化。除此之外，本文试图在变动不居的复杂现象中，找出一个相对稳定的事物本质。本文详细考察不列颠式的自由和美利坚式的自由，它所揭示了不同民族国家的思想界限所在，以及该国家该民族所属的精神状态。通过研究可以发现，民事对抗制的盛行和衰落，是由该国在特定的历史阶段中具体的经济、政治和社会状况因素的变化所决定的。民事对抗制和自由主义思想一脉相承，自由主义思想的每一次重大的变化，迟早会反映到司法审判制度中，成为下一阶段民事对抗制发展的风向标。未来虽然变幻莫测，但是民事诉讼程序的发展却沿着一条相对稳定的规律向前发展，那就是，在公正和效率之间的取舍，以及在自由和平等之间的平衡。
     本文共分为六章具体进行阐释。
     第一章为民事对抗制概述。首先主要介绍民事对抗制的概念、特征，以及职权制等相关概念；然后具体描述对抗制的起源、对抗制在英国的正式确立，以及其在美国发扬光大的发展历程；再次，对于民事对抗制这一法律制度进行了政治化解读，民事对抗制背后所体现的是程序自由主义精神，自由是对抗制的核心价值要素，从而揭示了程序法与自由之间，法与自由之间存在的深刻关系；最后，作者通过对于民事对抗制概念的界定、相对概念的比较、对抗制发展历史进程的研究，得出了关于对抗制研究的八点心得。
     第二章为二战后美国民事对抗制的演变之概览。由于本文是从美国的案件管理制度的角度具体展开研究的，因此这部分涉及到美国的内容是本文的重点之一。本文综合美国的政治、经济、文化、社会和法律发展各项要素，对于二战后美国民事对抗制的发展的两个阶段：1945～1960s的蓬勃发展期，以及1970s-2010s的衰落期，展开了全景式的叙述蓝图，提供了一个了解民事对抗制发展变化的整体观。由于可以将美国在1960s发展起来的案件管理运动，看作是一个对于传统对抗制的重大挑战，因此，民事对抗制的衰落与案件管理运动的兴起，两者之间密切相关。本文紧接着对美国案件管理运动发展历程进行了简介，围绕着美国律师协会的《关于减少法院迟延的标准》、联邦司法中心的《复杂诉讼指南》系列、美国司法会议的《民事诉讼管理手册》系列，以及美国国会的《联邦民事诉讼规则》和《民事司法改革法》共四项内容，介绍了美国案件管理运动的具体表现形式。
     第三章为二战后英国民事对抗制的演变之概览。由于英国是民事对抗制的诞生地，因此对英国的考察也是必不可少的。民事对抗制起源于英国，但后来却在美国达到登峰造极之势。现代以来，对于民事对抗制来说，英国的贡献价值不如美国。尽管如此，对于英国情况的研究，将有利于与美国情况进行对比，或遥相呼应、或各行其是，可令民事对抗制的研究多视角化。相对于第二章美国的内容而言，这部分介绍稍略，主要起到的是一个陪衬和便于比较的作用。
     第四章为二战后民事对抗制在审前程序中的变化。从第四章开始，本文展开对于民事对抗制的专项制度的具体考察。由于审前程序是现代民事程序的重心所在，而且是案件管理运动主要作用范围，因此该内容是本文的重点之一。这一部分综合法规变化、判例发展、学者评论、相应数据等要素，对于各项具体制度提供极为详尽的细节支撑。具体分为民事审前程序概述、驳回诉讼、审前会议、证据披露和证据开示、即决判决、替代性纠纷解决机制和诉讼和解、法院制裁，以及本章小结八个部分，其中涉及六项审前程序的专项制度。本章结论如下：尽管传统的放任自由的民事对抗制已经基本退出审前程序，英美审前程序已为案件管理所完全占领，但是审前程序并没有蜕变为法院全面接手当事人诉讼事务的职权主义模式，诉讼仍然是当事人自己的事，法院的职权限于程序控制方面，法官职权的强化起到的是监督和控制程序进程的作用。因此，如今英美的审前程序实行的是管理型司法模式，这种管理型的司法模式，在实质上是一种经过修正的现代民事对抗制。修正后的民事对抗制，承认和接受必要的司法干预，平衡了个案中当事人的权利保障与整体司法资源的有效利用之间的关系，兼顾了个人利益和公共利益，是一种在兼顾社会利益前提下的个人价值优先论。
     第五章为二战后民事对抗制在庭审程序中的变化。开庭审理程序是民事对抗式审判的最重要的程序之一，对抗制所包含的口头主义和辩论主义原则在庭审程序中都有集中体现。这部分内容，主要包括对庭审阶段英美两国的案件管理权的梳理和总结，选择了民事陪审团、交叉询问两项具体的庭审制度，进行专项考察。通过对于这两项最典型的民事对抗制的标志性制度，在二战后的所经历的一系列变化的考察，通过大量的法规变化、判例发展和相关数据，详细展现了民事对抗制在庭审程序中的变化过程，并对其进行评价和总结。本章的结论如下：庭审程序不再是民事诉讼程序的重心，随着进入到庭审程序案件数量的大幅减少，庭审程序的地位有了绝对的下降；即使是在极为有限的庭审案件中，案件管理运动中的干预和效率思想，已经随着案件管理运动的不断深入，从审前程序出发，蔓延到了庭审程序，逐渐侵蚀着庭审程序中的传统民事对抗制；相比审前程序而言，庭审程序是传统民事对抗制的保留地，其对抗性的下降程度较为有限。
     第六章为关于英美民事对抗制的未来、评价和启示。该部分内容是对于第二、三章宏观描述，以及第四、五章微观制度研究，所进行的一个概括性总结。此部分内容围绕着民事对抗制的现状和未来、民事对抗制的评价，以及对于我国的启示三个方面展开。首先，对于民事对抗制的现状，展开民事审前程序和民事庭审程序的全面研究，结论是古典民事对抗制处于全面衰落状态，但并没有完全充分的证据得出对抗制已告终结的结论，那种宣称管理型司法已经为民事对抗制划上了一个句号的说法，还为时过早。古典对抗制在案件管理的修正下，变为一种以管理型司法为表现形式的现代民事对抗制，对于法院职权因素进行了强化，使得个人和国家之间的关系更加合理。其次，对于民事对抗制的未来，关于许多人对于管理型司法的继续发展将会彻底颠覆传统的民事对抗制诉讼的担心这一问题，经过对于对抗制的文化、社会基础进行分析之后，作者认为这种可能性较小，因为强大的律师阶层不会允许以案件管理为特征的民事司法改革脱离对抗制而彻底走向职权制，这违反了职业群体意愿并将导致其整体利益的损害。再次，作者将英国美国进行比较，发现英国对于对抗制的修正力度更大，并且分析了原因；又将中国与英美进行比较，发现修订后的民事诉讼法典条文虽已非常接近，但是两者民事诉讼制度性质迥然有异。最后，关于对抗制对于我国的启示，主要从国内是否应当学习和借鉴对抗制模式提出自己的建议，认为在法院收集调查证据方面应当坚持事实发现的对抗制；总结了《复杂诉讼指南》和《民事诉讼管理手册》系列的宝贵经验；以及我国对于民事对抗制的借鉴，认为对抗制在事实发现上中立性，将使其赢得我国法官群体和律师团体的支持。文章的基本结论是：民事对抗制的变化，就好比一滴水滴，透过对于这颗水滴的观察，可以折射出自由主义这片天空，所经历的一切风云变幻。
Adversary leads to judgment. There’s no justice without Adversary. Theexistence/comparison between judge and litigant are the essential parts of all civilprocedure system. Civil adversary system, represented by the judicial system inUK/USA, emphasizes the dominant power of litigant over Judicial Trial procedureagainst the arbitrary of judge, which highlights the essence of fundamental principleof Procedural Liberalism. Civil procedure is a changing field, and by studying thetheory, the value and the historical background, it will help us to understand and graspthe dynamic field and the significance meaning behind the changes. Throughassimilating, referring, or criticizing and reconstructing, all the civil procedurereforming in modern society had to be based on adversary lawsuit pattern. Thisdissertation is trying to give a systematic round review of the history of US/UK civiladversary system in the context of Chinese. Observing the western society and itsoperation of civil trial power based the theory of ideologist.
     The initial intention of this dissertation is to give a whole picture how civiladversary system works. In the past decades, what changes civil adversary system hadexperienced, and will be facing. Based on the US case management movement as thebreakthrough point, this paper has given a whole idea about the origin of civil adversary system, its vigorous developments and declining. Also it gives a projectanalysis for evidence discovery in pretrial procedure, cross examination in court trialprocedure and jury system, barrister system, explaining the principle of adversaryprocedure, the background and practice environment influenced, particularlydescribed the revision of adversary system itself in recent years. It reviewed theinternal regularity connection between liberalism and civil adversary system, with theprospects for the future development trends of civil adversary system, and how itinspires our civil judiciary reforming in China.
     One of the goals in this dissertation is to provide some enriched legal documents,with detailed records and data analysis of each part of civil adversary system and theirinternal relationships, trying for the information maximization. Besides the above, weare trying to find the relatively stable essence from the complex diverse phenomena.Through the study, we learnt that the popular and declining of civil adversary systemhave been influenced by the economics, politics and social status varied in specifichistorical stage of each country. Civil adversary system and liberalism are derivedfrom the same origin, and each significant change of liberalism will sooner or laterreflected in judicial system, leads the civil adversary system to develop into next stage.Though the future is unpredictable, civil adversary system is developing along arelatively stable rule, which is trading-offs between justice and efficiency, andbalancing between freedom and equality.
     There’re total six paragraphs in this dissertation.
     First paragraph is the general description of civil adversary system. It mainlyintroduces the concepts, characters and judicial duty model. Then it particularlydescribed the origin of adversary system and its formal establishment in UK, and howit’s been carried forward in USA. Secondly, it gives a politicized interpretation herefor the civil adversary system. The one behind civil adversary is reflecting procedureliberalism, and liberty is the core value factor of adversary system, therefore wereviewed the deep relationship between procedure law and liberty, law and freedom.At last, the author had concluded eight points about the research of adversary system,after defining the concepts of civil adversary system, comparing such concepts and studying the historic development of adversary system.
     Second paragraph is a brief overview of the evolvement of civil adversarysystem in USA after the Second World War. Since this dissertation is based on thestudy of USA case management system, the content in this paragraph related to USAis one of the key points in this paper. Based on the factors of politics, economics,culture, society and law development etc in USA, there’s two phases in USA for thedeveloping of civil adversary system after The Second World War: Booming period in1945~1960s, and declining period in1970s~2010s, this paper gives a generalblueprint to provide the overall concepts about the changing of civil adversary system.The case management movement developed in1960s in USA is a serious challenge totraditional adversary system; therefore the declining of civil adversary system isclosely connected with the rise of case management movement. This part gives a briefintroduction about the developing of USA case management movement, andspecifically introduced how the movement performs, with the analysis of ABA’sStandards Relating to Court Delay Reduction, FJC’s Manual for Complex Litigation,Judicial Conference’s Civil Litigation Management Manual, The Congress’ FederalRules of Civil Procedure, and The Civil Justice Reform Act.
     Third paragraph gives a general idea about the developing of civil adversarysystem in UK after the Second World War. Since UK is the origin country of civiladversary system, it’s indispensable for us to review the UK system. The civiladversary system had been originated in UK, and reached the peak in USA; thereforewe can say that USA has given much more contribution to the system than UK did inmodern ages. Even though, studying the system in UK will help us to compare thesame in USA, and diversifying the study through different points of view. Comparingthe content in second paragraph, this part has less profundity which is just forcomparison.
     The fourth paragraph is about the changes of civil adversary system in pretrialprocedure after the Second World War. Starting from this paragraph, detailed reviewsare being given to each regime of the system. Since pretrial procedure is the essentialpart of present civil procedure and the main scope of case management movement, this part is one of the key points in this paper. This part composite the elements ofregulation changes, case development, scholars’ comments and relevant data etc, tosupport the study and explanation for each regime in details. It consist with eightsections inc. the summarization of civil pretrial procedure, nonsuit, pretrial conference,disclosure, discovery, summary judgment, ADR, settlement, legal execution, andclosure, while six of them are related to pretrial procedure. The conclusion of thisparagraph is: though laissez faire civil adversary system is basically exited from thepretrial procedure, and the pretrial procedures in UK/USA are mostly dominated bycase management mode, pretrial procedure is still not changing to inquisitorial systemwhich the court takes over the jobs of litigant totally, while the litigant still takes careof its own suit, and the court is mainly concentrating on the procedure controlling.The strengthening of judge power is for monitoring and controlling the proceduredevelopments. So the pretrial procedure in UK/USA is managerial judiciary mode,and this mode is indeed a revised modern civil adversary system, which admit andaccept necessary judicial intervention, balancing the needs of rights protection forlitigant and efficient usage of the whole judicial resources, concerning about both thepersonnel interests and social interests, is a kind of individual value priority with theconsideration of social benefits.
     The Fifth paragraph is about the change of civil adversary system in court trialprocedure. Case opening procedure is one of the most important procedures in civiladversary trial, which consist both oralism and adversary system. This paragraphmainly gives the sort and summary of case management rights during court trial inUK and USA, choosing civil jury system and cross examination system for specialstudy. By studying of these two typical systems, and their serial changes after theSecond World War, with the presentation of many law rule changes, case developmentand data, this part clearly described the moving process of civil adversary in court trialprocedure. The conclusion of the paragraph is: Court trial procedure is not theessential part of civil procedure any more. Due to the mass decreasing of casescoming into court trial procedure, its status had been clearly downgraded. Even insome cases involving court trial procedure, due to the intervention of case management movement and efficiency thoughts, starting from the pretrial procedureto the court trial, it affects the traditional civil adversary system in court trial.Comparing to the pretrial procedure, court trial is the reservation for traditional civiladversary system, which still has the antagonism.
     The Sixth paragraph is evaluation and revelation of civil adversary system inUK/USA. This part is mainly a brief summary for paragraph2and3(MacroDescription),4and5(Micro research of the systems). It contains macroscopic aspectssuch as the future of civil adversary system, evaluation of civil adversary system, thereference of USA civil adversary system to China, and specific system constructionsuch as revelation of civil adversary system, whether the civil adversary systemshould be applied in China, and the adversary system regarding the evidentialinvestigation in court, the revelation of Manual for Complex Litigation and CivilLitigation Management Manual to our civil judicial reforming etc. Last but not theleast, the conclusion of this paper: the development of civil adversary system is like adrop of water. Observation of the droplet will reflect the big sky of liberalism which isexperiencing all changes.

引文

1张建伟：《司法竞技主义——英美诉讼传统与中国庭审方式》，北京大学2005年版。
    2王亚新：《对抗与判定》，清华大学出版社2002年版，第61页。
    3李心鉴：《刑事诉讼构造论》，中国政法大学1997年版。
    4汪海燕著：《刑事诉讼模式的演进》，中国人民公安大学2004年版。
    5易延友：《陪审团审判和对抗式诉讼》，中国台湾地区三民书局，2004年版。
    6李昌盛：《论对抗式刑事审判》，中国人民公安大学2009年版。
    7[美]郎.L.富勒：《对抗制》，陈若桓译，三联书店1988年版。
    1[英]阿德里安.A.S.朱克曼主编：《危机中的民事司法：民事诉讼程序的比较视角》，傅郁林等译，中国政法大学2005年版。
    2[英]杰里米·帕克斯曼：《英国人》，严维明译，上海译文出版社2000年1版。
    3[美]斯蒂文.N.苏本、马莎.L.米卢、马克.N.布诺丁、托马斯.O.梅菌等：《民事诉讼法：原理、实务与运作环境》，傅郁林等译，中国政法大学2004年版。
    4[英]詹妮·.麦克埃文：《现代证据法与对抗式程序》，蔡巍译，法律出版社2005年版。
    5[美]达马斯卡著：《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
    6[美]兰博约（John H. Lanbein）著：《对抗式刑事审判的起源》，王志强译，复旦大学2010年版。
    1[英]罗伯特·巴特莱特：《中世纪神判》，徐昕、喻中胜、徐昀译，浙江人民出版社2007年版。
    2苏力：《关于对抗制的几点法理学和法律社会学思考》，载《法学研究》1995年第4期。
    3傅郁林：《对于引进对抗制论说的质疑》，载《法学》1997年第12期。
    4汤唯建：《美国的对抗制审判方式》，载《比较法研究》1996年第4期。
    5程汉大：《英国对抗制的起源》，载《山东警察学院学报》2007年第91期。
    6陈卫东、张月满：《对抗式诉讼模式研究》，载《中国法学》2009年第5期。
    1董亚娟《论决斗与近代西方社会》，载《江汉大学学报》2009年第7期。
    2李早：《论英美对抗制诉讼模式的证据制度及启示》，载《理论学刊》2008年第5期。
    3徐昕：《司法决斗考》，载《法制与社会发展》2007年第1期。
    4蔡虹：《民事诉讼结构的调整及其基本模式的选择》，载《法学评论》1998年第5期。
    5龙宗智：《改造刑事诉讼结构应当慎行》，载《法学研究》1994年第4期。
    6周利民、羊震：《关于民事诉讼中人权保障问题的思考》，载《法学评论》2001年第3期。
    7易延友：《对抗式刑事诉讼的形成与特色——兼论我国刑事司法中对抗制的改革》，载《清华法学》2010年第2期。
    8陈刚、相庆梅《当事人主义修正论与英国民事司法制度改革的实证》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2000年卷，中国人民大学2001年版。
    9张家慧：《美国民事诉讼改革之比较研究》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2000年卷，中国人民大学2001年版。
    10徐昕：《英国民事诉讼中的审前程序》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2001年卷，中国人民大学2002年版。
    11孟涛：《走向黄昏的辩论主义》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2001年卷，中国人民大学2002年版。
    1[美]威尔弗雷德，费因伯格：《美国法官的角色——以美日为中心》，张晓薇、鄢梦暄译，载《比较民事诉讼法》2004年卷，中国人民大学2006年版。
    2黄宣、钟俊芳、胡瑜编译：《ADR在英国民事司法中的应用》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2004年卷，中国人民大学2006年版。
    3Report to the Chief Justice of the United States on the2010Conference on Civil Litigation Submitted by theJudicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
    1Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director
    2James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth，Laural A. Hill，Daniel Mcaffrey, MarianOshiro，Nicholas M. Pace,and Mary E. Vaiana，Implementation of the Civil Justice Reform Act in Pilot and Comparison Districts, RAND，MR-801-ICJ(1996).
    3James S. Kakalik，Terence Dunworth，Laural A. hill, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro，Nicholas M. Pace,and Mary E. Vaiana, An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management Under the Civil Justice Reform Act, RAND，MR-802-ICJ(1996).
    4James S. Kakalik, Deborah R. Hensler, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace, Mary E.Vaiana，Discovery Management-Further Analysis of the Civil Justice Reform Act Evaluation Data，RAND,MR-941-ICJ(1998).
    5Corina Gerety, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Excess and Access: Consensus onthe American Civil Justice Landscape,2011, available at www.du.edu/legalinstitute,2012-2-26.
    6Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System(IAALS), http://www.du.edu/legalinstitute.
    7《英国民事司法改革初期评估报告》，载齐树洁主编：《英国民事司法改革》，北京大学出版社2004年版，附录一。
    8英国司法大臣办公厅：《民事司法改革后续评佑报告》，2002年8月。(Further Findings: A ContinueEvaluation of the Civil Justice Reform. August2002http://www.lcd. gov. uk)《英国民事司法改革后续评估报告》，载齐树洁主编：《英国民事司法改革》，北京大学出版社2004年版，附录二。
    2CIVIL JUSTICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES, Findings and Technical Report of the2010English and WelshCivil and Social Justice Panel Survey; Civil Justice in England and Wales2009, Report of the2006-9English andWelsh Civil and Social Justice Survey.
    4Press Release, Public Information Office Supreme Judicial Court, Superior Court Implements Discovery PilotProject (Dec.1,2009)(on file with author).
    2S.F.0015,61st Leg., Reg. Sess.(Wyo.2011).
    4H.B.0349S1,2011Gen. Sess.(Utah2011).
    5A.B.2284,2009-2010Reg. Sess.(Cal.2010).
    6Adhemar Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France,(Trans. ByJohn Simpson), Little Brown and Company,1913.
    1F. Pollock&F.W. Maitland, The History of England Law before the Time of Edward I, Cambridge UniversityPress,1968.
    2Stephan Landsman, The Adversary System: A Description and Defense, American Enterprise Institute for PublicPolicy Research,1984.
    3原文如下："America began and continues as the most antistatist, legalistic, and rights-oriented nation." SeeSeymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. W.W. Norton,1996, p.21.
    4Jack Isaac Hai Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice, Stevens&Sons,1987.
    5J.A. Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2000.
    6John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, Oxford University Press,2003.
    1Robert A. Kagan, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, Harvard University Press, p.41,2001.
    2Robert A. Kagan, The American Legal System, Political Science150, University of California, Department ofPolitical Science, Berkeley, Spring Semester2011.
    3Walter K.Olson, The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit, TrumanTalley Books, Dutton,1991.
    4L. W. Levy, The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury, Ivan R. Dee,1999.
    5John Henry Wigmore, Evidence, Peter Tillers Rev., Little Brown and Company,1983.
    6California v. Green,399U.S.158，90S.Ct.1930，1935，26L. Ed.2d489(1970)(Quoting5wigmore，Evidence§1367).
    1Roscoe Pound, The Sprit of the Common Law, Marshall Jones Company,1921.
    2Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, BAYLOR L. REV.Vol.8,1956,.
    3Marc Galanter, Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, L.&Soc'yRev.,Vol.9,1974.
    4Kenneth E. Scott, Two Models of the Civil Process, Stanford Law Review, Vol.27,1975．
    5Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, Harvard Law Review, Vol.89,1976.
    6Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, Harvard Law Review, Vol.96,1982.
    7Robert G. Bone, Lon Fuller's Theory of Adjudication and the False Dichotomy between Dispute Resolution andPublic Law Models of Litigation, B.U. L. Rev., Vol.75,1995.
    1Stephan. Landsman, A Brief Survey of the Development of the Adversary System, Ohio St. L. Rev., Vol.44,1983.
    2Stephen G. Coughlan, The ‘Adversary System: Rhetoric or Reality? Fall Can. J. L.&Soc’y, Vol.139,1993.
    3Robert Kagan, American and European Ways of Law: Six Entrenched Differences, in Volkmar Gessner andDavid Nelken, eds., European Ways of Law: Toward a European Sociology of Law, Hart Publishing,2007, pp.41-70.
    4M. Frankel, The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View, U. Pa. L. Rev., Vol.123,1975, p.1031.
    5John. Lanbein, The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, U. Chi. L. Rev., Vol.52,1985, p.823.
    6Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases. Empirical Legal Study.2004, p.590.
    7Lawrence M. Friedman, Are We A Litigious People? in Friendman and Scheiber, eds., Legal Culture and theLegal Profession, Westview Press,1996.
    8Frank Michelman, The Suprerne Court and Litigation Access Fees: The Right to Protect One's Right, Duke L. J.Vol.1153,1973; Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Apportioning Due Process: Preserving the Right to Affordable Justice,DENV. U. L. REV. Vol.87,2010.
    9Arthur R. Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, Minn. L. Rev. Vol.69,1984.
    1JA Jolowicz, Adversarial and inquisitorial models of civil procedure, Int&Comp LQ, Vol.52,2003.
    2Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges and Court Delay: The Unproven Assumption, Judge’s Journal, Vol.23,1994.
    3Peckham, The Federal Judge as a Case Manager: The New Role in Guiding a Case from Filing to Disposition,CALIF. L. Rev. Vol.69,1981.
    4Elizabeth G. Thornburg, The Managerial Judge Goes to Trial, U. RICH. L. REV. Vol.44,2010, p.1261.
    5Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth and Impact of “Alternative DisputeResolution”, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. Vol.1, Nov.2004, pp.843-911.
    6Millar, The Formative Principles of Civil Procedure-I, ILL. L. Rev. Vol.18,1923, p.1.
    1Saltzburg, The Unnecessarily Expanding Role of the American Trial Judge, VA. L. Rev. Vol.64,1978, p.1.
    2[美]米尔伊安·R.达玛卡什:《司法和国家权利的多种面孔》，郑戈译，中国政法大学出版社2004年版，第6页。
    1[意]莫诺.卡佩莱蒂等：《当事人基本程序保障权与未来的民事诉讼》，徐昕译，法律出版社2000年版，第53页。
    1纠问制的德语原文是inquisitions prinzip，法语原文是procedure inquisitoire，罗马文inquisitio
    2See Stephan. Landsman, A Brief Survey of the Development of the Adversary System, Ohio St. L. Rev., Vol.44,1983, p.713.
    1Adhemar Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France,(Trans. ByJohn Simpson), Little Brown and Company,1913, p63-66.
    1Adhemar Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France,(Trans. ByJohn Simpson), Little Brown and Company,1913, p63-66.
    2“神判亦称神明裁判，指通过神的意志来决定嫌疑人有罪或无罪，当事人的权利主张是否成立的一种司法程序，即所谓的‘上帝的审判’（拉丁文iudicium dei，古爱尔兰语fir De，英文judgment of God）。”参见[英]罗伯特.巴特莱特著，徐昕、喻中胜、徐昀译，《中世纪神判》，浙江人民出版社2007年版，第2页。
    3[英]欧文：《英国人之生活与思想》(上册)，王学哲译，商务印书馆1944年版，第94页。
    1关于英格兰精神可参见[英]约翰.洛克著《政府论》（上）序言(The Preface)部分，原文如下：’And to justifyto the World, the People of England, whose love of their Just and Natural Rights, with their Resolution to preservethem, saved the nation when it was on the very brink of Slavery and Ruin.’ John Locke: Two Treatises ofGovernment, Cambridge University Press1988.
    2[英]杰里米·帕克斯曼：《英国人》，严维明译，上海译文出版社2000年1版，第147~148页。
    3最早以一种科学的态度，自由主义眼光来研究权力制约，从洛克开始；他认为无分权即无自由，个人不可剥夺、不可转让的天赋权利构成政府权力的最低限度，故政治上应实行分权和有限政府原则。
    4关于绝对权力，阿克顿的《自由与权力》一书中有着经典论述，那句脍炙人口的“权力导致腐败，绝对权力导致绝对腐败。（Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely）”名言，即出自此书。具体可参见Lord Acton. Essays on Freedom and Power, The Beacon Press,1948, p.364.
    1参见[美]杰弗里.C.哈泽德、米歇尔塔鲁伊著，张茂译：《美国民事诉讼法导论》，中国政法大学出版社，1998年版，第30页。
    2[英]罗伯特巴特莱特著，徐昕、喻中胜、徐昀译，《中世纪神判》，浙江人民出版社2007年版，第138页。
    3宣誓调查法原本是法兰克国王保护自身利益的一种工具，英国学者梅特兰认为陪审制萌芽于欧洲大陆法兰克王国时期的宣誓调查法。
    4H. C. Lea, Superstition and Force,1982, pp.114-115; F. Pollock&F.W. Maitland, The History of England Lawbefore the Time of Edward I,Cambridge University Press,1968, pp.50-51.
    5[英]罗伯特巴特莱特（Robert Bartlett）著:《中世纪神判》（Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval JudicialOrdeal），徐昕、喻中胜、徐昀译，浙江人民出版社，2007年版，第143页。
    6比如中国学者徐昕认为，“追踪溯源，司法决斗可视为对抗制诉讼模式的渊源之一，只不过武力争斗演变为法庭上的和平对抗，诉讼武器有所不同而已。”可参见徐昕：《司法决斗考》，载《法制与社会发展》2007年第1期，第37页。与此相反，中国学者李昌盛认为，“司法决斗与对抗式审判具有外在表现形式的相似性，但是从对抗式刑事审判在英国的诞生史来看，决斗式审判同近代的对抗式刑事审判并不具有任何历史的必然联系。”可参见李昌盛：《论对抗式刑事审判》，中国人民公安大学，2009年版，第121页。
    1关于司法竞技主义，可参见中国学者张建伟著：《司法竞技主义：英美诉讼传统与中国庭审方式》，北京大学出版社2005年版。
    2Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, BAYLOR L. REV.Vol.8,1995, p.1.
    3Stephen G. Coughlan, The ‘Adversary System: Retoric or Reality? Fall Can. J. L.&Soc’y, Vol.139,1993,p.143.
    4Roscoe Pound, Criminal Justice in America, Transaction Publishers,1998, p.163.
    5D. Luban, Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study, Princeton University Press,1998, p.12.
    6Elizabeth G. Thornburg, Metaphors Matter: How Images of Battle, Sports and Sex Shape the Adversary System,Wis. Women’s L. J. Vol.10,1995, p.225.
    1James A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, New York1995, pp144-148.
    2[美]伯尔曼著：《法律与革命》，贺卫方等译，中国大百科全书出版社1993年版，第544页。
    3L. W. Levy, The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury, Ivan R. Dee,1999, p.105.
    4Shigemitsu Dando, Japanese Criminal Procedure, Fred B.&Co. South Hackensack, N. J.,1965, p.7.
    516世纪英国政论家托马斯·史密斯在1565年出版的《论英吉利共和国》一书中把当时没有律师参与的刑事审判模式称之为“争吵式审判”(altercation trial)。法律著作家帕尔顿在1609年时说:“如果由专业律师代替被告辩护，他们可能把实情藏匿于演讲中,掩盖于言辞下,使得案件真相难以显露出来，或者要花费更长的时间才能发现。” John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, Oxford University Press,2003.p13. p35.
    118世纪，辩护律师在重罪庭出现，学者认为：“从1730年开始,法官通过行使自由裁量权的方式允许其他重罪案件的被告人获得律师辩护。”John H. Langbein, The Privilege and Common Law Criminal Procedure:The Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries, in R. H. Helmholz, Charles M. Gray, John H. Langbein, Eben Moglen,Henry E. Smith, and Albert W. Alschuler, The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: Its Origins and Development,The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London,1997, p87~88.
    2英国学者埃斯梅因认为，由于陪审团和私诉原则使得英国保留了弹劾式。A. Esmein, A History ofContinental Criminal Procedure,(Trans. By John Simpson), Little Brown and Company,1913, p.323.
    3原文如下：“16和17世纪英格兰刑事诉讼中并无律师的身影，这不仅与18世纪产生的对抗式刑事诉讼形成鲜明对比，而且也迥异于律师充斥的英格兰民事诉讼。一定程度上，对抗式刑事程序的产生，可以说是将民事审判中已存在的模式引入刑事诉讼。从此，英格兰法律制度展现出在民事和刑事两方面都更具类似性的对抗式体制。”[美]兰博约（John H. Lanbein）著：《对抗式刑事审判的起源》，王志强译，复旦大学，2010年版，第7页。
    1James A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, New York1995, p.144-148.
    1关于刑事诉讼的审判模式在古罗马、古日耳曼，中世纪欧陆国家法国、英国，和近现代英国、美国、日本、前苏联俄罗斯，以及从古至今中国的具体历史发展，详细可参见汪海燕著：《刑事诉讼模式的演进》一书，中国人民公安大学，2004年版。
    2不过对此也有不同看法，根据美国纽约大学法学院伦道夫教授的研究结论认为：“美国对抗制不只是简单地采取了来自英国的对抗制，而是独立发展并且先于英国发展出对抗制。…早期美国人没有接受英国普通法对于辩护律师的限制，相反还给予了广泛的辩护权保障。…而这种完全的辩护权保障，意味着美国早于英国采取了对抗制。” See Randolph N. Jonakait, The Rise of the American Adversary System: America BeforeEngland, WIDENER L. REV. Vol.14,2009, p.323.
    3See Stephan. Landsman, A Brief Survey of the Development of the Adversary System, Ohio St. L. Rev. Vol.44,1983, p.714.
    1原文如下："America began and continues as the most antistatist, legalistic, and rights-oriented nation." SeeSeymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. W.W. Norton, p.21,1996.
    2See Robert A. Kagan, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, Harvard University Press, p.41,2001.
    1Robert A. Kagan, The American Legal System, Political Science150, University of California, Department ofPolitical Science, Berkeley, Spring Semester2011.
    1正如英国学者所说，“现实的司法制度都没有采取纯抗辩式的审判模式，英国的司法制度中出现的大量的例外特征而使庭审不是完全的抗辩式。”[英]麦高伟、杰弗里·威尔逊主编：《英国刑事司法程序》，法律出版社，2003年版，第308页。
    21997年起由美国法学会（ALI）与国际统一私法协会（UNIDROIT）合作起草，并于2004年讨论通过的“跨国民事诉讼原则与跨国民事诉讼规则”（Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure），被称为“美国化的跨国民事诉讼程序”，Gerhard Walter and Samuel P. Baumgartner, Utility and Feasibility of TransnationalRules of Civil Procedure: Some German and Swiss Reactions to the Hazard-Taruffo Project, Tex. Int’l L.J., Vol.6,2001, p.463.
    3关于上述三个从事国际法律统一工作的国际组织所取得的成果以及对它们的评价，可参见李双元主编:《中国与国际私法统一化进程》，武汉大学，1997年版，一书的有关章节。
    1关于此点，具体可参见李心鉴《刑事诉讼构造论》一书，该学者认为：“随着封建制的建立,特别是封建权力的集中和加强,反映着原始社会平等思想的弹劾式诉讼构造,逐步被体现着封建专制思想的纠问式诉讼构造所代替。”李心鉴：《刑事诉讼构造论》，中国政法大学1997年版，第73-84页。
    1J. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, Oxford University Press,2003, p.9.
    1易延友著：《陪审团审判与对抗式诉讼》，中国台湾地区三民书局2004年版，第231页。
    2关于陪审团的历史沿革，可参见易延友:《陪审团审判和对抗式诉讼》一书，中国台湾地区三民书局，2004年版。
    3律师职业化的标志之一是有关职业律师的行为规范的立法。1275年，爱德华一世颁布了《威斯敏斯特一号法规》，对执业律师的行为规范提出了明确的要求。这是英国第一个关于律师职业行为规范的法律。
    4也译作“争吵式审判”，史密斯勋爵（Sir Tomas Smith）曾将这种审判描述为自由的“争吵式审判”，是一种无律师的、快捷的审判方式。在伊丽莎白女王一世至詹姆士一世时代(1558—1625年)的英国地方巡回法院可判处死刑的重罪审判中（包括陪审团的评议在内），平均一起审判的持续时间约在15至20分钟，以拒绝律师辩护、法官承担了发现事实（审前调查、审中提出组织证据询问证人被害人、审后总结评论证据等一系列工作）和充当被告人的辩护人（无律师辩护和缺乏法律知识时）的双重法律职能为其主要特征。John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, Oxford University Press,2003, p.13.
    5贝蒂写道：“正常情况下，审判是在法官通过有步骤地取证行为而进行的，他既是主询问者又是反询问者。”J.M. Beattie, Crime and Courts in England1660-1800, Princeton University Press,1986, p.342.
    11820年，法国观察家科图(Cottu)曾对其观察到的英国审判评论道:“英国的法官对于法庭上进行的事始终是一个旁观者。被告人基本上不用开口说话，即使用一根木棒撑上一顶帽子来代替被告人出庭，也不会对审判有任何实质性影响。” John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, Oxford University Press,2003, p.253.
    2据说这是由于律师比法官更为胜任这一工作所致，即lawyers do a better job than judges.
    3[英]杰弗里·P·威尔逊(Geoffrey P.Wilson)，《英国的法律制度和法官造法》，载小岛武司等著：《司法制度的历史与未来》，法律出版社2000年版，第166页。
    1Mirijan R. Damaska, Evidence Law Adrift, Yale University Press,1997, p.45.
    1《美国总统公文汇编：理查德·尼克松》（Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon），华盛顿，美国政府出版署1972年版，第1卷，第638页。
    2Samuel Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, Belknap Press,1981, p.21.
    3Walter K.Olson, The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit, TrumanTalley Books, Dutton,1991：pp.52-53.
    1诸如《空气净化法》(Clean Air Act)、《水净化法》(Clean Water Act)、《海洋倾废法》(Ocean Dumping Act)、《国家环境政策法》(National Environmental Policy Act)、《安全饮水法》(Safe Drinking Act)等等。
    2民权方面的国会立法主要为联邦反歧视立法系列，诸如：《发育残障者帮助和权利法》(DevelopmentallyDisabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act)、《年龄歧视法》(Age Discrimination Act)、《民权法》(Civil RightsAct)、《教育修正案》（Education Amendments）等等。
    3诸如1973年《消费者产品安全法》。
    4典型的如各种控制能源的机构，并最终在1977年被合并成能源部（Department of Energy），1970年的环境保护署(Environmental Protection Agency)。
    1Robert A. kagan, American Lawyers, Legal Culture, and the Adversarial Legalism, in Friedman and Scheiber,eds., Legal Culture and the Legal Profession, pp.13-14.
    2Robert A. Kagan, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, Harvard University Press,2001, pp.7-9,5.
    1厄尔.沃伦担任联邦最高法院首席法官期间（1953~1969），联邦最高法院积极扩大行使司法审查权，在解决重大的社会问题和政治问题上起了重要作用，使最高法院变为战后社会改革的工具。典型案例为1954年布朗诉托皮卡教育局一案，此案是美国宪法史上重要的里程碑之一，并为1960年代的民权立法开辟了道路。
    2Karen O’Conner and Lee Epstein, Rebalancing the Scale of Justice: Assessment of Public Interest Law, HarvardJournal of Law&Public Policy Vol.7,1984, p.489, citing Center for Public Interest Law, Balancing the Scale ofJustice,1976.
    3Stanley Hoffman, More Perfect Union: Nation and Nationalism in America, Harvard International Review,Winter,1997/1998, p.72.
    4[美]詹姆斯.M.伯恩斯等著，陆震纶等译：《民治政府》，北京：中国社会科学出版社1996年版，第247页。
    5Lawrence M. Friedman, Are We A Litigious People? in Friendman and Scheiber, eds., Legal Culture and theLegal Profession, Westview Press,1996, pp.62-64.
    1Milton Friedman&Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, Harcourt Trade Publishers,1980.(中文译本可参见[美]米尔顿.弗里德曼《自由的选择》，机械工业出版社，2008年版。)
    2Immanuel Wallerstein, After Liberalism, New Press,1995.（中文译本可参见:[美]伊曼努尔·沃勒斯坦:《自由主义的终结》，郝名玮等译，社会科学文献出版社2002年版。）
    1Peckham, The Federal Judge as a Case Manager: The New Role in Guiding a Case from Filing to Disposition,
    2CALIF. L. Rev. Vol.69,1981, p.770.Chief Justice John T. Broderick, Jr., Remarks to the National Association of Court Management, The ChangingFace of Justice in a New Century: The Challenges It Poses to State Courts and Court Management,Mar.10,2009,p.2.
    3此调查研究的范围为美国出庭律师协会（ACTL）、美国律师协会（ABA）诉讼部、美国劳资律师协会（NELA），以及美国联邦及各州初审法官（来自于Searle Center’s judicial database，这是全美最为全面的包含所有法官名单的数据库之一）；被调查者均属法律职业共同体成员，数量约为6,800，范围涉及美国全国。
    4See Corina Gerety, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Excess and Access: Consensuson the American Civil Justice Landscape,2011, available at www.du.edu/legalinstitute,访问时间:2012-2-26.
    1Oregon’s New Expedited Jury Trial Program, C.R.(Oregon State Bar Civil Rights Section), Aug.2010, p.3.
    2Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz, Address to the City Club of Salem, The State of the Courts: Maintaining OurCourts During Economic Crisis, Jan.8,2010, p.7.
    1Frank Michelman, The Suprerne Court and Litigation Access Fees: The Right to Protect One's Right, Duke L. J.Vol.1153,1973, pp.1172-1177.
    2Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Apportioning Due Process: Preserving the Right to Affordable Justice, DENV. U. L. REV.Vol.87,2010, pp.437-440.
    3Report to the Chief Justice of the United States on the2010Conference on Civil Litigation Submitted by theJudicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
    41984年美国哈佛大学法学院教授亚瑟称之为“昂贵和迟延之恶（”’The evils of cost and delay’）, see Arthur R.Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, Minn. L. Rev. Vol.69,1984, p.1.
    5FRCP (2010) Rule1:‘They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensivedetermination of every action and proceeding.’
    1以上报告数据公开，访问美国联邦法院网址中关于Statistics一栏项下专设的Civil Justice ReformAct of1990(CJRA)即可获得。http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/civilJusticeReformActReport.aspx，访问时间:2011-9-1.
    2Judicial Conference of the United States, Final Report-The Civil Reform Act of1990, May1997, p.2-47.
    1具体可参见兰德报告《试点比较地区的民事司法改革法实施情况》，James S. Kakalik, Terence Dunworth，Laural A. Hill，Daniel Mcaffrey, MarianOshiro，Nicholas M. Pace, and Mary E. Vaiana，Implementation of theCivil Justice Reform Act in Pilot and Comparison Districts, RAND，MR-801-ICJ(1996).
    2因为根据美国2011年最新民事诉讼调查所得：“证据开示程序是诉讼成本额外增加和导致不必要的迟延形成的原因”，See Corina Gerety, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Excess andAccess: Consensus on the American Civil Justice Landscape,2011, available at www.du.edu/legalinstitute,访问时间:2011-8-8.
    1Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth and Impact of “Alternative DisputeResolution,” J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. Vol.1, Nov.2004, pp.843-911.
    2Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth and Impact of “Alternative DisputeResolution,” J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. Vol.1, Nov.2004, p.911.
    1Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System(IAALS), http://www.du.edu/legalinstitute
    2Press Release, Public Information Office Supreme Judicial Court, Superior Court Implements Discovery PilotProject (Dec.1,2009)(on file with author).
    1S.F.0015,61st Leg., Reg. Sess.(Wyo.2011).
    2相关的规则修正案和委员会声明可访问以下网址：http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/rules/comments.
    3A.B.2284,2009-2010Reg. Sess.(Cal.2010).
    4H.B.0349S1,2011Gen. Sess.(Utah2011).
    1[美]斯蒂文N苏本、马莎L米卢、马克N布诺丁、托马斯O梅菌等：《民事诉讼法：原理、实务与运作环境》，傅郁林等译，中国政法大学2004年版，第543页。
    2James S. Kakalik，Terence Dunworth，Laural A. hill, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro，Nicholas M. Pace,and Mary E. Vaiana, An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management Under the Civil Justice Reform Act, RAND，MR-802-ICJ(1996).
    1[美]史蒂文·苏本、玛格丽特（绮剑）·伍著：《美国民事诉讼的真谛——从历史、文化、实务的视角》，蔡彦敏、徐卉译，法律出版社2002年版，第47页。
    2Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases. Empirical Legal Study.2004, p.590.
    3参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第16条关于审前会议的规定；第16条第1款明确规定审前会议的目的就是加速处理诉讼，减少不必要的审前活动，尽早建立连续控制诉讼的管理体制，以免因缺乏管理而拖延诉讼。
    4参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第16条第2款“日程和计划”，具体规定法官管理的方式是通过日程安排命令规定其他当事人参加诉讼和修改诉答文书的期限、提出申请期限和完成证据开示程序的期限，以期管理和控制诉讼程序的进行。
    5可参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第11条第3款规定的违反答辩规定的法院制裁；第16条第6款规定的关于违反审前会议要求的制裁；第37条规定，法官可采取包括宣布当事人蔑视法庭罪在内的各种严厉的制裁措施。
    6参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条第1款关于证据披露的规定。1993年《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》进行修改，采取了当事人向对方收集信息和证据之前先主动向对方提供与请求有关的信息和证据的强制披露制度。
    7参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条关于证据开示程序的规定，
    8参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条第2款第2项限制的规定，限制的对象为：庭外证言和质问书的次数、请求自认的次数
    1参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条第2款证据开示的范围和限制的规定，第3款关于保护性命令的规定
    2参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条第4款证据开示的时间和顺序的规定。
    3参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第37条对滥用证据开示程序制裁的规定。
    4参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第40条为了开庭审理而分配案件的规定。
    5参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第42条合并；分开审理的规定。
    6参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第53条主事官的规定，主事官的委任和报酬应由法院决定，并由当事人负担。
    7参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第45条传票第5款关于违反遵守已送达传票义务处以藐视法庭的规定
    8参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第54条第4款关于第2项律师费的相关规定，送达费用由法院强制规定，并且根据地方法院规则法院可以无需广泛听证设立特别程序解决费用争议。
    9参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第32条第2款可采性的异议的规定，对于开庭审理或听审中的庭外证言法院可以采纳或者拒绝采纳。
    10法官享有限制专家证据的权力，从而确立并加强了法官对专家证人的选任权和控制权。
    1Standards Relating to Court Delay Reduction.
    1可参见American Bar Association, Judicial Administration Division, National Conference of State Trial Judges,Report to the House of Delegates recommending amendments to the ABA Standards Relating to Trial Courts(August.1984).
    2Schwartz, Howard. Survey of the Members of the Conference of State Court Administrators. Williamsburg, Va.:National Center for State Courts, June,1985.
    1Manual for Complex Litigation,2nd, at2(1985).
    2MCL(3rd)目前已有中文译本，可参考郭翔、王奕、尹彦译：《复杂诉讼指南》（第三版），中国政法大学出版社2005年5月版。
    3Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, at xiv (1995).
    1具体可参见《复杂诉讼指南》第三版10.2“手册的使用”一节内容。10.2Use of the Manual, Manual forComplex Litigation, Third, at5(1995).
    2比如：Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals一案，509U.S.579(1993).
    3比如：Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.一案，517U.S.370(1996).
    4Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, at8(2004).
    1Mark Diamond, Anatomy of a Disaster-The Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire [J], ABA Journal, Vol.73, Issue8(August1,1987), pp.104.
    1Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, at3(1995).
    2可参见《复杂诉讼指南》（第四版）第一部分的第二章律师作用之下的撤回和取消代理资格（10.23）一节内容，第28页。(See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,10.23Withdrawal and Disqualification, at28(2004).)
    3可参见《复杂诉讼指南》（第四版）第一部分的第五章律师费之下的律师费动议一节的内容，第203页。。(See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,14.22Motion for Attorney Fees,,at203(2004).)
    1Julius Stone, Law and the Social Science in the Second Half Century, University Of Minnesota Press,1966,p.64.
    128U.S.C.§479(c).
    2参见《民事诉讼管理手册（第二版）》(2010)，第3章“证据开示管理”项下新修订的“电子化存储信息方式的证据开示（”第一版原称为“计算机方式的证据开示”(Computer-Based Discovery)），第42页。（Chaper3.F.Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, CLMM2nd.(2010), at42.）
    1Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010).
    1《复杂诉讼指南》第三版以专章形式规定了“刑事案件（Criminal Cases）”一章，虽然第四版以控制内容篇幅为由取消了刑事案件这一章，但是《复杂诉讼指南》制定的原意是为复杂诉讼中的法官和律师提供指导和参考，无论是刑事诉讼还是民事诉讼，一些共通规则可以借鉴参考。参见Manual for ComplexLitigation,3rd, at263(1995). Manual for Complex Litigation,4th, at2(2004).
    1参见《民事诉讼管理手册（第二版）》(2010)，第6章“最后一次的审前会议和庭审计划”项下“庭审阶段”之下“法官审判”的具体内容：“可以考虑由律师在庭审之前提交关于各项事实发现的建议和适用法律的结论，这样有助于法官在庭审时采纳或者拒绝事实方面的发现；并且建议在证据调查结束后随即进行案件辩论，不建议采用庭后的辩论要点摘要书（posttrial briefings）形式；如果确实需要辩论要点摘要书，那么由律师在开庭审理前提交，而不是等到庭审之后才提交。”第114页。（CLMM2nd.(2010), at114.）
    2See CLMM2nd.(2010), Appendix A, Form9, Standing Pretrial Procedure Order and Forms.
    1具体可参见FED. R. CIV. P.16advisory committee's note to the1983and1993amendments.
    2Conference of State Court Administrators. National Time Standards for Case Processing. Williamsburg, Va.:National Center for State Courts,1983.
    3具体可参见FED.R. CIV. P.26advisory committee's note to the1983and1993amendments.
    1参见联邦民事诉讼规则Rule16(c)：“在审前会议中进行审议的事项列明和法院行为”。（Fed. R. Civ. P.16(c):“listing subjects for consideration and action by the court at a pretrial conference.”）
    2参见联邦民事诉讼规则Rule26(b)(1)：“（当事人）使用证据开示手段的频率和限度……应当被法院所限制……”。（Fed. R. Civ. P.26(b)(1):“The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods... shall belimited by the court...”(emphasis added)）.
    3Fed. R. Civ. P.16(c)(12):“...special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions thatmay involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems.”
    4See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,501U.S.32,42–51(1991); Pedroza v. Cintas Corp., No.6-013247-CV,2003WL828237, at*1(W.D. Mo. Jan.9,2003).
    5Manual for Complex Litigation,3rd(1995), p8.
    1[意]卡洛·M.奇波拉：《欧洲经济史》第3卷，商务印书馆1989年版，第212-213页。
    1Robert Eccleshall, British Liberalism: Liberal Thought from the1640s to1980s, London: Longman,1986,pp.418-419.
    2John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Macmillan CambridgeUniversity Press,1936.汉译本请参见[英]约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯著，高鸿业重译《就业、利息和货币通论》（汉译世界学术名著丛书）商务印书馆1999年版。
    1Report by Sir William Beveridge. London, HMSO,1942.
    1Paul Addison, The Road to1945: British Politics and the Second World War, London: Cape,1975, p.17.
    1P. Kennedy, The Realities Behind Diplomacy, London,1981, p34.
    11995年《接近正义-中期报告》，Intermit Report, Chapter I，para3.
    3《英国民事诉讼规则》，徐昕译，中国法制出版社2001年版，中译本“导言”，第7页。
    4司法大臣（Lord Chancellor）为英国特殊官职，兼任英国上议院议长与英国最高法院首席大法官，集行政权和司法权于一身。
    5Access to Justice, Interim Report(IR), June1995; Access to Justice, Final Report(FR), July1996. http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk/woolf/report,访问时间:2011-06-10.
    1关于英国司法改革，具体可参见徐昕：《英国民事诉讼与民事司法改革》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第8页。
    1《英国民事诉讼规则》，徐昕译，中国法制出版社2001年版，中译本“导言”，第11页。
    2民事司法咨询委员会The Civil Justice Council (CJC)，是司法部（the Ministry of Justice）资助设立的独立机构，从2010年10月1日起由司法办公室（the Judicial Office）提供资金支持。
    3《英国民事司法改革初期评估报告》，载齐树洁主编：《英国民事司法改革》，北京大学出版社2004年版，附录一。
    4英国司法大臣办公厅：《民事司法改革后续评佑报告》,2002年8月。(Further Findings: A ContinueEvaluation of the Civil Justice Reform. August2002http://www.lcd. gov. uk)《英国民事司法改革后续评估报告》，载齐树洁主编：《英国民事司法改革》，北京大学出版社2004年版，附录二。
    1CPR36.14：“the date on which the relevant period expired”
    2CPR36.3(1)(c).
    1Final Report, Chapter I，para.1and para.6.
    2Final Report, Chapter I，para. I and para.6.
    1Intermit Report, ChapterIII,“Problems and reasons”.
    2Final Report, Section I, Paragraph2and3.
    3Final Report, Section I, Paragraph2and3, p.225.
    1Final Report, Section I, Paragraph2and3, pp.225-226.
    2Richard Susskind, The future of law: Facing the challenges of Information Technology, Clarendon Press,1996,pp.187-188.
    3[英]理查德·莎士肯德：《信息社会的挑战：现代科技在民事诉讼等程序中的运用之英国报告》，载[意]莫诺·卡佩莱蒂等著，徐昕译：《当事人基本程序保障权与未来的民事诉讼》，法律出版社2000年版，第224-225页。
    1[德]赖因哈德·格雷格著，赵秀举译.：《作为诉讼主义的合作》，载米夏埃尔·施蒂尔纳主编：《德国民事诉讼法学文萃》，中国政法大学2005年版，第449—450页。
    2刘敏：《接近正义与英国的民事司法改革》，载南京师范大学法制现代化研究中心《法制现代化研究(第九卷)》，南京师范大学2004年版，第161页。
    3Intermit Report, Chapter III, para9.
    1Brian Sherrard, Barrister and Principal Legal Assistant to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, CASEMANAGEMENT-THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM GROUP'S APPROACH,53N. Ir. Legal Q.1092002, p.110.
    1“Pre-trial Procedure”的译法多样，有“准备程序”、“民事诉讼审前程序”、“民事诉讼审前准备程序”、“审前阶段”等，由于“准备”一词已不足以概括如今审前程序的多种功能，作者选择了比较简洁的译法：“民事审前程序”。
    2[美]史蒂文.苏本、玛格瑞特.伍：《美国民事诉讼的真谛：从历史、文化、实务的视角》，蔡彦敏、徐卉译，法律出版社2002年版，第130页。
    1诉答程序简化的目的主要有两个：第一、便于原告起诉，是人们接近司法的程序上的保障。通知诉答仅仅具有通知功能，告知被告并令其进行答辩。第二、简化降低了对于专业性的要求，减少人们在起诉时对于律师的依赖性。也即“通过简化诉辩，希望案件依其实质的是非曲直而定，而非如同过去普通法体系下一样取决于律师的专业技能和策略”。具体可参见[美]杰弗里·哈洋德：《美国民事诉讼法导论》，张茂译，中国政法大学出版社1998年版，第220页。
    2Stephen C.Yeazell, The Misunderstood Consequences of Modern Civil Process.1994Wis. L.Rev.631,633andfootnote3.
    3See Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and StateCourts, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD., Vol.1,2004, pp.459,461,492-93.
    4Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:1997Annual Report ofthe Director,152, table C-4.2004Annual Report of the Director, p.156, table C-4.
    5Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director, p.173, table C-4.
    6Rex R. Perschbacher&Debra Lyn Bassett, The Revolution of1938and Its Discontents, in Oklahoma LawReview, Vol.62,2008，p.279.
    1Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director, p.173, table C-4.
    2Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director，p.176, table C-5.
    3Brian J. Ostrom et al., Examining Trial Trends in State Courts:1976-2002, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD.Vol.1,2004, p.755.
    4原文为"the most profound change in our jurisprudence in the history of the Republic". SeeWilliam G. Young,An Open Letter to U.S. District Judges, FED. LAW., July2003, at30,30.
    1具体可参见FRCP Rule4关于传票（Summons）项下第14款送达的时间限制（(m) TIME LIMIT FORSERVICE）规定，如果起诉状和传票未在立案之后120天送达被告，法院可依职权或者动议申请，对原告进行通知后做出可补正之驳回起诉（dismiss the action without prejudice），……。
    2Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550U.S.544,127S.Ct.1955(No.05-1126)(2007).
    1See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, p.22(2004).
    2See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter4: Pretrial Motions Management, p.62.
    1See NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1946.
    1Bell Atlantic Corp.v. Twombly,127S. Ct.1955(2007); see, e.g., Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider,493F.3d1174,1177(10th Cir.2007)(discussing Twombly's new standard); Iqbal v. Hasty,490F.3d143,155(2d Cir.2007).
    23Conley v. Gibson,355U.S.41,45-46(1957).
    355U.S. at45-46.
    4355U.S. at45-46.
    5Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues&Rights, Ltd.,127S. Ct.2499(2007).
    6See Tellabs,127S. Ct. at2512.
    7See Tellabs127S. Ct. at2509-10; also see Twombly127S. Ct. at1966-67,1971n.12.
    1See Suja A. Thomas, Why the Motion to Dismiss Is Now Unconstitutional, MINN. L. REV. Vol.92,2008,p.1851.
    1原文如下：“…， a judge, not a law clerk, should conduct it.” See Civil Litigation Management Manual(CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter2:Setting and Monitoring a Case-Management Plan B. Scheduling a Rule16Conference, p.17.
    2冀宗儒:《从英美法官对案件的管理看民事程序的变化》，载《国际商务》2006年第1期。
    1Kevin M. Clermont. Civil Procedure.4th ed., West Pub. Co.,1995,.p.85.
    2See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter2:Setting and Monitoring aCase-Management Plan C. Setting a Case-Management Plan Through the Rule16Conference, p.17.
    1Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,(2004), p.36-39.
    1Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), pp.13-30(2010).
    2James S. Kakalik，Terence Dunworth，Laural A. hill, Daniel McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro，Nicholas M. Pace,and Mary E. Vaiana, An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management Under the Civil Justice Reform Act, RAND，MR-802-ICJ(1996), p.78.
    3Thomas A. Mauet, Pretrial, Aspen Law&Business,2003, p.343.
    1FED. R. CIV. P.16(d) advisory committee's note to the1983amendments.
    2Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), p.100.
    3Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,(2004), p.119.
    1Rechard D. Freer and Wendy Collins Perdue. Civil Procedure.2nd. ed., Anderson Publishing Co.,1997, pp.523-524.
    2依据1934年通过的美国《规则授权法》（Rules Enabling Act，28U.S.C.§§2072,2074），美国国会授权联邦司法系统制定有关实务、程序及证据的规则（当然，也保留了拒绝、修改或推迟通过的权力）。在美国联邦系统，程序规则的制定一般包括四个步骤：首先，由美国联邦司法会议（Judicial Conference of theUnited States）下属的常务委员会（此委员会由指定的法官、司法部代表、从业律师以及法学家组成）首先起草一个修正草案，在经过公开讨论后该草案转交实务和程序的常务委员会（the Standing Committee onRules of Practice and Procedure），再由该委员会呈交司法会议，最后由司法会议上报联邦最高法院批准。起草草案的咨询委员的注释说明与最后采用的修正案一起公布，都具有引用的权威效力。经过最高法院批准的修正案将提交给国会，后者享有七个月的时间通过立法来拒绝、修改或延迟规则，超过该期限则规则自动生效。
    3FED. R. CIV P.16(d) advisory committee's note to the1983amendments.
    4461U.S.1095; Cong. Rec., vol.129, pt.8, p.10479, Exec. Comm.1027; H. Doc.98–54.
    5480U.S.953; Cong. Rec., vol.133, pt.4, p.4484, Exec. Comm.714; H. Doc.100–40.
    6507U.S.1089; Cong. Rec., vol.139, pt.6, p.8127, Exec. Comm.1102; H. Doc.103–74.
    7547U.S.——; Cong. Rec., vol.152, p. H2179, Daily Issue, Ex. Comm.7317; H. Doc.109–105.
    8As amended Apr.28,1983, eff. Aug.1,1983; Mar.2,1987, eff. Aug.1,1987; Apr.22,1993, eff. Dec.1,1993;
    Apr.12,2006, eff. Dec.1,2006; Apr.30,2007, eff. Dec.1,2007.
    1See Hon. Alfred P. Murrah, Pre-Trial Procedure: A Statement of Its Essentials, F.R.D, vol.14https://www.lexisnexis.comlap/auth/.2011-11-05.
    2United States Code Service, Fed Rules Civ Proc R16, Matthew Bender&Company, Inc.2005, p.3.
    1Jeffrey A. Parness, Thinking Outside the Civil Case Box: Reformulating Pretrial Conference Laws, Kansas LawRaview, January2002, p.347.
    2See Manual for Complex Litigation (4th)§11.446.
    3See ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RULES, CIVIL RULES SUGGESTIONS DOCKET (Historical),1992-2010.
    1[美]史蒂文.苏本、玛格瑞特.伍：《美国民事诉讼的真谛——从历史、文化、实务的视角》，蔡彦敏、徐卉译，法律出版社2002年版，第127页。
    2Discovery的译法有多种，也被译为“审前证据发现”或者“审判前取证”。前者可参见沈达明编:《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中国法制出版社2002年版，第373页。后者可参见韩德培主编:《国际私法》，高等教育出版社2007年版，第495页。作者采取目前比较普遍的译法“证据开示”，具体理由可参见[美]斯蒂文·苏本：《美国民事诉讼法》一书的译序，傅郁林等译，中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
    3[美]史蒂文·苏本、马格瑞特·伍著，蔡彦敏译：《美国民事诉讼的真谛》，法律出版社2002年版，第124
    2See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter3: Discovery Management, p.32.
    1Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,(2004), p.127.
    2See pp.42-49.
    1329U.S.839; Cong. Rec., vol.93, p.1, p.41, Exec. Comm.32; H. Doc.46and H. Doc.473,80th Cong.
    2374U.S.861; Cong. Rec., vol.109, pt.4, p.4639, Exec. Comm.569; H. Doc.48, pt.2,88th Cong.; see also H.Doc.67,88th Cong.
    3383U.S.1029; Cong. Rec., vol.112, pt.4, p.4229, Exec. Comm.2094; H. Doc.391,89th Cong.
    4398U.S.977; Cong. Rec., vol.116, pt.7, p.9861, Exec. Comm.1839; H. Doc.91–29.
    5446U.S.995; Cong. Rec., vol.126, pt.8, p.9535, Exec. Comm.4260; H. Doc.96–306.
    6461U.S.1095; Cong. Rec., vol.129, pt.8, p.10479, Exec. Comm.1027; H. Doc.98–54.
    7480U.S.953; Cong. Rec., vol.133, pt.4, p.4484, Exec. Comm.714; H. Doc.100–40.
    8507U.S.1089; Cong. Rec., vol.139, pt.6, p.8127, Exec. Comm.1102; H. Doc.103–74.
    9529U.S.1155; Cong. Rec., vol.146, pt.5, p.6328, Ex. Comm.7336; H. Doc.106–228.
    10547U.S.—; Cong. Rec., vol.152, p. H2179, Daily Issue, Ex. Comm.7317; H. Doc.109–105.
    11As amended Dec.27,1946, eff. Mar.19,1948; Jan.21,1963, eff. July1,1963; Feb.28,1966, eff. July1,1966;Mar.30,1970, eff. July1,1970; Apr.29,1980, eff. Aug.1,1980; Apr.28,1983, eff. Aug.1,1983; Mar.2,1987,eff. Aug.1,1987; Apr.22,1993, eff. Dec.1,1993; Apr.17,2000, eff. Dec.1,2000; Apr.12,2006, eff. Dec.1,2006; Apr.30,2007, eff. Dec.1,2007; Apr.28,2010, eff. Dec.1,2010.
    1See Advisory Committee's Note to Admiralty Rule30A (1961).
    1See Advisory Committee's Notes on Rules—2006Amendment.
    1See Rule26(b)(4)(C)(i), Rule26(b)(4)(C)(ii), Rule26(b)(4)(C)(iii),
    2主要因为1993年FRCP Rule26(b)(4)(A)授权专家证人证言，增加Rule26(a)(2)以提供证据披露，包括专家证人的可提供一份范围广泛的专家报告，因此增加了诉讼成本。在美国司法实践中，许多律师雇佣两套专家，一个提供专家意见，一个专门在法庭上提供证词接受询问，专家证人的证据开示程序既昂贵又浪费。
    3See2010Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Changes, http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/ForensicAndValuation/NewsAndPublications/Advocacy/Pages/2010FRCPChanges.aspx,2012-1-10.
    1Advisory Committee Notes, Fed.R.Civ.P.26(1993, amendments),146FRD535(1993).
    2Robert A.Robbins, Jane E.Hadro&Joan C.Rogers, Civil Trial Practice Deskbook, The bureau of NationalAffairs Inc.,1997. p145.
    3See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,§11.4Discovery, pp.49-110(2004).
    4See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,§11.423Other Practices to Save Time and Expense, pp.56-59(2004).
    5See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,§11.456Control of Abusive Conduct, pp.89-90(2004).
    1See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter3: Discovery Management, p.31.
    2关于证据开示导致的诉讼拖延和费用高昂，具体可参见兰德报告相关分析。See James S. Kakalik,Deborah R. Hensler, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Marian Oshiro, Nicholas M. Pace, Mary E. Vaiana，Discovery
    3Management-Further Analysis of the Civil Justice Reform Act Evaluation Data, RAND, MR-941-ICJ(1998).See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter3: Discovery Management, p.33.
    4Milberg LLP and Hausfeld LLP, E-Discovery Today: The Fault Lies Not In Our Rules, FED. CTS. L. REV.,Vol.4,2011, p.51.
    5See Julie Cohen, Note, Look Before You Leap: A Guide to the Law of. Inadvertent Disclosure of PrivilegedInformation in the Era of E-Discovery, IOWA L. REV., Vol.93,2008, p.627.
    1John H. Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform, in Duke Law Journal,Vol.60,2010, p.547.
    2Megan Jones, Giving Electronic Discovery a Chance to Grow Up, NAT’L L. J., Dec.14,2009, p.19.
    3AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS, FINAL REPORT ON THE JOINT PROJECT OF THEAMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS TASK FORCE ON DISCOVERY AND THE INSTITUTE FORTHE ADVANCEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM, at2(2012-1-12),http://www.actl.com/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4053,2012-02-11.
    4See Megan Jones, Giving Electronic Discovery a Chance to Grow Up, NAT’L L. J., Dec.14,(2009); see alsoMilberg LLP and Hausfeld LLP, E-Discovery Today: The Fault Lies Not In Our Rules, FED. CTS. L. REV.,Vol.4,2011.
    1关于第三人的文书披露义务，具体可参见崔婕：《英美两国民事证据开示制度比较及其对我国的启示》，载《中山大学法学论坛》2002年第2期。
    2学者罗伯特.汤姆斯曾经分析过英国公法中的大陆法原则，他认为欧洲层面实施的公共权力的增长促进了法律原则方面的交换（exchange）。尽管比较法没有直接地促使大陆法系的公法原则与英国法整合，不过事实证明，它已成为法院在实施同样功能时选择法律原则的常用工具。英国的民事司法改革也反映了同样的事实，审前证据准备正在朝大陆法系方向靠拢。因为有当事人法庭外自主运作的证据开示程序，普通法系审前程序呈现出“赋权性”的特征；与之相比，大陆法系的审前程序表现出“限权性”的倾向。
    3Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co.(1882),11Q.B.D.55.
    1根据格兰特教授的调查，2009年联邦民事案件进入审判阶段的为1.7%。Marc Galanter and AngelaFrozena,‘A grin without a cat’“Civil Trials in the Federal Courts, unpublished paper available at:http://civilconference.uscourts.gov/LotusQuicker/dcc/Main.nsf/$defaultview/AD5073Ba32C18525771F0038C680/$File/Marc%20Galander%20Frozena%20A%20Grin%20Without%20a%Cat.pdf?OpenElement.2012-1-11.
    1Robert P. Burns, The Death of the American Trial, University of Chicago Press,2009.
    2Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director, p.173, table C-4.
    1The Sedona Conference, TSC Mission,http://www.thesedonaconference.org/content/tsc_mission/show_page_html (last accessed Jan.24,2011); see alsoThe Sedona Conference, Frequently Asked Questions,http://www.thesedonaconference.org/content/faq/#10001100(last accessed Jan.24,2011)(“Our hallmark is ourunique use of the dialogue process to reach levels of understanding and insight not otherwise achievable…TSCbrings together the brightest minds in a think-tank setting with the goal of creating practical solutions andrecommendations. Their findings are developed and enhanced through a substantive peer review process…”).
    2The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation,10Sedona Conf. J.,331-32(2009Supp.)(referring inclusively to “overreaching, obstruction, and extensive, but unproductive discovery disputes”).
    1Judith Resnik, Failing Faith: Adjudicatory Procedure in Decline, U. Chi.L. Rev., Vol.53,1986, p.504.
    2有学者认为，证据开示程序与对抗制构成了一个悖论，证据开示因其本身蕴含着解构对抗制的因素。具体可参见韩波：《悖论破解：对抗制中的证据开示制度》载于《诉讼法论丛》2005年第10卷，第355页。
    3Stephen C. Yeazell, Civil Procedure, Aspen Laze&Business,2003, p.525.
    1Black’s Law Dictionary(8th ed.), ThomsonWestGroup,2004.
    1Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases. Empirical Legal Study.,Vol.1,2004, p.590.
    2Symposium, The Vanishing Trial, J. EMPIRIcAL LEGAL STUD., Vol.1,2004, p.459.
    1See Ford Motor Co. of Canada, Ltd. v. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board (1997),36O.R.(3d)384at para.50,153D.L.R.(4th)33,104O.A.C.179(C.A.).
    2[美]杰克.H.弗兰德泰尔等：《民事诉讼法（第三版）》，夏登峻等译，夏登峻校，中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
    3See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter4: Pretrial Motions Management, B.Specific Techniques3.Motions timing, pp.56-57.
    1(329U.S.839; Cong. Rec., vol.93, p.1, p.41, Exec. Comm.32; H. Doc.46and H. Doc.473,80th Cong.)
    2374U.S.861; Cong. Rec., vol.109, pt.4, p.4639, Exec. Comm.569; H. Doc.48, pt.2,88th Cong.; see also H.Doc.67,88th Cong.
    3480U.S.953; Cong. Rec., vol.133, p.4, p.4484, Exec. Comm.714; H. Doc.100–40.
    4In England it was first employed only in cases of liquidated claims, but there has been a steady enlargement ofthe scope of the remedy until it is now used in actions to recover land or chattels and in all other actions at law, forliquidated or unliquidated claims, except for a few designated torts and breach of promise of marriage. EnglishRules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice,1937) O.3, r.6; Orders14,14A, and15; see also O.32, r.6,authorizing an application for judgment at any time upon admissions. In Michigan (3Comp.Laws (1929)§14260)and Illinois (Ill.Rev.Stat.(1937) ch.110,§§181,259.15,259.16), it is not limited to liquidated demands. NewYork (N.Y.R.C.P.(1937) Rule113; see also Rule107) has brought so many classes of actions under the operationof the rule that the Commission on Administration of Justice in New York State (1934) recommend that allrestrictions be removed and that the remedy be available “in any action”(p.287). For the history and nature of thesummary judgment procedure and citations of state statutes, see Clark and Samenow, The Summary Judgment(1929),38Yale.
    1Report of the Commission on the Administration of Justice in New York State (1934), p.383. See also ThirdAnnual Report of the Judicial Council of the State of New York (1937), p.30.
    1Examining the State of Civil Litigation, An Interview with the Chair of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules Judge Mark B. Kravitz (D. Conn.), July2010,http://www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch/10-07-01/Examining_the_State_of_Civil_Litigation.aspx, visited on2011‐12‐31.
    2Fidelity&Deposit Co. v. United States,187U.S.315,320(1902).
    3See Issacharoff&George Loewenstein, Second Thoughts About Summary Judgment, YALE L.J., Vol.100,1990,p.73,76.
    1See Colby v. Klune,178F.2d872,873(2d Cir.1949).
    2See Armco Steel Corp. v. Realty Inv. Co.,273F.2d483,484(8th Cir.1960).
    3Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475U.S.574(1986).
    4Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477U.S.242(1986).
    5Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477U.S.317(1986).
    6See Issacharoff&George Loewenstein, Second Thoughts About Summary Judgment, YALE L.J., Vol.100,1990,p.73,89.
    7See Ann C. McGinley, Credulous Courts and the Tortured Trilogy: The Improper Use of Summary Judgment inTitle VII and ADEA Cases,34B.C. L. REV., Vol.34,1993, p.203,229.
    8Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475U.S.574(1986).
    9Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477U.S.242(1986).
    10Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477U.S.317(1986).
    1Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475U.S.574(1986).
    2Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477U.S.242(1986).
    3Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477U.S.317(1986).
    4Joe S. Cecil, Rebecca N. Eyre, Dean Miletich&David Rindskopf, A Quarter-Century of Summary JudgmentPractice in Six Federal District Courts, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STU, Vol.4,2007, p.861.
    1Karen O’Conner and Lee Epstein, Rebalancing the Scale of Justice: Assessment of Public Interest Law, Harvard
    2Journal of Law&Public Policy, Vol.7,1984, p.489.See Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender and Federal Civil Litigation,Rutgers L. Rev.,Vol.59,2007, p.705.
    3Joe Cecil&George Cort, Federal Judicial Center, Estimates of Summary Judgment Activity in Fiscal Year2006(2007).
    4Semtek International, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,531U.S.497(2001).
    1Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,130S. Ct.1431(2010).
    2N.Y. C.P.L.R.§901(b)(1975).
    3Jeffrey O. Cooper, Summary Judgment in the Shadow of Erie, AKRON L. REV., Vol.43,2010, p.1263.
    1Papaschase Indian Band No.136v. Canada (Attorney General)(2008),292D.L.R.(4th)49at para.10,[2008]
    1S.C.R.372,[2008]5W.W.R.195.
    2Rule11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions.
    3Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Changing Shape of Federal Civil Pretrial Practice: The Disparate Impact on CivilRights and Employment Discrimination Cases, U. PA. L. REV., Vol.158,2010, pp.539-540.
    4Stephen B. Burbank, Summary Judgment, Pleading, and the Future of Transsubstantive Procedure, AKRON L.REV., Vol.43,2010, pp.1189-1192.
    5Bollas Genetin, Symposium: The Future of Summary Judgment. Akron L. Rev., Vol.43,2010, pp.1107-1263.
    6See Suja A. Thomas, Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional, VA. L. REV., Vol.93,2007, pp.139,140.
    7See Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Changing Shape of Federal Civil Pretrial Practice: The Disparate Impact onCivil Rights and Employment Discrimination Cases, U. PA. L. REV., Vol.158,2010, pp.517,520,548-550;Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender and Federal Civil Litigation, RUTGERS L.REV., Vol.59,2007, pp.705,709-711; See Kevin M. Clermont&Stewart J. Schwab, Employment DiscriminationPlaintiffs in Federal Court: From Bad to Worse?, HARV. L.&POL'Y REV., Vol.3,2009, pp.103,131-132.
    8See John Bronsteen, Against Summary Judgment, GEO. WASH. L. REV., Vol.75,2007, pp.522,522-527;Jeffrey W. Stempel, A Distorted Mirror: The Supreme Court's Shimmering View of Summary Judgment, DirectedVerdict, and the Adjudication Process, OHIO ST. L.J., Vol.49,1988, p.95,172.
    1Jeffrey O. Cooper, Summary Judgment in the Shadow of Erie, AKRON L. REV., Vol.43,2010, p.1245.
    2此项提议由Judge Judith N. Keep于1994年11月21日提出，现已经过民事司法委员会、司法会议以及联邦最高法院批准，等待国会批准和通过。11/21/94
    1Burlington Indus. v. Dayco Corp.,849F.2d1418,1422(Fed.Cir.1988)
    2Restatement (Second) of Contracts,§176cmt. d.
    3See Barry F. McNeil&Beth L. Fancsali, Mass Torts and Class Actions: Facing Increased Scrutiny, F.R.D.,
    4Vol.167,1996, p.483.Jonathan D. Glater, California Says State Law Was Used as Extortion Tool, N.Y. Times, Apr.5,2003, p. A8.
    5David Rosenberg, Mandatory-Litigation Class Action: The Only Option for Mass Tort Cases, Harv. L. Rev.,Vol.115,2002, p.831,833-834.
    6See Randy J. Kozel&David Rosenberg, Solving the Nuisance-Value Settlement Problem: Mandatory SummaryJudgment, Va. L. Rev., Vol.90,2004, p.1849.
    1Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and StateCourts, J. EMP. LEGAL STUDIES, Vol.1,2004, p.459,468.
    2Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and StateCourts, J. EMP. LEGAL STUDIES, Vol.1,2004, p.459,459-460.
    3Brian Ostrom, Shauna Strickland and Paula Hannaford-Agor, Examining Trial Trends in State Courts:1976-2002, J. Empirical Legal Stud., Vol.1,2004, p.768.
    4Marc Galanter and Angela Frozena,“A grin without a cat”: Civil Trials in the Federal Courts,(May1,2010)(unpublished manuscript)(on file with the2010Conference on Civil Litigation s website), p.3.
    5Marc Galanter and Angela Frozena,“A grin without a cat”: Civil Trials in the Federal Courts,(May1,2010)(unpublished manuscript)(on file with the2010Conference on Civil Litigation s website), p.4.
    6Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director，p.182, table C-7.
    1Samuel Issaeharoff George Lowenstein, Second Thoughts About Summary Judgment, Yale Law Journal, Vol.100,1990, p.76.
    2PD (24)1.2,1.3.
    3CPR24.5(3).
    1CPR24.2states: The court may give summary judgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of aclaim or on a particular issue if (a) it considers that (i) that claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on theclaim or issue; or (ii) that defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue and (b) thereis no other reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.
    2PD (24)1-10.
    3Swain v Hillman [2000]1All ER91,92, CA.
    4PD (24)3.
    5Y orke Motors L td v Edwards [1982]1WLR444, HL.
    1Robert J. Gregory, One Too Many River to Cross Rule50Practice in the Modern Era of Summary Judgment, Fla.St. U. L. Rev., Vol.23,1996, p.689.
    2Patricia M. Wald, Summary Judgment at Sixty, TEX. L. REV., Vol.76,1998, p.1897.
    3Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases, J. EMPIRICALSTUDIES, Vol.1,2004, p.590,626.
    1根据美国学者对于1975年至2000年这25年间6个联邦初审法院进行的样本数据进行调查分析并得出结论：在这25年间，原告提出即决判决动议的次数要远远少于被告，而且原告提出的即决判决动议的成功率也要低于被告。See Joe S. Cecil, Rebecca N. Eyre, Dean Miletich, and David Rindskopf, A Quarter-Century ofSummary Judgment Practice in Six Federal District. Courts, J. of Empirical Legal Stud., Vol.4,2007, p.888.
    228U.S.C.§§651–658(1998).
    1Robert P. Burns, The Death of the American Trial, University of Chicago Press,2009.
    2Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director, p.173, table C-4.
    3FRCP Rule16(c)(2)(I)的表述：“解决案件和采取特别程序以助于纠纷解决”是审前会议讨论的主题之一，关于此款的注释认为采取替代性纠纷解决机制属于采取特别程序的范畴。
    4See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), p.70.
    5Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director, p.27.
    6Mediation的译法有调解、斡旋、调停等，作者为避免与中国的调解（人民调解和法院调解，都是作出裁判，前者无法律强制力，或者具有法律强制力可以申请强制执行）相混淆，而未采取调解的译法，斡旋主要用于国际法范畴，因此再三衡量，译作调停。
    1See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter5: Alternative Dispute Resolution andResolution Settlement, p.78.
    2Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2009Annual Report ofthe Director, p.116, table C-4.
    3这10个由制定法授权进行强制仲裁的法院分别是: Northern District of California, Middle District of Florida,Western District of Michigan, Western District of Missouri, District of New Jersey, Eastern District of New York,Middle District of North Carolina, Western District of Oklahoma, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, andWestern District of Texas.28U.S.C.§654(Supp.1998).现在这10个法院中只有3个法院保留了强制仲裁，分别是District of New Jersey, Eastern District of New York, and Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
    4Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2009Annual Report of
    1Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2009Annual Report ofthe Director, p.116, table C-4.
    2Simon Roberts and Michael Palmer, Dispute Processes ADR and the primary forms of decision-making,Cambridge University Press, New York, p.269,2005.
    3这两个法院是：NY-W and WV-S (based on a Federal Judicial Center review of court local rules, generalorders, and ADR plans).
    1Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2009Annual Report ofthe Director, p.116, table C-4.
    2See Comm. on Codes of Conduct, Judicial Conference of the U.S., Code of Conduct for United States Judges,Canon3(A)(4)(d) as revised July2009(“A judge may... with the consent of the parties, confer separately withthe parties and their counsel in an effort to mediate or settle pending matters.”).
    1See Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Guide to Judiciary Policy, vol.2, Ethics Advisory Opinions, AdvisoryOpinion No.95, June2009(“Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have not only on
    2their own objectivity and impartiality but also on the appearance of their objectivity and impartiality.”).See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter5: Alternative Dispute Resolution andResolution Settlement, pp.89-90
    328U.S.C.§§651–658(1998).
    4Robert J. Niemic, Donna Stienstra&Randall E. Ravitz, Guide to Judicial Management of Cases in ADR§I.A(Fed. Judicial Ctr.2001).
    2齐树洁主编：《民事司法改革研究》，厦门大学出版社2004年版，第463页。
    3根据美国2011年最新民事诉讼调查所得：“证据开示程序是诉讼成本额外增加和导致不必要的迟延形成的原因”，See Corina Gerety, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, Excess and Access:Consensus on the American Civil Justice Landscape (2011), available at www.du.edu/legalinstitute,2011-8-8.
    1Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth and Impact of “Alternative DisputeResolution, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD., Vol.1,2004, p.843,911.
    3Owen Fiss, Against Settlement, YALE L.J. Vol.93,1984, p.1073.
    4Lorne Sossin, ADR and the Public Interest, available at http://cfcj-fcjc.org/docs/2006/sossin-en.pdf,2012-1-20.
    5Marc Galanter, The Quality of Settlements, J. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, Vol.55,1988, p.70.
    6Carrie Menkel-Meadow，Pursuing Settlement in an Adversary Culture: A Tale of Innovation Co-opted or "TheLaw of ADR," FLA. ST. U.L. Rev.1, Vol.19,1991, p.17.
    1Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth and Impact of “Alternative DisputeResolution,” J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD., Vol.1,2004, p.847.
    1Chambers,501U.S.at44(inherent power); Fed.R.Civ.P.60(b).
    2See In re Snyder,472U.S.634,643&n.4(1985).
    3See Fed.R.Civ.P.23(d)(2)&committee note.
    4See,e.g.,Fed.R.Civ.P.37(b)(2),(c)(1).
    5See,e.g.,Fed.R.Civ.P.11(c)(2).
    1See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, p.18(2004).
    2See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,§10.155Procedure, pp.20-25(2004).
    3See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth,10.15(2004).
    4See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter4: Pretrial Motions Management, p.67.
    1Rule11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions.
    2Fed. R. Civ. P.11(d).
    3See generally section11.433.Under28U.S.C.§1927, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure56(g).
    4As amended Apr.28,1983, eff. Aug.1,1983; Mar.2,1987, eff. Aug.1,1987; Apr.22,1993, eff. Dec.1,1993;Apr.30,2007, eff. Dec.1,2007.
    5335U.S.919; Cong. Rec., vol.95, pt.1, p.94, Exec. Comm.24; H.Doc.33,81st Cong.
    6398U.S.977; Cong. Rec., vol.116, pt.7, p.9861, Exec. Comm.1839; H. Doc.91–29.
    7446U.S.995; Cong. Rec., vol.126, pt.8, p.9535, Exec. Comm.4260; H. Doc.96–306.
    1480U.S.953; Cong. Rec., vol.133, pt.4, p.4484, Exec. Comm.714; H. Doc.100–40.
    2507U.S.1089; Cong. Rec., vol.139, pt.6, p.8127, Exec. Comm.1102; H. Doc.103–74.
    3529U.S.1155; Cong. Rec., vol.146, pt.5, p.6328, Ex. Comm.7336; H. Doc.106–228.
    4547U.S.——; Cong. Rec., vol.152, p. H2179, Daily Issue, Ex. Comm.7317; H. Doc.109–105.
    5As amended Dec.29,1948, eff. Oct.20,1949; Mar.30,1970, eff. July1,1970;Apr.29,1980, eff. Aug.1,1980; Pub. L.96–481,§205, Oct.21,1980,94Stat.2330; Mar.2,1987, eff. Aug.1,1987; Apr.22,1993, eff. Dec.1,1993; Apr.17,2000, eff. Dec.1,2000; Apr.12,2006, eff. Dec.1,2006; Apr.30,2007, eff. Dec.1,2007.
    1Societe Internationale v. Rodgers (1958),34U.S.197.
    2See James E. McDaniel, ATTORNEY SANCTIONS, Judges J. Vol.25,1986, p.37.
    3Roadway Express, Inc. v. Pipe(1979),447W.S.752.
    1See Daniel B. and Laura El-Sabaawi, The future of Rule11sanctions for unethical conduct before the U.S. Courtof International Trade. Tul. J. Int'l&Comp. L. Vol.19,2011, pp.587-599.
    2See Pepe, Douglas J. Persuading Courts to Impose Sanctions on Your Adversary, Litigation, Vol.36,2010, p.21.
    3根据1978年联邦司法中心的一项研究，申请法院制裁的动议还不到当时整个证据开示请求数量的1%，而在这其中只有不到一半的案件法院对申请制裁的动议事项进行了裁决。See Renfrew, Discovery Sanctions:A Judicial Perspective, CALIF. L.REV. Vol.67,1979, p.271.关于法院制裁的增长可参见：Arthur R. Miller,The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, MINN. L. REV. Vol.69(1),1984, p.26.
    4Mark R. Kravitz, Unpleasant Duties: Imposing Sanctions for. Frivolous Appeals, J. APP. PRAC.&PRoc., Vol.4,2002, p.335.
    5Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co.,470U.S.1067,1071(1985)(Stevens, J., concurring).
    1Ripple&Saalman, Rule11in the Constitutional Case, Notre Dame L. Rev. Vol.63,1988, pp.788-789.
    2S. BURBANK, Rule11in transition: the report of the Third Circuit Task Force on Federal Rule of Civil ProcedureII,American Judicature Soc'y, Vol.59,1989, p.56.
    3Robert J. Keenan. RULE16AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCES: HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE MOSTIMPORTANT INGREDIENT? Southern California Law Review.(July, I990), note29.
    1Stephen N. Subrin, How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in HistoricalPerspective, U.PA.L.REV., Vol.135,1987, p.1650.
    2Carl Tobias, Civil Justice Reform and The Balkanization of Federal Civil Procedure, Ariz. St. L.J.,Vol.24,1992,p.1393.
    3FED. R. CIV. P.16(1993amend.).
    4FED. R. CIV. P.16advisory committee's note (1993amend.).
    1CPR Part3.1.
    1CPR Part1.4(2)(g).
    2CPR Part3.1(2)(a)(b).
    3CPR Part3.1(2)(e)(f)(g)(h).
    4CPR Part1.4(2).
    5CPR Part3.1(2).
    6CPR Part32.1.
    1CPR Part34.8.
    2CPR Part35.4.
    3CPR Part35.7.
    4CPR Part1.1(2)(c).
    5CPR Part1.4(2)(h).
    6CPR Part43:“SCOPE OF COST RULES AND DEFINITIONS”; CPR Part44:“GENERAL RULES ABOUTCOSTS”; CPR Part45:“FIXED COSTS”; CPR Part46:“FAST TRACK TRIAL COSTS”; CPR Part47:“PROCEDURE FOR DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND DEFAULT PROVISIONS”; CPR Part48:“COSTS–SPECIAL CASES”.
    7CPR43PD:“THIS PRACTICE DIRECTION SUPPLEMENTS CPR PARTS43TO48”; CPR44PD:“DIRECTIONS RELATINGTO PART44GENERAL RULES ABOUT COSTS”; CPR45PD:“DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PART45FIXED COSTS”; CPR46PD:“DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PART46FAST TRACK TRIAL COSTS”; CPR47PD:“DIRECTIONS RELATING TO PART47PROCEDURE FOR DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND DEFAULT PROVISIONS”; CPR48PD:“DIRECTIONSRELATING TO PART48COSTS–SPECIAL CASES”.
    8关于英国的法官制裁权的详细内容，具体可参见齐树洁主编：《英国民事司法改革》，北京大学出版社，2004年版，第390-410页；徐昕：《英国民事诉讼与民事司法改革》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第391-418页。
    9CPR Part3.4-3.9.
    1CPR Part3.1(2)(c).
    2CPR Part1.4(2)(1).
    3CPR Part1.4(2)(j).
    45CPR Part12.CPR Part23.8.
    6CPR Part27.10.
    7FED. R. CIV. P.40(" Each court must provide by rule for scheduling trials.")
    8Martel v. County of Los Angeles,56F.3d993,995(9th Cir.1995).
    9FED. R. CIV. P.40.
    1FED. R. CIV. P.50.
    2FED. R. CIV. P.47.
    3FED. R. CIV. P.12.
    4FED. R. CIV. P.56.
    5Rule11. Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions.
    6FED. R. CIV. P.59.
    1原文为："ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law." See WilliamBlackstone, Commentaries On The Law Of England, Vol.3,1768, p.379.
    2Jonathan Elliot, The Debates In The Several State Conventions On The Adoption Of the Federal Constitution,Edmund Randolph,2d ed.1836, p.464.
    3Saul M. Kassin, Lawrence S. Wrightsman, The American jury on trial: psychological perspectives, HemispherePub. Corp.,1988, p.2.
    2原文为："ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law." See WilliamBlackstone, Commentaries On The Law Of England, Vol.3,1768, p.379.
    3在1765年的“印花税法暴动案”中，波士顿的大陪审团拒绝起诉暴动事件中的民众领袖。1765年10月19日“美洲殖民地第一次代表大会”，即“印花税法案代表大会”通过《权利和不平宣言》，宣布获得陪审团审判是这些殖民地每一大英帝国臣民固有的和无价的权利。
    4美国联邦宪法第七修正案规定，在普通法上的诉讼中，“其争执价值超过20美元的，必须保留陪审团审判的权利。由陪审团参加的事实，合众国的任何法院除非按照普通法规则，不得重新审查。”（“In Suits atcommon law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall bepreserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, thanaccording to the rules of the common law.”）关于美国联邦宪法第七修正案公民享有获得陪审团审判的权利的研究，可参见Charles Wolfram, The Constitutional History of the Seventh Amendment, MINN. L.REV.,Vol.57,1973, p.639; Stanton D. Krauss, The Original Understanding of the Seventh Amendment Right to JuryTrial, U. RICH. L. REV., Vol.33,1999, p.407.
    5关于美国民事陪审团在20世纪演变的过程，可参见Robert E. Litan, ed., Verdict: Assessing the Civil JurySystem, Brookings Institution,1993.而关于美国民事陪审团制度在21世纪的最新发展情况，可参见FernMichaels, The jury, Kensington Publishing Corporation,2012-3-6.
    1关于陪审团更多的历史，可参见郭光东的博士论文《陪审团的历史和价值》一文，该文将陪审团的历史分为古典时代、黄金时代、衰落时代和复兴时代。郭光东：《陪审团的历史与价值》，华东政法大学博士论文，2004年。
    2ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE:(Miscellaneous Provisions) ACT,1933,23&24Geo.5, ch.49,§6.
    3根据数据显示，1913年在高等法院审理的民事案件中有55%是由陪审团审判的，而到了1918年这一数字减少到36%；1935年这一数字进一步下降为12%；1968年，由陪审团审判的案件只占2%到3%，至此在民事诉讼中法官审判已占据决定性地位。See Sir Patrick Devlin, Trial By Jury, Stevens&Sons Limited,London, Sixth Impression,1978, p.132.
    1Ellen E. Sward, The Decline of the Civil Jury, Carolina Academic Press, Durham. North Carolina.2001, pp.12-13.
    2William G. Young, An Open Letter to U.S. District Judges, FED. LAW., July2003, p.30.
    1Jerry Crimmins, Attorney-judge summit cautions civil jury trials headed to extinction, Chicago Daily LawBulletin, Volume157, No.127Wednesday29Jun2011.
    2See Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal andStateCourts, J. EMP. LEGAL STUDIES, Vol.1,2004, pp.459,461,492-493.
    1Lisa Kern Griffin, The Image We See Is Our Own: Defending the Jury's Territory at the Heart of the DemocraticProcess, Nebraska Law Review, Vol.75,1996, pp.332-376; Herbert L. Bernstein, Whose Advantage After All? AComment on the Comparison of Civil Justice Systems, U.C. DAVIS L REV., Vol.21,1998, p.587; Warren E.Burger, Thinking the Unthinkable, LOY. L. REV., Vol.31,1985, pp.205,210-220.
    2See Fed. R. Civ. P.47, Fed. R. Civ. P.48.
    3See Fed. R. Civ. P.51.
    4关于民事陪审团的具体操作可参见《民事诉讼管理手册（第二版）》以及《复杂诉讼指南（第四版）》的相关规定。See Civil Litigation Management Manual (CLMM),2nd(2010), Chapter6: Final Pretrial Conferenceand Trial Planning, e. Jury issues, p.106. See also MCL(4th.)§12.4Jury Trials, p.150-163.
    5Allen Pusey, Judges Rule in Favor of Juries: Survey by Morning News, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, May7,2000, p.1J.
    6See generally William W Schwarzer, Reforming Jury Trials, F.R.D. Vol.132,1991, p.575. See also Called ToServe (filmed by the Federal Judicial Center in2005)(video on file with the Federal Judicial Center)(FJC MediaLibrary No.2980-V/05).
    1Rebecca Love Kourlis and Gilbert A. Dickinson, Why the Disappearance of Civil Jury Trials is Not Acceptable,Voir Dire, Vol.17, No.3-4, October2010, p.5.
    2See Paul D. Carrington, Civil Jury and American Democracy, Duke J. Comp&Intl L. Vol.13,2003, p.79.
    12010年5月，在俄勒冈州，快速民事陪审团案件项目在若干选定的俄勒冈州初审法院正式实施，其中包括该州人口最密集的蒙诺玛郡（Multnomah County）。该项目向当事人保证，从案件被司法指定为快速案件时起四个月内获得一个特定的审判日期。在快速案件中的当事人可以对证据开示的细节进行协议并且在法院登记归档，但是如果没有这份协议，只允许当事人进行推测的有限的证据开示。2010年加利福尼亚州州长阿诺德.施瓦辛格批准了《快速陪审团审判条例》（the Expedited Jury Trials Act），该条例授权加州司法委员会为快速陪审团审判而创建程序规则。2011年犹他州州长加里.赫伯特（Gary Herbert）批准生效的犹他州快速陪审团审判条例（The Utah Expedited Jury Trial Act），授权犹他州司法委员会对于民事案件的快速陪审团审判进行试点项目。
    2[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》，董果良译，商务印书馆，1988年版。
    3See Paul D. Carrington, Civil Jury and American Democracy, Duke J. Comp&Intl L. Vol.13,2003, p.79.
    1L. W. Levy, The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury, Ivan R. Dee,1999, p.105.
    2PETER W. HUBER, LIABILITY: THE LEGAL REVOLUTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES (1988) andWALTER K. OLSON, THE LITIGATION EXPLOSION: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN AMERICA UNLEASHEDTHE LAWSUIT (1991).
    1[英]戴维林：《法官》，1979年版，第120页。转引自英国法律文化委员会：《英国法律周专辑》，法律出版社，1999年版。年版，第138页。
    2California v. Green，399U.S.158，90S.Ct.1930，1935，26L. Ed.2d489(1970)(Quoting5wigmore，Evidence§1367).
    1[英]詹妮·麦克埃文：《现代证据法与对抗式程序》，蔡巍译，北京：法律出版社，2006年版，第4页。
    2原文为："[a]nonymous accusations were not actionable, because, among other things, the accused...had theright to confront his accuser".
    3Kenneth Graham, Confrontation Stories: Raleigh on the Mayflower, OHIO ST. J. CRIM. L.,Vol.3,2005, p.209.
    4MCCORMICK ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE, Edward W. Cleary ed.,3d ed.1984, p.728.(quoting2Rolle's Abr.679, pl.9(1668)).
    5John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, Oxford University Press,2003, p.246.
    6“…to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in hisfavor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”(US Const., amend. VI).
    1Randolph N. Jonakait, The Origins of the Confrontation Clause An Alternative History, RUTGERS L.J.,,Vol.27,1995, p.77.
    2Randolph N. Jonakait, The Origins of the Confrontation Clause An Alternative History, RUTGERS L.J.,,Vol.27,1995, p.108.
    3See James D. Rice, The Criminal Tial Before and After the Lauyers: Authority, Law, and Culture in MarylandJury Trials1681-1837, AM. J. LEGAL HIST.,Vol.40,1996, p.455,463; CHARLES T. CULLEN, ST. GEORGETUCKER AND LAW IN VIRGINIA1772-1804, Garland Publishing,1987, pp.39-40; Jeremy A. Blumenthal,Comment, Reading The Text of The Confrontation Clause:"To Be" or Not 'To Be?', U. PA.J. CONST. L.,Vol.3,2001, pp.722,733-734.
    4Evidence Act1843.
    5Civil Evidence Act1968; Civil Evidence Act1972; Civil Evidence Act1995.
    11995年的《民事证据法》(Civil Evidence Act1995)第1条第1款规定：“不能以传闻证据为由，在民事诉讼中排除证据。”并且规定，一方当事人仅需在向对方履行提前通知义务后，即可在诉讼中出示传闻证据。传闻证据从此在原则上具有可采性，传闻证据规则从“排除规则(rule of exclusion)”转变为“通知规则(rule of notice)”。即使未事先通知对方，也不会导致证据被排除，只是可能会导致案件延期审理或在费用上受惩罚。See Adrian Zukerman, Civil Procedure, Butterworths, Article19,2003, p.21.
    2[英]詹妮.麦克埃文：《现代证据法与对抗式程序》，蔡巍译，法律出版社2006年版，第343页。
    3CPR Part32.1.
    4丹宁勋爵在20世纪50年代在民事案件中提出了法官何时应询问证人的著名格言（简称约翰界限）：法官的事情就是听取证词。就询问证人而言，只有在需要澄清任何被忽略的或不清楚的问题时，在需要促使律师行为得体以符合法律规范时，在需要排除与案情无关的事情和制止重复时，在需要通过巧妙的插话以确保法官明白律师阐述的问题以便做出估价时，以及最后在需要断定真相所在时，法官才能亲自询问证人。假如他超越此限，就等于是自卸法官责任，改演律师角色。具体可参见[英]丹宁勋爵：《法律的正当程序》，李克强等译，法律出版社,1999年版，第66-67页。
    1“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial juryof the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previouslyascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with thewitnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistanceof Counsel for his defence.”(US Const., amend. VI).
    2《联邦证据规则》第611条(a)款规定：“法庭应当对询问和举证的方式和顺序进行合理的控制，以便于：(1)使得询问和举证的效果有利于发现真实；(2)避免不必要的时间耗费；以及(3)保护证人免遭骚扰和免受不适当之尴尬。”该法第614条规定:“法庭可以自动或者根据当事人的建议传唤证人，并且所有的当事人对据此传唤的证人都有权进行反询问。”“法庭可以讯问证人，无论是自己传唤的证人还是当事人传唤的证人。”美国《联邦证据规则》第611条关于“询问和举证的方式和次序”的规定之下的关于“交叉询问的范围”的（b）项规定：“交叉询问应限于直接询问时的主题和与证人诚信有关的问题，由法庭斟酌决定，可以允许如直接询问时那样对附加问题加以询问。”
    3Faretta v. California,422U.S.806,818(1975).
    4Ohio v. Roberts,448U.S.56,65-66(1980).
    1Crawford v. Washington,541U.S.36,68(2004).
    2See Crawford v. Washington,124S. Ct.(2004), pp.1370-1374.
    3See Crawford v. Washington,124S. Ct.(2004), p.1373.
    4Davis v. Washington,547U.S.813,821,824(2006).
    5原文为："Unless and until the Supreme Court holds otherwise, Roberts still controls nontestimonialstatements." Albrecht v. Horn,471F.3d435,463(3d Cir.2006).
    6原文为："The Supreme Court, however, in Davis made clear that the right to confrontation only extends totestimonial statements, or, put differently, the Confrontation Clause simply has no application to nontestimonialstatements." UnitedStates v. Feliz,467F.3d227,231(2d Cir.2006).
    7原文为："the Confrontation Clause has no application to [nontestimonial hearsay statements] and thereforepermits their admission even if they lack indicia of reliability." Whorton v. Bocking,127S. Ct.1173,1183(2007).
    1Richardson v. Perales,402U.S.389(1971).
    2Coffin v. Sullivan895F.2d1206(8th Cir.1990).
    3Passmore v. Astrue,533F.3d658,665(8th Cir.2008).
    4McCormick§8, p.14; Maguire, Weinstein, et al., Cases on Evidence,5th ed.1965, pp.303–304.
    5McCormick§8, pp.12–13; Maguire, Weinstein, et al., Cases on Evidence,5th ed.1965, pp.737–739.
    6See Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules, Rule614. Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness.
    7[美]约翰.W.斯特龙：《麦考密克论证据》，汤维建等译，中国政法大学出版社2004年版，第18-19页。
    1See MCL(4th.)§12.35Judicial Control/Time Limits, p.148.
    2See Federal Rules of Evidence403and611; MCL(4th.)§11.644Limits on Evidence, p.127.
    3“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by... considerations of undue delay, waste of time, orneedless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    4See MCL(4th.)§12.35Judicial Control/Time Limits, p.147.
    1Kristin L. Fulcher, Note, The Jury as Witness: Forensic Computer Animation Transports Jurors to the Scene of aCrime or Automobile Accident, U. DAYTON L. Rev., Vol.22,1996, p.72.(quoting I. Neel Chatterjee, AdmittingComputer Animations: More Caution and New Approach Are Needed, DEF. COUNS.J., Vol.62,1995, p.36.
    2Jules Epstein，Cross-Examination: Seemingly Ubiquitous, Purportedly Omnipotent, and ‘At Risk’, Widener L.Rev., Vol.14,2009, p.427.
    1[美]米尔吉安·R·达马斯卡：《比较法视野中的证据制度》，吴宏耀、魏晓娜等译，中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版，第18页。
    1[德]赫尔曼《:中国刑事审判方式的改革》，载《诉讼法学新探》，中国法制出版社2000年版，第846页。
    4Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:1997Annual Report ofthe Director,152, table C-4.2004Annual Report of the Director, p.156, table C-4.
    5Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director, p.173, table C-4.
    6Rex R. Perschbacher&Debra Lyn Bassett, The Revolution of1938and Its Discontents, in Oklahoma LawReview, Vol.62,2008, p.279.
    7Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the United States Courts:2010Annual Report ofthe Director, p.173, table C-4.
    2该说法出自于朱克曼教授1982年于《哈佛法学评论》上发表的著名的《管理型法官》一文，该文拥有极高的引用率。Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, Harvard Law Review, Vol.96,1982, p.374.
    1Neil Andrews, A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-Control Going, Going, Gone, Civil JusticeQuarterly, Vol.19,2000, p.19-38.
    1Sofaer, Sanctioning Attorneys for Discovery Abuse Under the New Federal Rules: On the Limited Utility ofPunishment, ST. John’s L. Rev. Vol.57,1983, p.130, Table59.
    1Access to Justice, Interim Report, June1995, http://www.law.warwick.ac.uk/woolf/report,2011-10-12.
    2Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (2004).
    3Civil Litigation Management Manual, Second(2010).
    4从《民事诉讼管理手册（第二版）》（CLMM(2nd)）的规定章节和内容可以发现：法官管理基本还是限于审前阶段。CLMM共九章，以前六章为主，后三章分别是规定特殊案件、诉讼管理中的人力资源以及信息技术的内容。前六章全部都是审前程序各个重要阶段和内容的规定，只在第六章“最后一次的审前会议和庭审计划”（Final Pretrial Conference and Trial Planning）中包含一个名为“庭审阶段”（The Trial Phase）标题的部分，也仅是最后一次审前会议上对于庭审计划的具体工作安排的内容，而不涉及开庭审理程序，篇幅很小，不到6页内容，只占到整个CLMM正文的3.6%。这也说明即使处于创新和改革前沿的联邦法院，也并未认为民事案件的案件管理必须由审前阶段向庭审阶段进行延伸，庭审阶段仍旧属于传统对抗制的保留阵地，仍然是律师的主场。
    5该说法出自于朱克曼教授1982年于《哈佛法学评论》上发表的著名的《管理型法官》一文，该文拥有极高的引用率。Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, Harvard Law Review, Vol.96,1982, p.374.
    1Access to Justice, Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales, HMSO,London, Chapter1, para1.
    2Access to Justice, Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales,HMSO, London, Chapter3, para24.
    1A.A.S. Zuckerman, A Reform of Civil Procedure-Rationing Procedure rather than Access to Justice, J.L.&Soc'y, Vol.22,1995, p.160.
    1[美]罗斯科·庞德：《普通法的精神》，唐前宏等译，法律出版社2001年版，第21页。
    1庞德：《普通法的精神》，唐前宏、廖湘文、高雪原译，法律出版社2001年1月第1版，第12-13页。关于日耳曼法精神以及最近的关于日耳曼法的系统研究，可参见李秀清先生的《日耳曼法研究》一书。李秀清：《日耳曼法研究》，商务印书馆2005年版。
    1正如学者所言，“证据开示的目的，不在于“废除战争”(abolish war)，而是使之变得文明(civilize)。”因为在英美法系国家看来，当事人双方律师之间的对抗，仍然是法院判决为当事人所接受的基础，是发现真实的最佳手段，现在所要做的只不过是使得这种对抗处于合理的可控范围之内，而不是要彻底否决对抗，改走审问或者纠问的道路。Judith Resnik，Failing Faith: Adjudicatory Procedure in Decline, U. Chi.L. Rev.Vol.53,1986, p504.
    2Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Pursuing Settlement in an Adversary Culture: A Tale of Innovation Co-opted or "TheLaw of ADR," FLA. ST. U.L. Rev. Vol.19,1991, p.17.
    3Arthur R. Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, MINN. L. REV. Vol.69(1),1984, p.26.
    1沃尔夫勋爵在其《接近正义》的中期报告中明确表示：“我不是建议我们应当抛弃对抗制和言词主义传统，而赞成在争议的决定和证据调查方面起决定作用的审问制，即职权探知主义。我赞同的是保留目前对抗制中最好的特征，同时给法庭更多的职权管理，以阻止目前制度的过多扭曲。” See Intermit Report,Chapter III, para9.
    1Jonathan T. Molot, An Old Judicial Role for a New Litigation Ere, Yale Law Journal, October,2003, p.27.
    2See Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and StateCourts, J. EMP. LEGAL STUDIES, Vol.1,2004, pp.459,461,492-493.
    1Grahamwhite and JohnMaze, Henrry A. Wallace: His search For a New World Order, The university of NorthCarolina Press,1995.
    1L.Friedman, Legal Culture and Social Development, Law and Society Review, Vol.6,1969, p.34.
    1职权制一词比较科学的英文表达为“Reformed Inquisitorial System”，以区别于首先形成于中世纪的天主教会，后在法国大革命后经过了更好的提炼的，与宗教裁判所（宗教裁判所(inquisition)）、法定证据制度、刑讯逼供、控审不分、有罪推定、秘密司法等密切相联的，盛行于欧洲大陆的封建专制主义时期的纠问式“Inquisitorial System”审判制度。职权制的德文为“Untersuchungsgrundsatz”（“Ermittlungsgrundsatz”、“Instruktionsprinzip”、“Prinzp der materienllen Wahrheit等为其同义语）。“Untersuchungsgrundsatz”的字面意思为“调查原则”或“澄清义务”，也有德国学者称之为实质真实原则、侦查原则或者纠问原则，指对于提交裁判的争议事实，法院可依职权调查、引入诉讼并确定其真实性，不受诉讼参与人之声请或陈述之拘束。具体可参见[德]托马斯.魏根特：《德国刑事诉讼程序》，岳礼玲译，中国政法大学出版社2004年版，第2页。
    2[美]米尔伊安·R.达玛卡什:《司法和国家权利的多种面孔》，郑戈译，中国政法大学出版社2004年版，第6页。
    3[美]史蒂文·苏本（Stephen N.Subrin），（美）玛格瑞特（绮剑）·伍（Margaret Y.K.Woo）:《美国民事诉讼的真谛》蔡彦敏、徐卉译，法律出版社2002年版，第29页。
    4California v. Green.399U.S.158,90S. Ct.1930,1935,26L. Ed.2d489(1970)(quoting5Wigmore,Evidence§1367).
    1Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, BAYLOR L. REV.Vol.8,1956, p.1.
    2参见杰弗里.C.哈泽德、米歇尔.塔鲁伊著，张茂译：《美国民事诉讼法导论》：“在充斥着个人主义、自由竞争以及与之相适应的道德观念和法治政治的美国文化中，人们很难想象，诉讼当事人会以另外的模式进行他们的诉讼。”，中国政法大学出版社，1998年版，第103页。
    3M. Frankel, The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View, U. Pa. L. Rev., Vol.123,1975, p.1031.
    4John. Lanbein, The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, U. Chi. L. Rev., Vol.52,1985, p.823.
    5古罗马神话中的正义女神尤斯堤伽（Justitia）是欧洲法律的象征，英语、法语和德语就以女神的名字作为法律代名词。
    1关于这一看法，可参考P.S.阿蒂亚教授的观点：“对抗制诉讼程序本身就是一种勇于质疑的的机制，因为法院审判的真正功能应当在于确认事实真相而不仅仅是解决双方当事人之间的纠纷。”P.S.阿蒂亚著，刘承韪、刘毅译：《英国法中的实用主义与理论》，清华大学出版，2008年版，第64页。
    2之后的继任者也重复表述了相同的观点，比如英国著名法官丹宁勋爵曾经说：“一名法官要想做到公正，他最好让争诉双方保持平衡而不要介入争论。假如一名法官亲自检验证人的证词，那就是说，他自甘介入争论，从而有可能被甚嚣尘上的争吵遮住明断的视线。”参见〔英〕丹宁勋爵：《法律的正当程序》，李克强等译，法律出版社1999年版，第65页。
    1Larry Heuer, What’s Just about the Criminal Justice System? A Psycological Perspective,, J. L.&Pol’y Vol.13,2005, p.209.
    2参见[日]中村英郎：《民事诉讼理论の诸问题》，成文堂1978年版，第193页。
    3请注意，法治准确的译法为“rule of law”，意指规则之治，而非由人治理。
    1雅各布（J.I.Jacob）：《英国民事诉讼中的对抗制》，赵海翔译，载《现代外国哲学社会科学文摘》，1992年第6期。
    2Marc Galanter, Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead：Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, Law&SocietyReview, Vol.9,1974, p.2.
    3参见杰弗里.C.哈泽德、米歇尔.塔鲁伊著，张茂译：《美国民事诉讼法导论》，中国政法大学出版社，1998年版，第五章律师与对抗制，第86-107页。
    1关于这一点，可参见美国学者罗德（Rhode）被广泛引证的著作《为了司法/正义:法律职业改革》，其中“您能买得起多少钱的正义？”被广泛引证于塞尼卡（seneca），陀思妥耶夫斯基（OOstoevski），怀尔德（WiLde），奥登（Auden），甚至包括《纽约客》（NewYorker）刊载的卡通漫画中，漫画中律师问他的委托人：“那么，皮肯特（Pitikin）先生，您能买得起多少钱的正义啊？”中文版可参见[美]德博拉·L·罗德著，张群、温珍奎、丁见民译：《为了司法/正义:法律职业改革(美国法律文库)》，中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
    1该说法出自于朱克曼教授1982年于《哈佛法学评论》上发表的著名的《管理型法官》一文，该文拥有极高的引用率。Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, Harvard Law Review, Vol.96,1982, p.374.
    2Marvin E. Frankel. The Search for Truth: An Umpire View. U. Pa. L. Rev., Vol.123,1975, p.1031.
    3John Lanbein. The German Advantage in Civil Procedure. U. Chi. L. Rev., Vol.52,1985, p.823.
    1[古希腊]亚里士多德：《政治学》，吴寿彭译，商务印书馆1965年版，第4页。
    1[美]兰博约（John H. Lanbein）著：《对抗式刑事审判的起源》，王志强译，复旦大学，2010年版，第342页。
    2[德]约阿希姆.赫尔曼:《德国刑事司法制度》，在中国政法大学的讲座录音整理稿。转引自张建伟：《认识相对主义与诉讼的竞技化》载《法学研究》2004年第4期，第44页。
    1[日]中村英郎：《民事诉讼理论の诸问题》，成文堂1978年版，第71页。
    1Larry Heuer. What’s Just about the Criminal Justice System? A Psychological Perspective, J. L.&Pol’y, Vol.13,2005, p.209.
    2参见姜启波，张力：《民事审前准备》，人民法院出版社2008年版。
    2Julius Stone, Law and the Social Science in the Second Half Century, University of Minnesota Press,1966,p.121.
    1详细可参见《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第15条和第73条的规定。
    2广东省高级人民法院莫兆军被指控玩忽职守案终审裁定书（2004）粤高法刑二终字第24号。
    1关于社会分工，可参见[法]埃米尔·涂尔干：《社会分工论》，渠东译，三联书店2005年版。
    1参见黄金荣：《一场方兴未艾的公益法实践运动》，载《中国改革》2006年第10期。
    1American Bar Association, Civil Procedure in the21st Century: Some Proposals,2010Conference on CivilLitigation, Duke Law School, May10-11,2010.
    2Commission européenne pour l'efficacité de la justice (CEPEJ), Rapport d'évaluation des systèmes judiciaires européens(Edition2010), https://wcd.coe.int/ViewBlob.jsp?id=1699501&SourceFile=1&BlobId=1836574&DocId=1652980,25october2010.
    1[美]罗尔斯：《正义论》，何怀宏等译，中国社会科学出版社1988年版，第302页。
    2Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, MITPress,1996, pp.415-416.
    1Paul T. Wangerin, The Political and Economic Roots of the “Adversary System” of Justice and “AlternativeDispute Resolution”, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Res., Vol.9,1994, p.224.
    1[美]杰伊M费曼著：《推开美国法律之门（第2版）》，法律出版社2008年版，第1页。
    1、张建伟：《司法竞技主义——英美诉讼传统与中国庭审方式》，北京大学2005年版。
    2、王亚新：《对抗与判定》，清华大学出版社2002年版，第61页。
    3、李心鉴：《刑事诉讼构造论》，中国政法大学1997年版。
    4、汪海燕著：《刑事诉讼模式的演进》，中国人民公安大学2004年版。
    5、易延友：《陪审团审判和对抗式诉讼》，中国台湾地区三民书局，2004年版。
    6、李昌盛：《论对抗式刑事审判》，中国人民公安大学2009年版。
    7、陈卫东著：《程序正义之路》（第一、二卷），法律出版社2005年版。
    8、贺卫方：《司法的理念与制度》，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
    9、季卫东著：《法律程序的意义》，中国法制出版社2004年版。
    10、宋冰编：《读本：美国与德国的司法制度及司法程序》，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
    11、张卫平：《转换的逻辑：民事诉讼体制转型分析》，法律出版社2007年版。
    12、何勤华主编：《英美法系及其对中国的影响》，法律出版社2009年版。
    13、李秀清：《日耳曼法研究》，商务印书馆2005年版。
    14、尹伊君：《社会变迁的法律解释》，商务印书馆2004年版。
    15、韩铁：《美国宪政民主下的司法与资本主义经济发展》，上海三联书店2009年版。
    16、傅郁林：《民事司法制度的功能与结构》，北京大学2006年版。
    17、陈刚主编：《比较民事诉讼法》年卷系列。
    18、田平安主编：《比较民事诉讼论丛》年卷系列。
    19、江伟主编：《比较民事诉讼法国际研讨会论文集》，中国政法大学2004年版。
    20、江平总主编、卞建林主编：《共和国六十年法学论证实录诉讼法卷》，厦门大学出版社2009年版。
    1、[美]郎.L.富勒：《对抗制》，陈若桓译，三联书店1988年版。
    2、[英]阿德里安.A.S.朱克曼主编：《危机中的民事司法：民事诉讼程序的比较视角》，傅郁林等译，中国政法大学2005年版。
    3、[英]杰里米.帕克斯曼：《英国人》，严维明译，上海译文出版社2000年1版。
    4、[美]斯蒂文.N.苏本、马莎.L.米卢、马克.N.布诺丁、托马斯.O.梅菌等：《民事诉讼法：原理、实务与运作环境》，傅郁林等译，中国政法大学2004年版。
    5、[英]詹妮.麦克埃文：《现代证据法与对抗式程序》，蔡巍译，法律出版社2005年版。
    6、[美]达马斯卡：《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
    7、[美]兰博约：《对抗式刑事审判的起源》，王志强译，复旦大学2010年版。
    8、[英]罗伯特.巴特莱特：《中世纪神判》，徐昕、喻中胜、徐昀译，浙江人民出版社2007年版。
    9、[美]米尔伊安.R.达玛卡什:《司法和国家权利的多种面孔》，郑戈译，中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
    10、[美]丹宁勋爵：《法律的正当程序》，李克强,等译.法律出版社,1999年版。
    11、[美]米尔吉安.R.达马斯卡：《比较法视野中的证据制度》，吴宏耀，魏晓娜等译，中国人民公安大学出版社2006年版。
    12、[美]斯特龙主编：《麦考密克论证据》，中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
    13、[美]汉密尔顿、杰伊、麦迪逊：《联邦党人文集》，程逢如、在汉、舒逊译，商务印书馆2004年版。
    14、[美]约翰亨利梅利曼：《大陆法系》，顾培东、禄正平译，法律出版社2004年版。
    15、[德]K.茨威格特、H.克茨：《比较法总论》，潘汉典、米健、高鸿钧、贺卫方译，法律出版社2003年版。
    16、[日]棚濑孝雄：《纠纷的解决与审判制度》，王亚新译，中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
    17、[日]谷口安平：《程序的正义与诉讼》(增补本)，王亚新、刘荣军译，中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
    18、[意]卡佩莱蒂：《比较法视野中的司法程序》，徐昕、王奕译，清华大学出版社2005年版。
    19、[意]皮罗克拉玛德雷：《程序与民主》，翟小波、刘刚译，高等教育出版社2005年版。
    20、[美]克里斯托弗沃尔夫：《司法能动主义——自由的保障还是安全的威胁》（修订版），黄金荣译，中国政法大学出版社2004年版。
    21、[美]米尔顿·弗里德曼、罗丝·弗里德曼：《自由选择》，胡骑、席学媛、安强译，商务印书馆1982年版。
    22、[美]伊曼努尔沃勒斯坦:《自由主义的终结》，郝名玮等译，社会科学文献出版社2002年版。
    23、[意]卡洛.M.奇波拉：《欧洲经济史》第3卷，商务印书馆1989年版。
    24、[英]约翰梅纳德凯恩斯：《就业、利息和货币通论》，高鸿业重译，商务印书馆1999年版。
    25、[法]托克维尔：《论美国的民主》，董果良译，商务印书馆，1988年版。
    26、[美]米尔顿·弗里德曼、罗丝·弗里德曼著，胡骑、席学媛、安强译：《自由选择》，商务印书馆出版，1982年版。
    27、[古希腊]亚里士多德：《政治学》，吴寿彭译，商务印书馆1965年版。
    28、[美]罗尔斯：《正义论》，何怀宏等译，中国社会科学出版社1988年版。
    29、[美]马丁·夏皮罗：《法院：比较法上和政治学上的分析》，张生、李彤译，中国政法大学2005年版。
    30、[美]汉密尔顿、杰伊、麦迪逊：《联邦党人文集》，程逢如等译，商务印书馆1980年版。
    31、[美]埃尔曼：《比较法律文化》，贺卫方、高鸿钧译，清华大学2002年版。
    32、[美]韦伯：《经济与社会（上卷）》，林荣远译，商务印书馆1997年版。
    33、[美]克里斯托弗沃尔夫：《司法能动主义：自由的保障还是安全的威胁？》，黄金荣译，中国政法大学004年版。
    34、[美]约翰V.奥尔特著，杨明成、陈霜玲译：《正当法律程序简史》，商务印书馆2006年版。
    35、[美]凯斯R桑斯坦(Cass R.sunstein)：《权利革命之后：重塑规制国》（After the rights revolution reconceiving the regulatory state），中国人民大学2008年版。
    36、[英]P.S.阿蒂亚（Atiyah, P. S.）：《英国法中的实用主义与理论》（Pragmatism and Theory in English Law），刘承韪、刘毅译，清华大学2008年版。
    37、[美]德博拉L罗德：《为了司法/正义:法律职业改革(美国法律文库)》，张群、温珍奎、丁见民译，中国政法大学出版社2009年版。
    38、[美]格兰特吉尔莫(Grant Gilmore)：《美国法的时代》（The Ages ofAmerican Law），董春华译，法律出版社2009年版。
    39、[美]大卫哈维：《新自由主义简史》，王钦译，上海译文出版社2010年12月版。
    40、[法]埃米尔涂尔干：《社会分工论》，渠东译，三联书店2005年版。
    1、苏力：《关于对抗制的几点法理学和法律社会学思考》，载《法学研究》1995年第4期。
    2、傅郁林：《对于引进对抗制论说的质疑》，载《法学》1997年第12期。
    3、汤唯建：《美国的对抗制审判方式》，载《比较法研究》1996年第4期。
    4、程汉大：《英国对抗制的起源》，载《山东警察学院学报》2007年第91期。
    5、陈卫东、张月满：《对抗式诉讼模式研究》，载《中国法学》2009年第5期。
    6、董亚娟《论决斗与近代西方社会》，载《江汉大学学报》2009年第7期。
    7、李早：《论英美对抗制诉讼模式的证据制度及启示》，载《理论学刊》2008年第5期。
    8、徐昕：《司法决斗考》，载《法制与社会发展》2007年第1期。
    9、蔡虹：《民事诉讼结构的调整及其基本模式的选择》，载《法学评论》1998年第5期。
    10、龙宗智：《改造刑事诉讼结构应当慎行》，载《法学研究》1994年第4期。
    11、周利民、羊震：《关于民事诉讼中人权保障问题的思考》，载《法学评论》2001年第3期。
    12、易延友：《对抗式刑事诉讼的形成与特色——兼论我国刑事司法中对抗制的改革》，载《清华法学》2010年第2期。
    13、陈刚、相庆梅《当事人主义修正论与英国民事司法制度改革的实证》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2000年卷，中国人民大学2001年版。
    14、张家慧：《美国民事诉讼改革之比较研究》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2000年卷，中国人民大学2001年版。
    15、徐昕：《英国民事诉讼中的审前程序》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2001年卷，中国人民大学2002年版。
    16、孟涛：《走向黄昏的辩论主义》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2001年卷，中国人民大学2002年版。
    17、[美]威尔弗雷德，费因伯格：《美国法官的角色——以美日为中心》，张晓薇、鄢梦暄译，载《比较民事诉讼法》2004年卷，中国人民大学2006年版。
    18、黄宣、钟俊芳、胡瑜编译：《ADR在英国民事司法中的应用》，载《比较民事诉讼法》2004年卷，中国人民大学2006年版。
    19、刘敏：《接近正义与英国的民事司法改革》，载南京师范大学法制现代化研究中心《法制现代化研究(第九卷)》，南京师范大学2004年版。
    20、黄金荣：《一场方兴未艾的公益法实践运动》，载《中国改革》2006年第10期。
    21、徐爱国：《英美法中“滥用法律诉讼”的侵权责任》，载《法学家》2000年第2期。
    1、颜盟：《对抗制的历史演进及成因》，烟台大学硕士学位论文，2011年。
    2、刘正霞：《和谐主义诉讼模式初探》，西北师范大学硕士学位论文，2010年。
    3、夏姗姗：《论协同主义民事诉讼模式》，复旦大学硕士学位论文，2010年。
    4、孙正英：《论民事案件管理制度》，中国政法大学硕士学位论文，2010年。
    5、赵晓亮：《我国民事审判程序中的案件管理制度研究》，中国政法大学硕士学位论文，2011年。
    6、杨元元：《和谐司法理念下民事审前程序的完善》，西南政法大学硕士学位论文，2011年。
    7、李昌盛：《论对抗制刑事审判》，西南政法大学博士论文，2009年。
    8、易延友：《陪审团审判与对抗式诉讼》，中国政法大学，2002年。
    9、毛玲：《论英国民事诉讼的演进与发展》中国政法大学，2004年。
    1、Wilhelm von Humboldt, The Sphere and Duties of Government, Translatedfrom the German of Baron Wilhelm von Humboldt, by Joseph Coulthard, Jun., JohnChapman Press,1854.
    2、Adhemar Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with SpecialReference to France, Trans. By John Simpson, Little Brown and Company,1913.
    3、Charles P. Curtis, It’s Your Law, Harvard University Press,1954.
    4、Julius Stone, Law and the Social Science in the Second Half Century,University of Minnesota Press,1966.
    5、F. Pollock&F.W. Maitland, The History of England Law before the Time ofEdward I, Cambridge University Press,1968.
    6、Stephan Landsman, The Adversary System: A Description and Defense,American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,1984.
    7、Seymour Martin Lipset, American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword,W.W. Norton,1996.
    8、Jack Isaac Hai Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice, Stevens&Sons,1987.
    9、W. Glaser, Pretrial Discovery and The Adversary System, Russel SageFoundation,1968
    10、L. Nader, Law in Culture and Society, Aldine Publishing Company,1969.
    11、L. Nader, No Access to Law: Alternatives to the American Judicial System,Academic Press,1980.
    12、Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a DiscourseTheory of Law and Democracy, MIT Press,1996
    13、Walter K.Olson, The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When AmericaUnleashed the Lawsuit, Truman Talley Books, Dutton,1991.
    14、L. W. Levy, The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury, Ivan R. Dee,1999.
    15、John Henry Wigmore, Evidence, Peter Tillers Rev., Little Brown andCompany,1983.
    16、Roscoe Pound, The Sprit of the Common Law, Marshall Jones Company,1921.
    17、Samuel Huntington, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony,Belknap Press,1981.
    18、Sir Patrick Devlin, Trial By Jury, Stevens&Sons Limited, London, SixthImpression,1978.
    19、Grahamwhite and JohnMaze, Henrry A. Wallace: His search For a NewWorld Order, The university of North Carolina Press,1995.
    20、L. W. Levy, The Palladium of Justice: Origins of Trial by Jury, Ivan R. Dee,1999.
    21、Milton Friedman&Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, Harcourt TradePublishers,1980.
    22、Immanuel Wallerstein, After Liberalism, New Press,1995.
    23、Richard Susskind, The future of law: Facing the challenges of InformationTechnology, Clarendon Press,1996.
    24、J.A. Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure, Cambridge University Press,2000.
    25、John H. Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial, OxfordUniversity Press,2003.
    26、Robert A. Kagan, Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law,Harvard University Press,2001.
    27、Jonathan T. Molot, An Old Judicial Role for a New Litigation Ere, Yale LawJournal, October,2003.
    28、Robert P. Burns, The Death of the American Trial, University of ChicagoPress,2009.
    29、American Bar Association, Civil Procedure in the21st Century: SomeProposals,2010Conference on Civil Litigation, Duke Law School, May10-11,2010.
    30、Robert A. Kagan, The American Legal System, Political Science150,University of California, Department of Political Science, Berkeley, Spring Semester2011.
    1、William Blackstone, Commentaries On The Law Of England, Vol.3,1768.
    2、Millar, The Formative Principles of Civil Procedure-I, ILL. L. Rev. Vol.18,1923.
    3、Roscoe Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administrationof Justice, BAYLOR L. REV. Vol.8,1956.
    4、L.Friedman, Legal Culture and Social Development, Law and Society Review,Vol.6,1969.
    5、Frank Michelman, The Suprerne Court and Litigation Access Fees: The Rightto Protect One's Right, Duke L. J. Vol.1153,1973.
    6、Charles Wolfram, The Constitutional History of the Seventh Amendment,MINN. L.REV., Vol.57,1973.
    7、Marc Galanter, Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limitsof Legal Change, L.&Soc'y Rev., Vol.9,1974.
    8、Kenneth E. Scott, Two Models of the Civil Process, Stanford Law Review,Vol.27,1975．
    9、M. Frankel, The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View, U. Pa. L. Rev., Vol.123,1975.
    10、Abram Chayes, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, Harvard LawReview, Vol.89,1976.
    11、Saltzburg, The Unnecessarily Expanding Role of the American Trial Judge,VA. L. Rev. Vol.64,1978.
    12、Renfrew, Discovery Sanctions: A Judicial Perspective, CALIF. L.REV. Vol.67,1979.
    13、Peckham, The Federal Judge as a Case Manager: The New Role in Guidinga Case from Filing to Disposition, CALIF. L. Rev. Vol.69,1981.
    14、Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, Harvard Law Review, Vol.96,1982.
    15、Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges, Harvard Law Review, Vol.96,1982.
    16、Sofaer, Sanctioning Attorneys for Discovery Abuse Under the New FederalRules: On the Limited Utility of Punishment, ST. John’s L. Rev. Vol.57,1983.
    17、Stephan. Landsman, A Brief Survey of the Development of the AdversarySystem, Ohio St. L. Rev., Vol.44,1983.
    18、Arthur R. Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, Minn. L. Rev.Vol.69,1984.
    19、Arthur R. Miller, The Adversary System: Dinosaur or Phoenix, MINN. L.REV. Vol.69(1),1984.
    20、 Karen O’Conner and Lee Epstein, Rebalancing the Scale of Justice:Assessment of Public Interest Law, Harvard Journal of Law&Public Policy, Vol.7,1984.
    21、 Karen O’Conner and Lee Epstein, Rebalancing the Scale of Justice:Assessment of Public Interest Law, Harvard Journal of Law&Public Policy, Vol.7,1984.
    22、Owen Fiss, Against Settlement, YALE L.J. Vol.93,1984, p.1073.
    23、John. Lanbein, The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, U. Chi. L. Rev.,Vol.52,1985.
    24、Warren E. Burger, Thinking the Unthinkable, LOY. L. REV., Vol.31,1985.
    25、James E. McDaniel, ATTORNEY SANCTIONS, Judges J. Vol.25,1986.
    26、Judith Resnik, Failing Faith: Adjudicatory Procedure in Decline, U. Chi.L.Rev., Vol.53,1986.
    27、Stephen N. Subrin, How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure in Historical Perspective, U.PA.L.REV., Vol.135,1987.
    28、Jeffrey W. Stempel, A Distorted Mirror: The Supreme Court's ShimmeringView of Summary Judgment, Directed Verdict, and the Adjudication Process, OHIOST. L.J., Vol.49,1988.
    29、Ripple&Saalman, Rule11in the Constitutional Case, Notre Dame L. Rev.Vol.63,1988.
    30、Marc Galanter, The Quality of Settlements, J. DISPUTE RESOLUTION,Vol.55,1988.
    31、S. BURBANK, Rule11in transition: the report of the Third Circuit TaskForce on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure11, American Judicature Soc'y, Vol.59,1989.
    32、Issacharoff&George Loewenstein, Second Thoughts About SummaryJudgment, YALE L.J., Vol.100,1990.
    33、Samuel Issaeharoff George Lowenstein, Second Thoughts About SummaryJudgment, Yale Law Journal, Vol.100,1990.
    34、Carrie Menkel-Meadow，Pursuing Settlement in an Adversary Culture: ATale of Innovation Co-opted or "The Law of ADR", FLA. ST. U.L. Rev.1, Vol.19,1991.
    35、William W Schwarzer, Reforming Jury Trials, F.R.D. Vol.132,1991.
    36、Carl Tobias, Civil Justice Reform and The Balkanization of Federal CivilProcedure, Ariz. St. L.J.,Vol.24,1992.
    37、Stephen G. Coughlan, The ‘Adversary System: Rhetoric or Reality? Fall Can.J. L.&Soc’y, Vol.139,1993.
    38、Ann C. McGinley, Credulous Courts and the Tortured Trilogy: The ImproperUse of Summary Judgment in Title VII and ADEA Cases,34B.C. L. REV., Vol.34,1993.
    39、Paul T. Wangerin, The Political and Economic Roots of the “AdversarySystem” of Justice and “Alternative Dispute Resolution”, Ohio St. J. on Disp. Res.,Vol.9,1994.
    40、 Judith Resnik, Managerial Judges and Court Delay:The UnprovenAssumption, Judge’s Journal, Vol.23,1994.
    41、A.A.S. Zuckerman, A Reform of Civil Procedure-Rationing Procedurerather than Access to Justice, J.L.&Soc'y, Vol.22,1995.
    42、 Robert G. Bone, Lon Fuller's Theory of Adjudication and the FalseDichotomy between Dispute Resolution and Public Law Models of Litigation, B.U. L.Rev., Vol.75,1995.
    43、Barry F. McNeil&Beth L. Fancsali, Mass Torts and Class Actions: FacingIncreased Scrutiny, F.R.D., Vol.167,1996.
    44、Lawrence M. Friedman, Are We A Litigious People? in Friendman andScheiber, eds., Legal Culture and the Legal Profession, Westview Press,1996.
    45、Barry F. McNeil&Beth L. Fancsali, Mass Torts and Class Actions: FacingIncreased Scrutiny, F.R.D., Vol.167,1996.
    46、Lisa Kern Griffin, The Image We See Is Our Own: Defending the Jury'sTerritory at the Heart of the Democratic Process, Nebraska Law Review, Vol.75,1996.
    47、Robert J. Gregory, One Too Many River to Cross Rule50Practice in theModern Era of Summary Judgment, Fla. St. U. L. Rev., Vol.23,1996.
    48、Herbert L. Bernstein, Whose Advantage After All? A Comment on theComparison of Civil Justice Systems, U.C. DAVIS L REV., Vol.21,1998.
    49、Patricia M. Wald, Summary Judgment at Sixty, TEX. L. REV., Vol.76,1998.
    50、Stanton D. Krauss, The Original Understanding of the Seventh AmendmentRight to Jury Trial, U. RICH. L. REV., Vol.33,1999.
    51、Neil Andrews, A New Civil Procedural Code for England: Party-ControlGoing, Going, Gone, Civil Justice Quarterly, Vol.19,2000.
    52、Ellen E. Sward, The Decline of the Civil Jury, Carolina Academic Press,Durham. North Carolina.2001.
    53、Jeremy A. Blumenthal, Comment, Reading The Text of The ConfrontationClause:’ To Be’ or Not 'To Be?’, U. PA.J. CONST. L., Vol.3,2001.
    54、David Rosenberg, Mandatory-Litigation Class Action: The Only Option forMass Tort Cases, Harv. L. Rev., Vol.115,2002.
    55、Jeffrey A. Parness, Thinking Outside the Civil Case Box: ReformulatingPretrial Conference Laws, Kansas Law Raview, January2002.
    56、Mark R. Kravitz, Unpleasant Duties: Imposing Sanctions for. FrivolousAppeals, J. APP. PRAC.&PRoc., Vol.4,2002.
    57、Jonathan D. Glater, California Says State Law Was Used as Extortion Tool,N.Y. Times, Apr.5,2003, p. A8.
    58、JA Jolowicz, Adversarial and inquisitorial models of civil procedure, Int&Comp LQ, Vol.52,2003.
    59、Paul D. Carrington, Civil Jury and American Democracy, Duke J. Comp&Intl L. Vol.13,2003.
    60、William G. Young, An Open Letter to U.S. District Judges, FED. LAW., July2003.
    61、Paul D. Carrington, Civil Jury and American Democracy, Duke J. Comp&Intl L. Vol.13,2003.
    62、Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in FederalCivil Cases. Empirical Legal Study.2004.
    63、See Randy J. Kozel&David Rosenberg, Solving the Nuisance-ValueSettlement Problem: Mandatory Summary Judgment, Va. L. Rev., Vol.90,2004,.
    64、Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and RelatedMatters in Federal and StateCourts, J. EMP. LEGAL STUDIES, Vol.1,2004.
    65、Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth andImpact of “Alternative Dispute Resolution”, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. Vol.1,Nov.2004.
    66、Marc Galanter, The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and RelatedMatters in Federal and State Courts, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD., Vol.1,2004.
    67、Brian Ostrom, Shauna Strickland and Paula Hannaford-Agor, ExaminingTrial Trends in State Courts:1976-2002, J. Empirical Legal Stud., Vol.1,2004.
    68、Thomas J. Stipanowich, ADR and the “Vanishing Trial”: The Growth andImpact of “Alternative Dispute Resolution, J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD., Vol.1,2004
    69、Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in FederalCivil Cases. Empirical Legal Study., Vol.1,2004.
    70、Symposium, The Vanishing Trial, J. EMPIRIcAL LEGAL STUD., Vol.1,2004.
    71、Joe S. Cecil, Rebecca N. Eyre, Dean Miletich&David Rindskopf, AQuarter-Century of Summary Judgment Practice in Six Federal District Courts, J.EMPIRICAL LEGAL STU, Vol.4,2007.
    72、Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender andFederal Civil Litigation, Rutgers L. Rev., Vol.59,2007.
    73、Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender andFederal Civil Litigation, Rutgers L. Rev., Vol.59,2007.
    74、Suja A. Thomas, Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional, VA. L. REV.,Vol.93,2007.
    75、Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Dangers of Summary Judgment: Gender andFederal Civil Litigation, RUTGERS L. REV., Vol.59,2007.
    76、John Bronsteen, Against Summary Judgment, GEO. WASH. L. REV., Vol.75,2007.
    77、Robert Kagan, American and European Ways of Law: Six EntrenchedDifferences, in Volkmar Gessner and David Nelken, eds., European Ways of Law:Toward a European Sociology of Law, Hart Publishing,2007.
    78、Suja A. Thomas, Why the Motion to Dismiss Is Now Unconstitutional, MINN.L. REV. Vol.92,2008.
    79、Rex R. Perschbacher&Debra Lyn Bassett, The Revolution of1938and ItsDiscontents, in Oklahoma Law Review, Vol.62,2008.
    80、Julie Cohen, Note, Look Before You Leap: A Guide to the Law of. InadvertentDisclosure of Privileged Information in the Era of E-Discovery, IOWA L. REV.,Vol.93,2008.
    81、Kevin M. Clermont&Stewart J. Schwab, Employment DiscriminationPlaintiffs in Federal Court: From Bad to Worse?, HARV. L.&POL'Y REV., Vol.3,2009.
    82、Megan Jones, Giving Electronic Discovery a Chance to Grow Up, NAT’L L.J., Dec.14,2009.
    83、Megan Jones, Giving Electronic Discovery a Chance to Grow Up, NAT’L L.J., Dec.14,2009.84、 Jules Epstein， Cross-Examination: Seemingly Ubiquitous, PurportedlyOmnipotent, and ‘At Risk’, Widener L. Rev., Vol.14,2009.
    85、Pepe, Douglas J., Persuading Courts to Impose Sanctions on Your Adversary,Litigation, Vol.36,2010.
    86、Jeffrey O. Cooper, Summary Judgment in the Shadow of Erie, AKRON L.REV., Vol.43,2010.
    87、Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Apportioning Due Process: Preserving the Right toAffordable Justice, DENV. U. L. REV. Vol.87,2010.
    88、Pepe, Douglas J. Persuading Courts to Impose Sanctions on Your Adversary,Litigation, Vol.36,2010.
    89、Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Changing Shape of Federal Civil PretrialPractice: The Disparate Impact on Civil Rights and Employment DiscriminationCases, U. PA. L. REV., Vol.158,2010.
    90、Stephen B. Burbank, Summary Judgment, Pleading, and the Future ofTranssubstantive Procedure, AKRON L. REV., Vol.43,2010.
    91、John H. Beisner, Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective CivilLitigation Reform, in Duke Law Journal, Vol.60,2010.
    92、Elizabeth G. Thornburg, The Managerial Judge Goes to Trial, U. RICH. L.REV. Vol.44,2010.
    93、Bollas Genetin, Symposium: The Future of Summary Judgment. Akron L.Rev., Vol.43,2010.
    94、Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Changing Shape of Federal Civil PretrialPractice: The Disparate Impact on Civil Rights and Employment DiscriminationCases, U. PA. L. REV., Vol.158,2010.
    95、Milberg LLP and Hausfeld LLP, E-Discovery Today: The Fault Lies Not InOur Rules, FED. CTS. L. REV., Vol.4,2011.
    96、Milberg LLP and Hausfeld LLP, E-Discovery Today: The Fault Lies Not InOur Rules, FED. CTS. L. REV., Vol.4,2011.
    97、Daniel B. and Laura El-Sabaawi, The future of Rule11sanctions forunethical conduct before the U.S. Court of International Trade. Tul. J. Int'l&Comp. L.Vol.19,2011.
    1、California v. Green，399U.S.158，90S.Ct.1930，1935，26L. Ed.2d489(1970).
    2、Coffin v. Sullivan895F.2d1206(8th Cir.1990).
    3、Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,127S. Ct.1955(2007).
    4、Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc（[1999]4All ER934,[1999]1WLR1926）
    5、Richardson v. Perales,402U.S.389(1971).
    6、Conley v. Gibson,355U.S.41,45-46(1957).
    7、Yuill v. Yuill,[1945]1All ER183,189(Eng. CA1944)
    8、Financière et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co.(1882),11Q.B.D.55.
    9、Ford Motor Co. of Canada, Ltd. v. Ontario Municipal Employees RetirementBoard (1997),36O.R.(3d)384at para.50,153D.L.R.(4th)33,104O.A.C.179(C.A.).
    10、Fidelity&Deposit Co. v. United States,187U.S.315,320(1902).
    11、Colby v. Klune,178F.2d872,873(2d Cir.1949).
    12、Armco Steel Corp. v. Realty Inv. Co.,273F.2d483,484(8th Cir.1960).
    13、Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475U.S.574(1986).
    14、Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477U.S.242(1986).
    15、Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477U.S.317(1986).
    16、Birkett v. James ([1978] AC297,[1977]2All ER801,[1977]3WLR38)
    17、Culbert v. Stephen G Westwell&Company Limited&Another ([1993] PIQR54)
    18、Choraria v Sethia ([1998] CLC625,[1998] EWCA Civ24)
    19、Swain v Hillman [2000]1All ER91,92, CA.
    20、Y orke Motors L td v Edwards [1982]1WLR444, HL.
    21、California v. Green,399U.S.158，90S.Ct.1930，1935，26L. Ed.2d489(1970).
    22、Hovey v. Elliott,167U.S.409(1897).
    23、Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas,212U.S.322(1909).
    24、Societe Internationale v. Rodgers (1958),34U.S.197.
    25、Roadway Express, Inc. v. Pipe(1979),447W.S.752.
    26、Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co.,470U.S.1067,1071(1985).
    27、Martel v. County of Los Angeles,56F.3d993,995(9th Cir.1995).
    28、Faretta v. California,422U.S.806,818(1975).Crawford v. Washington,124S. Ct
    29、Ohio v. Roberts,448U.S.56,65-66(1980).
    30、Crawford v. Washington,541U.S.36,68(2004).
    31、Crawford v. Washington,124S. Ct.(2004).
    32、Davis v. Washington,547U.S.813,821,824(2006).
    33、Albrecht v. Horn,471F.3d435,463(3d Cir.2006).
    34、UnitedStates v. Feliz,467F.3d227,231(2d Cir.2006).
    35、Whorton v. Bocking,127S. Ct.1173,1183(2007).
    36、Passmore v. Astrue,533F.3d658,665(8th Cir.2008).
    37、Iqbal v. Hasty,490F.3d143,155(2d Cir.2007).
    38、Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550U.S.544,127S.Ct.1955(No.05-1126)(2007).
    39、Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider,493F.3d1174,1177(10th Cir.2007).
    40、Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues&Rights, Ltd.,127S. Ct.2499(2007).
    41、Papaschase Indian Band No.136v. Canada (Attorney General)(2008),292D.L.R.(4th),[2008]1S.C.R.372,[2008]5W.W.R.195.
    42、Semtek International, Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,531U.S.497(2001).
    43、Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co.,130S. Ct.1431(2010).
    44、Nokia GMBH and another v. IPCom GMBH&Co KG,[2011] All ER (D)129(Jan);[2011] EWCA Civ6.
    1、Report to the Chief Justice of the United States on the2010Conference onCivil Litigation Submitted by the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on CivilRules and the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.
    2、Civil Justice Reform Act of1990(CJRA) Reports, http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/civilJusticeReformActReport.aspx，2011-9-1.
    3、Judicial Conference of the United States, Final Report-The Civil Reform Actof1990, May1997.
    4、Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts，Judicial Business of the UnitedStates Courts:2010Annual Report of the Director.
    5、Corina Gerety, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System,Excess and Access: Consensus on the American Civil Justice Landscape,2011,available at www.du.edu/legalinstitute,2012-2-26.
    6、Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System(IAALS),http://www.du.edu/legalinstitute.
    7、Judicial and Court Statistics2010, Ministry of Justice, http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/procedure-rules/civil/update.htm,2012-2-26.
    8、CIVIL JUSTICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES, Findings and TechnicalReport of the2010English and Welsh Civil and Social Justice Panel Survey; CivilJustice in England and Wales2009, Report of the2006-9English and Welsh Civil andSocial Justice Survey.
    9、7th Cir. Bar Association, Seventh Circuit E-Discovery Pilot Program,http://www.7thcircuitbar.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=109,2011-9-5.
    10、Press Release, Public Information Office Supreme Judicial Court, SuperiorCourt Implements Discovery Pilot Project (Dec.1,2009)(on file with author).
    11、PAD PILOT RULES PROJECT COMM., REPORT AND PROPOSEDRULE CHANGES.http://www.courts.state.nh.us/superior/civilrulespp/index.htm,2011-9-5.
    12、AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS, FINAL REPORT ONTHE JOINT PROJECT OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF TRIAL LAWYERS TASK FORCE ON DISCOVERY AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM (2012-1-12),http://www.actl.com/AM/TemplateRedirect.cfm?template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4053,2012-02-11.
    1、美国联邦最高法院www.supremecourtus.gov www.oyez.org(可下载美联邦最高院庭审MP3、recording)
    2、联邦司法中心（Federal Judicial Conference）http://www.fjc.gov/.
    3、美国联邦法院http://www.uscourts.gov/Home.aspx.
    4、英国司法部（原名为：英国司法大臣办公厅，2003年改名为宪法事务部，2007年改名为司法部）http://www.justice.gov.uk/.
    5、英国最高法院（2009年10月1日，英国最高法院正式成立，将取代上议院成为英国的最高终审司法机构。全名为联合王国最高法院（Supreme Courtof the United Kingdom））http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/.
    6、英国法院网http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/.
    7、英国立法（The National Archives）（英国司法部下属的国家档案馆关于英国法规的全面资料，英国立法官网近期进行了更新，取代了原来的制定法官网）http://www.legislation.gov.uk/.
    8、英国法律委员会(Law Commission)http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/.
    9、英国民事司法会议（The Civil Justice Council）http://www.civiljusticecouncil.gov.uk/.
    10、英国法庭诉讼支持系统http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/hq-ind.htm.
    11、美国法律协会（The American Law Institute）http://www.ali.org/.
    12、世界法官协会（World Jurist Association）http://www.worldjurist.org/index.php.
    13、美国律师协会（American Bar Association）http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html.
    14、美国丹佛大学（University of Denver）的促进美国法律体系研究机构关于民事司法改革情况的最新报告Institute for the Advancement of the AmericanLegal System(IAALS), http://www.du.edu/legalinstitute.