1. Comply with laws and regulations. As a social organization, schools should abide by the laws in the general sense, and all actions must not violate the provisions of national laws and regulations; In addition, schools, as educational institutions, must abide by the laws and regulations closely related to the implementation of education and teaching activities and the realization of educational purposes, and establish specific norms for schools and other educational institutions.
2 to implement the national education policy, implement the national education and teaching standards, and ensure the quality of education and teaching. National education and teaching standards refer to the general standards stipulated by the state in terms of educational content, educational quality and school conditions. National education and teaching standards are the basic basis for the state to evaluate and guide education and teaching activities, a concentrated reflection of a country's education level, and a guide for schools and other educational institutions to carry out education and teaching activities and ensure education quality.
3 to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the educated, teachers and other employees. Schools and other educational institutions shall not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of educatees, teachers and other teaching staff. If you are not allowed to deduct or default on the wages of teachers and other faculty members; Educated students who meet the admission requirements shall not be refused admission. When administrative organs, social organizations or individuals outside the school infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of students or teachers in school, the school should actively assist the relevant authorities to investigate and deal with the illegal parties according to law and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of students or teachers.
4. Provide convenience for the educated and their guardians to know their academic achievements and other relevant information in an appropriate way. Schools and other educational institutions protect parents' and other guardians' right to know and students' rights by setting up parents' reception days, establishing parents' contact records, holding parents' meetings, organizing teachers' home visits, and talking with students individually, so that parents can keep abreast of students' situation and better cooperate with schools to complete education and teaching tasks. At the same time, schools and other educational institutions should also pay attention to ways and means when protecting students' right to know, and should not violate students' privacy, reputation and other legitimate rights and interests in an illegal or improper way, hurting students' self-esteem and avoiding affecting students' study and physical and mental health.
5 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state to collect fees and public fees. The fees charged by schools and other educational institutions are mainly tuition and miscellaneous fees. Schools and other educational institutions must proceed from the public welfare of running schools, follow the principle of fairness and reasonableness, and collect fees in accordance with relevant national projects and standards. Do not exceed the standard high fees, do not exceed the scope of arbitrary charges. At the same time, it is necessary to disclose the charging items, fees and accounts to the public, so as to facilitate the supervision of school fees by the public and parents.
6. Accept supervision according to law. Schools and other educational institutions are engaged in social welfare undertakings. Whether or not to follow the principle of social welfare, in addition to running schools and strengthening management according to law, accepting supervision according to law is an important guarantee. Schools and other educational institutions shall actively cooperate with the supervision work and activities carried out according to law, and shall not refuse or hinder the normal inspection and supervision work. According to the relevant supervision opinions, we should effectively improve school education and ensure the smooth completion of education and teaching tasks.
The right to silence originated from British criminal proceedings, and its core is that "no one has the obligation to testify against himself", which has been widely recognized by criminal justice systems in many countries. Although China has not established the right to silence system in the Criminal Procedure Law, scholars are as enthusiastic about this system as their foreign counterparts, and have published many research results. However, compared with criminal proceedings, the system of the right to silence has been given a cold shoulder in civil proceedings. The author thinks that the main reason is that the scholars of civil procedure law in China have generally formed such a mindset that the right to silence only belongs to the category of criminal litigation and has nothing to do with civil litigation. This concept is undoubtedly one-sided. We can't ignore the concern about the right to silence in the study of civil litigation, so the author advocates establishing the right to silence of the parties in civil litigation. This paper intends to make a preliminary discussion on the relevant issues of this system, and make a comparative study on it in combination with the true obligations of the parties in civil litigation, in order to provide dinner for academic colleagues.
First, the right to silence and the theoretical basis for establishing the system of the right to silence in civil proceedings.
It is generally believed that the right to silence refers to the right of specific criminal suspects and criminal defendants to refuse to answer questions from officials or remain completely silent during the whole criminal proceedings. Silence and refusal to answer specific questions should not be used as evidence against criminal suspects and defendants in principle; Statements obtained through physical or mental coercion of this right shall not be used as evidence to accuse the speaker of guilt. It is not difficult to see that the definition is made from the perspective of criminal proceedings, and it does not explain what is the right of silence of the parties in civil proceedings, so the definition is incomplete. At present, the academic circles of civil procedure law pay little attention to this issue, so the author has not seen any scholars give an accurate definition of the right to silence of civil litigants so far. In view of this, referring to the definition of the right to silence in criminal proceedings, the author intends to define it as: the right to silence of the parties in civil proceedings refers to the right of one party to refuse to answer the questions of the judge and the other party or to remain completely silent during the civil trial, but silence and refusal to answer specific questions can be used as evidence against that party in principle.
Although the introduction of the right to silence in civil litigation is not accepted by most scholars, the author believes that there is no theoretical obstacle to the establishment of this system. On the contrary, the establishment of the right to silence in civil litigation has a solid theoretical basis, which is manifested in:
1. China's constitution provides a fundamental legal guarantee for the implementation of the right to silence system. Today's society is a society moving towards rights, and the degree of realization and protection of rights has become one of the most important signs to measure the degree of judicial civilization in a country. While the reform and opening up and the market economy have accelerated the process of building China under the rule of law, they have also put forward higher requirements for building China under the rule of law, that is, giving all people more rights and freedoms. In this sense, it should be proper to give the parties the right to silence. China's constitution provides a feasible legal guarantee for the implementation of the right to silence system. As the fundamental law of a country, the Constitution is the foundation of a country's legal system and the core of its value. Its provisions are not only the basis for other legal departments to formulate, but also the guarantee for the realization of basic rights. Although there is no provision on the right to silence in our constitution, some contents indirectly provide the right protection. For example, Article 35 of the Constitution stipulates that "the people of China and the citizens of China shall have freedom of speech, publication and assembly", including the right to freedom of speech.
2. In civil litigation, the establishment of various systems is a scientific system, and various systems echo each other. The establishment of the right of silence of the parties also meets the requirements of the burden of proof system of the parties. Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that "the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence of their own claims." Generally speaking, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for his main claim, and the defendant bears the burden of proof for the fact that he actively defends. The core of the burden of proof is that the party who bears the burden of proof should bear the adverse consequences for the fact that the truth is unknown. If in civil litigation, the parties must plead guilty, then the burden of proof mechanism will lose its meaning, the case does not need to provide evidence at all, and the motivation of the parties to investigate and collect evidence will gradually lose, because the parties do not need to spend a lot of manpower, financial resources and material resources to investigate and collect evidence, and the court can directly ask one party to plead guilty, which can greatly reduce the litigation cost. This is obviously absurd.
3. The theoretical basis of the right to silence is to solve the rationality and legitimacy of the right to silence. Some scholars in academic circles have discussed the theoretical basis of the right to silence, including: (1) The theoretical basis of the right to silence is "fully respecting citizens' right to freely choose and communicate with their inner world; (2) The theoretical basis of the right to silence is the right to freedom of speech; (3) The theoretical basis of the right to silence is the need that personal dignity should be respected, freedom of speech should not be infringed, and the litigation rights should be balanced, which is the inherent need of the litigant litigation mode; (4) The theoretical basis of the right to silence is the legitimacy of the procedure. The author believes that the theoretical basis of the right to silence is determined by the litigation mode of adversary system. The parties have the right to dispose of their civil rights in litigation, remain silent and do not have disputes with each other. This is an act of the parties to their own civil rights and litigation rights, and it can also be said to be a negative litigation act.
4. In civil litigation, the judge has no reason to ask the parties to confess leniency, has no power to ask the parties to prove their responsibility, and has no basis to sanction such silence. Article 71 of China's Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "The people's court shall, in combination with other evidence in this case, examine and determine whether it can be used as the basis for ascertaining the facts. If the parties refuse to state, it does not affect the people's court's determination of the facts of the case based on the evidence. " Judging from the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, if the parties refuse to state or remain silent, the legal consequence should be "not affecting the people's court to determine the facts of the case according to the evidence" and they will not bear any legal responsibility. This can be said to be a legal annotation that the parties enjoy the right to silence in civil litigation in China.
5. The relativity of fact finding in civil litigation also determines the legitimacy of giving the parties the right to silence. As we all know, the ultimate goal of civil litigation is not to explore natural mysteries and objective truth, but to solve disputes. Therefore, civil litigation does not absolutely require finding out the facts. The facts of the case have passed, and time cannot be turned back. Absolute objective truth is only the ideal goal of fact finding. The limitation of human cognitive ability determines that people can only find the relativity of case facts. Since the fact is discovered by people, the discovered fact can't get rid of the subjective image of people, and all the "objective knowledge" of human beings has penetrated into the judgment, experience and even prejudice of the cognitive subject. "In fact, the legal profession has known for centuries that it is possible to identify legal facts." "All the evidence is probable, and there is no metaphysics of absolute truth ..." In addition to the subjective and objective basic characteristics of human cognitive ability and knowledge, there are two important factors that restrict the identification of facts, namely, the cost of identification of facts and the multiplicity of value objectives of the legal system. "All human activities are not free." So is fact-finding. It is impossible for the court to invest infinitely in finding out cases, and the high cost will weaken the practical significance of solving civil cases. All these determine the relativity of fact finding.
The judge asks the parties to be frank and lenient, and the deep idea behind it is obviously the absolute pursuit of the objective truth of the case. Giving the parties in civil litigation the right to silence is really close to the concept of relativity of fact finding and conforms to the law of human cognitive activities.
In addition, some scholars have demonstrated that the parties should be given the right of silence in civil litigation from the perspective of the essence of civil litigation and the minimization of the court's right to find out the facts. In this scholar's view, "the essence of civil litigation can be simply summarized as confrontation and autonomy."