The Application Path of the Rule of Presumption of Evidence in Maritime Administrative Cases

Analysis of Article 35 of the Coast Guard Law

Authors

  • Zheng Zhang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v4n3.05

Keywords:

Administrative Presumption, Applicable Path, Article 35 of the Coast Guard Law

Abstract

Article 35 of the Coast Guard Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the rules for presumption of evidence in handling maritime administrative cases, which is a clear legal provision for the reversal of the burden of proof. The parties involved need to bear the complete burden of proof. In the specific application of administrative cases, maritime police agencies should strictly focus on the three basic elements of the presumption basis, basic facts, and illegal facts of the evidence presumption rule. Article 35 of the Maritime Police Law is both a presumption basis and a judicial norm. Maritime police agencies need to bear the burden of proof for the basic facts of the destruction of evidence by the parties. After reaching the standard of proof that eliminates reasonable suspicion, they can infer that the parties have violated the law. At the same time, in order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the parties may refute the basic facts claimed by the maritime police agency or prove that the presumed facts of the maritime police agency are incorrect, but they do not demand a higher standard of proof for the basic facts than the maritime police agency.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] LOUIS KAPLOW, Zang Junheng. Substituting Structural Inference [J]. Competition Policy Research, 2023 (02): 82-114.

[2] Report of the Constitutional and Legal Committee of the National People's Congress on the results of the deliberation of the Maritime Police Law of the People's Republic of China (Draft): http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/ 20210 1/df7445275bf242aaacb5ed6389f63561.shtml.

[3] Gao Qinwei. On the Standard of Proof in Administrative Litigation [J]. Evidence Science, 2008 (04): 394-404.

[4] He Jiahong. On the Definition Standards of Presumption Concept [J]. Law, 2008 (10): 38-47.

[5] Zheng Yang. The Logic and Development of Civil Presumption Application [J]. Journal of North China Electric Power University (Social Sciences Edition), 2021 (02): 72-82.

[6] Zhou Dongdong, Wang Jinli. On the presumption of facts and its application in civil litigation [J]. Journal of Shijiazhuang University, 2009,11 (01): 85-87.

[7] Wu Ping. Argument based on legal presumption [J]. Journal of Guangxi Political and Legal Management Cadre College, 2004 (06): 33-35.

[8] Ma Huaide, Liu Dongliang. Research on Evidence Issues in Administrative Litigation [J]. Evidence Forum, 2002,4 (01): 210-224.

[9] He Jiahong. On the presumption in judicial proof [J]. Journal of the National Prosecutor's College, 2001 (02): 8-11.

[10] Luo Heng. On the Application of Presumptive Rules in the Handling of Maritime Administrative Cases by Coast Guard Institutions [J]. Journal of Political Science and Law, 2022, 39 (04): 46-53.

[11] Zhou Yang. Research on the Standard of Proof in Administrative Litigation [D]. Changchun University of Science and Technology, 2010.

[12] Zhao Fengzhang. Basic Theory Research on Criminal Presumption [D]. Xiamen University, 2009.

[13] Zhang Yunpeng. On the Presumptive Determination of Subjective Intention in Holding Crimes [J]. Journal of Social Sciences, 2009 (02): 84-87.

[14] Zhang Yunpeng. Doubt of Quasi Legal Presumption - Discussion with Mr. Chu Fumin [J]. Journal of Liaoning University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2013, 41 (03): 107-112.

[15] He Jiahong. On the Application of Presumption Rules [J]. People's Justice, 2008 (15): 48-52.

[16] Jiang Yuanzhi, Zuo Jia. Research on the Discretionary Power of Proof Responsibility [J]. Journal of Liaoning Public Security Judicial Management Cadre College, 2006 (01): 48-50.

Downloads

Published

22-10-2024

Issue

Section

Articles