burden of persuasion

基本解釋

Relations between burden of persuasion and burden of proof have been a hot point in law circles.
舉證責(zé)任與證明責(zé)任的關(guān)系問題一直是法學(xué)界爭論的一個(gè)熱點(diǎn)。
Judicially, we should utilize judge's discretion for application of inverting the burden of persuasion and choice of medical identifications.
在司法上，則要充分發(fā)揮法官的自由裁量權(quán)，以解決好舉證責(zé)任倒置的適用和醫(yī)療鑒定中引發(fā)的問題。
Burden of producing evidence and burden of persuasion in the Anglo-American law system and subjective burden and objective burden are different, strictly speaking.
英美法系的提出證據(jù)責(zé)任、說服責(zé)任和大陸法系的主觀證明責(zé)任、客觀證明責(zé)任，嚴(yán)格來說，存在區(qū)別不能簡單等同。

舉證責(zé)任
In the first and second part of this paper the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion and other similar definitions will be compared to prove the existence of the transfer of burden of proof.
本文的第一部分和第二部分分別對(duì)兩者進(jìn)行分析論證。在將舉證責(zé)任與證明責(zé)任等相關(guān)概念進(jìn)行比較研究后,本文支持舉證責(zé)任可以轉(zhuǎn)移的論點(diǎn)。
心證負(fù)擔(dān)
說服責(zé)任