摘要： 根据法官与当事人在事实阐明方面的责任分配，各国典型的民事审理模式可分为三类：德国的对话诉讼、美国的对抗诉讼以及日本的对抗与判定模式。相较而言，德国的对话诉讼模式在辩论主义的框架内强调法官承担实质指挥诉讼的义务，彰显了诉讼集中主义，代表了现代民事诉讼的发展潮流。我国虽然历来注重法官的主动角色，但在从职权探知主义转向辩论主义的过程中如何设定法官在事实阐明方面的协助责任，还需深入探讨。同时，未来是否引入当事人的协助阐明义务、促进诉讼义务、真实完整义务和诚实信用义务，也关乎自认、举证期限等制度的完善以及恶意诉讼的克服。唯有构建起完善的诉讼义务体系，才能确保审理程序以公平、集中、快捷的方式进行。

关键词: 实质指挥诉讼, 诉讼义务, 释明, 晓谕, 促进诉讼

Abstract: Judges and parties play the different roles in clarifying facts of cases; thereby the civil procedures can basically be classified to three models worldwide: the Dialog Procedure in Germany, the Adversary System in the USA and the Cooperative Adversary Process in Japan. Comparatively, in the German civil justice system, which encourages the dialog between judges and parties and follows the principle of party presentation, judges play an active role and take the responsibility of materielleProzessleitungspflicht in the civil proceedings, which greatly contributes to the concentration of the trial procedure and represents the trend of the modem civil procedure development. The judges in China play an active role historically，but now this “active” role has to be adapted from the inquiry system to the party-presentation system. So we are facing the following questions: What role should Chinese judges play during the clarifying of the facts in issues? Should the cooperation duty, the duty of truth, the duty to accelerate the process and etc. be applied in China? The answers will be also important to improve the confession, the evidence-presenting limits and the abuse of litigation. Only with the help of the procedural duty system it can be guaranteed that every action will be determined justly, speedily and intensively.

Key words: Case Management, Litigious Obligation, Duty to Disclose, Aufklarungspflicht, Hinweispflicht