摘要： 大陆法系强调事实认定的真伪不明状态及其法律适用过程，普通法系则相反。这一差异的形成与两大法系的方法论研究、民事诉讼的运作起点、对实用主义的态度和陪审制的运用密切相关。我国通说倾向于大陆法系客观证明责任理论，〖JP+2〗但立法和司法活动都表明该理论尚未得到体系化运用；相反，普通法系说服责任的应用更为流行。理论与实践的背离，部分起因于法律真实观的矫枉过正、以纠纷解决为主的诉讼目的以及以二审事实审查标准为代表的程序，这在其他国家和地区的法治移植过程中也是常见的。

关键词: 证明责任, 真伪不明, 证明标准, 法律真实, 纠纷解决

Abstract: While the continental system admits the non-liquet status in fact-finding and emphasizes its  process of legal application, its Anglo-American counterpart takes the other way. It is related to the  legal methodology, the starting point of civil litigation, the attitude toward pragmatism as well as  the jury system. The main academic perspective in China inclines to the conception of objective burden of proof, which however does not systematically appear in the legislative and judicial activities. Actually, the application of burden of persuasion is more prevalent. This separation between theory  and practice, which is very common in the process of legal transplantation in other nations and jurisdictions, is the partial result of overdue legal reality approach, litigation aim giving priority to dispute resolution coupled with procedure institution represented by factual review standard in appellate proceedings.

Key words: Burden of Proof, Non-liquet, Standard of Proof, Legal Concept of Truth, Dispute Resolution