证明责任理论是大陆法系国家民事诉讼法学领域中的一个重要基本理论。在现有概念体系下，证明责任概念包括着客观证明责任（抽象性、程序外在决定性、分配的单方固定性，诉讼过程中不可转移与倒置）与主观具体证明责任（具体情境性、程序内在决定性、分配与承担的灵活性，诉讼过程中可转换与倒置）这样两种异质的元素，特别容易引起理论解释与司法实践的混乱与误解。笔者因此提出将具体举证责任这一概念内涵从整体的证明责任概念体系中独立的构想。如此一来，证明责任单纯指客观证明责任，而主观抽象证明责任只是客观证明责任在实际诉讼过程中的表现形式。为彻底区别于证明责任，现有证明责任概念中调整规范具体证明行为的部分功能由独立出来的“具体举证责任”来承担，其解决的是在法官对案件待证事实形成一定程度的心证的情形下，应当由哪方当事人继续提供证明及未尽这种具体证明行为责任时所引发的不利事实判断后果问题。从而形成“证明责任”与“具体举证责任”这种概念上的“二元分立”及对诉讼证明“双层调控”的制度安排。这样一方面能使证明责任概念及其分配标准与规则更加单纯清晰，另一方面又可将诉讼证明行为规律这一在原证明责任理论下相对隐性的领域突现出来，并促进相关证明行为与事实认定规则的生成，以更好地规范当事人的诉讼证明行为及法官事实认定方面的自由裁量权。具体举证责任概念提出的必要性起因于客观证明责任理论规范具体诉讼证明活动的模糊性与有限性。具体举证责任的分配与证明责任分配所考虑的因素及其分配标准存在根本区别，具体举证责任的分配取决于一系列情境依赖的程序内因素。借助于具体举证责任才能将诉讼法上诸多所谓“程序公正实现中的冲突与衡平”的考量因素体现出来，从而最大限度地在个案中实现程序公正与实质公正。具体举证责任的分担必须依赖法官事实认定中的自由裁量权，而规范法官的这种自由裁量权则需借助于具体举证责任分配规则的建构。在这一视角下，摸索证明与事案阐明义务、表见证明、举证妨碍等均是引起具体举证责任转换的定型化“准规则”。以这一理论来对现代型诉讼中的证明责任分配及具体情境中的证明问题进行解释有利于尽可能促进当事人提出所有可能证据以最大化接近案件事实真相，修正证明责任分配理论在此的偏颇，并在实践中尽量避免证明责任裁判的实际发生。

The theory of burden of proof is an important basic theory in the field of civil procedure law. In the traditional concept system , The concept of burden of proof, including the two heterogeneous elements: the objective burden of proof (abstract , decisive by factors external the program, assign a unilateral fixed, non-transferable and inverted in the course of the proceedings)and subjective concrete burden of proof (Situation-dependent, decisive by factors inherent the program, Flexibility of allocation and commitment transferable and inverted in the course of the proceedings), Are particularly vulnerable to confusion and misunderstanding in interpretation and judicial practice. Therefore, the author proposed this idea, that the connotation of the burden of evidence is independent from the overall burden of proof of concept system. So the burden of proof simply refers to the objective burden of proof, and the subjective abstract burden of proof only the specific performance of the objective burden of proof in the actual proceedings. In order to completely different from the burden of proof, this part of the function that Specification proof behavior should be independent, Handed over to the "burden of evidence". It solves the problem: the case of judges on the case facts to be proved to a certain degree of proof, by which party should continue to provide evidence, as well as in the absence of the burden of evidence, the adverse judgments arising from the consequences borne by which party. To form “the burden of proof” and “burden of evidence” on the concept of “binary separation”, and in litigation to prove the “double layers-regulation” system arrangements In this way, which would made the concept of burden of proof and its allocation standards and rules more simple and clear, on the other hand can make the rule of proof stand out. Which was a relatively hidden areas in the traditional burden of proof theory. And it will promote the generation of the rules of proof and fact-finding, to better regulate the parties to the proceedings to prove the facts of the behavior and the judge finds that aspects of discretion.The necessity of introducing the concept of burden of evidence due to which is both vague and limited by the burden of proof theory to guide the parties` behavior of proof. There is a fundamental distinction between the distribution of standard of the burden of proof and the burden of evidence, the later depends on a series of context-dependent factors within the program. Many so-called “the conflict and equitable in due process” considerations of the procedural law can be reflected only through the burden of evidence, to maximize the fairness of procedures and Substantive Justice in the cases. The sharing of the burden of evidence must rely on the discretion of the judges` fact-findings, but the construction of Specification judges such discretion is required by means of burden of evidence allocation rules. In this perspective, such as the primary-face proof, the fishing expedition, the presumption of fact, the spoliation of evidence.are all stereotypes of "quasi-rules" caused by the conversion of the burden of evidence. To explain this theory to modern litigation, the burden of proof allocation and context-specific problems of proof as possible to promote the parties to put forward all possible evidence close to the facts of the case to maximize the truth, to correct the bias of the theory of the allocation of burden of proof in this regard, and try to avoid making judgements according to the burden of proof in practice