本文的焦點，在處理英美法系及大陸法系下之民事訴訟當事人所面臨之證據收集及事實證明的問題。問題意識之中心，在於為何在同樣地要求訴訟當事人就其主張的事實提出證據加以證明的兩大法系中，存在了如此鉅大的差異：英美法系不僅賦與當事人直接收集證據的權限，同時其所要求的證明度僅需達到「證據之優越」；而大陸法系的訴訟當事人，在無直接收集證據權限的情形下，滿足其所負舉證責任的證明度標準竟高達必須使法官得到確信。在一般的給付訴訟中係由原告負舉證責任的情形下，大陸法系法官如果嚴格地遵循此要求，顯然會使得原告較難取得勝訴的判決，而呈現出對原告接近、使用法院的敵視態度；相反地，英美法系在這方面的規定，則有助於便利人民接近、使用民事訴訟制度。本文首先由兩大法系不同的民事訴訟審理基本原則出發，探討兩大法系在民事訴訟程序中審理、認定事實的建制基礎－亦即在英美法系下的「當事人對審制度」（Adversary System）及大陸法系下之辯論主義－之異同，並由此加以延伸，進一步檢視兩大法系對當事人證據收集權及當事人舉證責任程度所採之不同態度，分析其背後之理由、所潛藏之意識型態及其正當合理性。著重之側面在於證據收集權與證明度之連結關係，以及此連結關係與「真實發現」、「當事人的公平」、「效率」及「人民接近、使用法院之權利」等民事訴訟基本要求間之對應關係以及所造成的衝擊。最後以「證明責任之減輕」及「證據收集手段之擴充」二個不同的途徑，檢視未來可能發展的改革軌跡。

　　　　　This article examines the different attitudes under the common law civil procedure and continental civil procedure towards civil litigants' discovery rights as well as burdens to prove disputed facts. Under the common law system, civil parties have broad discovery right and their burdens of proof are satisfied by the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. However, on the continental side, civil parties are not granted any discovery rights and, moreover, they must satisfy their burden of proof by the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Given that both systems are of the same adversarial nature and are reliant on the evidence submitted by the parties to find the disputes facts, the aforesaid differences between the two systems are significant, even astounding. Moreover, since it is the plaintiff who usually bears the burden of proof in civil cases, the two different evidentiary arrangements implicate that it is much more difficult for the continental plaintiff of obtain a victory than his common-law counterpart. As a result, it seems that the continental system displays certain hostility towards a prospective plaintiff's access to the court while the common law system ensures that access to justice is not hampered by unreasonable procedural restrictions. Section II compares the principles of civil adjudication between the two systems, namely, the adversary system under the common law civil procedure and the principle of party presentation under continental civil procedure. After finding the two principles are built upon the same false assumption-parties have equal ability to collect necessary evidence and effectively present their arguments-Section III starts to analyze why the continental system refuses to grant parties discovery rights while the common law system has long detected the problem and therefore modernized their discovery systems to cure the false assumption. Section IV examines the different standards of proof under the two systems and analyzes the consequences of the high standard of proof adopted by the continental system. This article concludes that the unavailability of discovery, coupled with a high standard of proof, unjustly makes it very difficult for the plaintiff to win and gives the defendant huge unfair advantages. The author argues that the only reason for such an arrangement is to serve the state's interest in creating the legitimate appearance of its civil justice system at the plaintiff's expense. The last section briefly introduces that some continental countries have perceived the unreasonableness of this evidentiary arrangement and have adopted some strategies to ameliorate its undesirable consequence.