The legal term for an award-winning speech is award-winning.
In our country, the use of the term "right to win" exists in the theory of dual rights of action and the statute of limitations system. However, the "right to win" does not belong to the category of rights by its nature; the traditional binary theory of "right to win" and the "theory of elimination of the right to win" both have theoretical shortcomings. The substantive right of action should be redefined and the "right of defense" should be replaced by "the doctrine of elimination of the right to prevail", thus abandoning the so-called "right to prevail" concept.
The concept of "right to win" does not exist in traditional civil law theory, but it has been widely used in my country's civil law theory and judicial practice. In our country, the use of the concept of "right to win" mainly falls into the following two categories: one is the binary right of action theory, and the other is the statute of limitations system.
The negation of the "right to win" in the theory of dual rights of action:
According to the theory of dual rights of action, if it is determined that the parties have the right to sue, the lawsuit can be established; if it is determined that the parties have the right to win, the lawsuit can be established The verdict was awarded in favor of the parties. According to this view, as long as the issue of ownership of the "two rights" is resolved, the litigation is complete. This understanding is actually an idealization and simplification of litigation rights practice or litigation activities.
At the beginning of the lawsuit, the status of the plaintiff can be confirmed through the right to sue, but the right to sue cannot solve the problem of the status and qualification of the defendant. On the other hand, the central task of litigation is not and cannot be to determine the so-called right to win, but to ascertain the facts of the case and clarify the civil rights and obligations between the parties.