以上三個(gè)術(shù)語均用于指不同的訴訟形式。其中，inquisitorial system為“糾問制”，指大陸法國家所實(shí)行的一種審判制度，奉行職權(quán)主義，即由法官代表國家利益進(jìn)行審判，其可訊問當(dāng)事人，可依職權(quán)自己調(diào)查事實(shí)并直接提取證據(jù)[1]。accusatorial procedure system 為“控訴式訴訟制”，與“糾問式訴訟”相對，主要特征為控訴和審判職能分離，司法機(jī)關(guān)不主動(dòng)追究犯罪，雙方當(dāng)事人在訴訟中居主導(dǎo)地位，審判機(jī)關(guān)居消極仲裁的地位， 雙方當(dāng)事人享有平等的訴訟地位，各自對訴訟主張分擔(dān)舉證責(zé)任，審判實(shí)行公開原則、言辭辯論原則和陪審原則，該種訴訟形式多流行于羅馬共和時(shí)期和英國的封建時(shí)代，與adversary system相同，差異只在于前者只用于刑事案件，而后者則可用于刑事及民事訴訟[2]。adversary system為“對抗制”，是指目前英美法系國家實(shí)行的一種審判制度，奉行當(dāng)事人主義，即當(dāng)事人在訴訟中居主導(dǎo)地位，允許糾紛中對立各方，一般由律師代理, 向陪審團(tuán)提出證據(jù)和主張，多數(shù)情況下，法官只主持訴訟活動(dòng)而非進(jìn)行實(shí)際的事實(shí)調(diào)查[3]。

[1]“Proceedings in which the judge, not the parties，adduces evidence in contrast to the adversarial system. ”Cf. Daphne Dukelow，The Dictionary of Canadian Law，at p. 519, Thomson Professional Publishing Canada (1991 ).

[2]“The Anglo-American system of criminal prosecution, in which the government, having accused the defendant, must prove its allegations by the adversary process, with the judge acting only as a neutral referee. Same as adversary system, except that the latter term applies to both civil and criminal cases. ”Cf. James E. Clapp，Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law, at p. 10, Random House (2000).

[3]“The jurisprudential network of laws, rules and procedures characterized by opposing parties who contend against each other for a result favorable to themselves. In such system, the judges acts as an independent magistrate rather than prosecutor ； distinguished from inquisitorial system. ”Cf. The Publisher's Editorial Staff, Black's Law Dictionary, abridged 6th edition, at p. 34, West Publishing Co. (1991).