【作者】 张伟强；

【导师】 林喆； 谢晖；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 法律是一种主要由政府作为第三方进行实施的社会控制方式、激励机制。法律制度的有效性很大程度上取决于其能否精确的对不同的“有害”行为设置恰当的法律责任,并予以准确的实施,也就是控制的精确度。提高法律控制的精确度有助于更好的威慑有害行为,避免对可欲行为的错误威慑,同时也能够减少没有收益的、甚至会带来损失的法律实施成本。法律制度的精确运作必须以获得足够的信息为前提,而信息从来都不是免费的。如此以来对法律控制的精确度的追求就受制于信息费用,信息费用也就成为决定法律制度有效性的关键变量。本文旨在运用经济学的分析工具来研究制约法律控制的精确度,进而决定法律制度的有效性的信息费用问题,同时透过信息费用这一关键变量来考察相关法律制度,探讨它们背后的支配性逻辑。因法律控制的精确性不足而带来的损失,可以称之为误差损失。法律制度作为一种社会控制机制,其根本目的在于通过改进行为提高社会福利水平。如此以来,理想的法律制度应该寻求法律控制的误差损失与信息费用之间的均衡,也就是两者之和的最小化,此时法律控制的净收益最大化。能够更好的回应特定的信息环境进而更为接近这一均衡点的制度安排是更有效率的制度安排。法律运作的第一步需要制定包容适度、威慑适度的法律命令。这就需要法律对调整对象进行恰当的“类型化”,设置相适应的法律责任。忽略更多差异、考虑较少因素的简单规则有助于节省信息费用,但会带来社会控制的更大误差损失。区分更为细致的复杂规则有助于提高精确性,但通常也会增加信息费用。另一种形式的法律命令“标准”,有助于通过法官裁量获得更高的个案处理的精确性,但通常也意味着更高的信息成本、不确定性增加及权力滥用的风险,尤其在法治不发达的国家。规则与标准各有不同的优势,适合不同的领域,且其成本收益与司法环境密切相关。我们通常所说的立法“宜粗”还是“宜细”的问题,其实质就是规则与标准及法律的精确性与信息费用的问题。应该根据不同的司法环境与不同的调整对象来寻求有效率的规则与标准组合。程序的重要功能就在于增加信息供给、减少信息需求,降低公众对政府决策的监控成本,人们可能难以对政府的实质性决策进行评判,但却能够容易的确认是否违反了程序。程序可以通过严格的形式主义的“程序性”规则容纳对实质问题的裁量,有助于提高规则与标准的综合治理收益。法律创制出来以后必须能够予以准确的实施,否则法律的控制目的也不可能达成。提高司法准确性,减少错误惩罚与错误开释有助于提高法律的威慑水平,获得更好的控制效果,但这也同样受制于发现及核实事实的信息费用。准确性可以通过有罪者被定罪概率与无辜者被错误定罪概率的比值来测度。在事实层面上,法律实施的准确性与信息费用同证明方式、证明标准、证明程序密切相关。这些基本的司法制度从不同的维度影响着司法的准确性与成本,反过来它们的不同形态及变迁也是不同的信息费用环境决定的,是制度对变化了的信息成本的回应。“神判”方式是认知水平低下、信息技术落后、信息成本高昂的环境下的一种司法证明方式。它通过一系列的制度与技术安排减少或替代了信息需求,是适应当时环境的产物,是特定环境下寻求社会控制的精确性与控制成本之间的均衡的结果。古代社会高度形式化甚至是机械性的实体法及程序法是对当时高昂信息费用的一种必然的回应。从“神判”到“人判”,从“知情陪审团”到“不知情陪审团”、从“法定证据”到“自由心证”的变迁反映的是司法制度随信息成本的变化而变化。信息条件不变的情况下,证明标准的提高意味着单个案件所需信息费用的增加,这有助于降低无辜者被错误惩罚的概率,但若司法投入的总量不变,也会增加真正有罪者被错误开释的几率,在调整证明标准时必须考虑不同维度的成本。而信息成本大大降低时,即使司法投入总量不变,适当提高证明标准也既能够降低无辜者被错误定罪的概率,亦不会提高甚至还会降低真正有罪者被错误开释的概率,此时提高证明标准就是有效率的。最佳证明标准同信息费用水平密切相关。证明程序也同时影响着错误惩罚几率与错误开释几率,并同信息费用密切相关。正当程序也必须在提高准确性和信息费用之间寻求平衡,而非单一的提高对无辜者的保护强度。在法律层面上,实施中会遇到法律模糊、冲突、漏洞以及同社会正义观念严重背离等情况。这就涉及到疑难案件中法律的解释、补充、续造问题。不同的解释方法意味着不同的信息费用与精确性。形式主义倾向的裁判既有助于节省法官的裁判成本,又有助于获得判决的权威性与说服性,且有助于提高法律的确定性,降低人们的服从成本、和解成本及对法官的监控成本。正因为如此形式主义才成为正统的司法意识形态,这也是社会所期望的。但在疑难案件中严格形式化的裁判将导致案件处理的精确性的损失,此时就面临着两种成本的平衡问题。形式化较强的文本解释与裁量性较强的非文本解释反映了对不同成本的关注。法官会优先尝试用信息成本较小的解释方法来解决案件。为了降低说服成本(也就是信息成本),司法过程充满了修辞。判决出自法律是最有效的修辞,因此法官即使在“造法”也努力披上“解释”的外衣。当然,这也是法律对修辞的一种限制。更有助于法官决策的是社会科学知识而非道德理论,但道德话语往往更具修辞色彩,因此尽管我们主张疑难案件中的后果主义权衡应以社会科学为指导,但却仍然赞成道德话语的修辞策略,这有助于降低说服成本。是否考虑行为主体的主观意图,对于法律运作的信息费用有着重大影响,原因在于主观意图的观察与核实成本极为高昂,甚至有些信息根本不可能被行为主体之外的人所获得。这就涉及到过失责任与严格责任问题。在侵权制度中,两者均致力于实现事故预防费用、事故损失与制度运作的信息成本之和的最小化。信息费用决定着它们达成目标的能力和成本。过失标准客观化的原因在于节省信息费用。过失责任受制于确定过失的信息费用,严格责任受制于评估预测事故损失的信息费用。制度的比较优势取决于不同环境下它们自身运作所需的信息成本及引导行为主体有效运用私人信息的能力。法律某种意义上可以看作是一种“契约(合同)”,反过来合同某种意义上也可以看作是一种特定主体之间的“法律”。因此对合同制度的探讨所发现的问题往往能够扩及到整个法律制度。除了法律以外,合同还存在其他实施机制,不同的实施机制有着不同信息需求和信息能力。实际上,法律本身也存在政府之外的实施主体与方式。合同法的一项主要功能在于提供易于观察、核实的合同程式,降低法院确认是否存在自愿接受法律约束的合意的信息成本,减少错误强制。合同法还为合同的订立及法官解释、补充合同提供了大量隐含条款,降低了交易与司法成本,提高了判决的可预测性。法官对不完备合同的补充能力是有限的,严格遵循合同文本有助于降低裁判成本、减少错误补充、防止法官滥权,促使当事人努力签订更为完整的合同。由于信息费用与司法能力的限制,关系合同的启发可能不是法官应该更为能动的补充合同,而是重新认识在信息需求上不同于法律的其他实施机制,在司法中更为尊重合同自由与合同文本。一定程度上,这些结论也可以适用于法律自身的运作。不同社会控制机制之间的竞争很大程度上取决于它们应对信息费用的能力。柏拉图由“哲学王”统治的理想国的最大障碍就在于高昂的信息费用。作为规则之治的法律的优势在于借助一般性规则,通过同类情况同样对待的“类型化”处理,降低了“具体问题具体对待”所需的高昂信息费用,当然也因忽略了调整对象的无限差异性而导致了社会控制精确性上的损失。法律应寻求两者之间的均衡。法治所要求的“良法”的形式美德本质上都在于降低信息费用,信息费用为这些形式美德提供了一个有效的参照。法治的成功在于既有效回应了政府控制社会的信息问题,又回应了社会控制政府的信息问题。自由的意义在于能够有效的产出和利用分散存在的知识和信息。大多数情况下政府并不比个体更具信息优势,这是有限政府的重要经济学理由,政府控制的最佳边界取决于控制收益与控制成本之间的均衡。“人治”和“法治”之争的背后隐藏的仍然是社会控制的精确性与信息费用的均衡的经济学逻辑。于此,信息费用既是我们研究的对象也是一种新的研究视角。它能够帮助我们刺穿诸多复杂的术语、理论,直面事物的本原,为很多问题提供清晰、简洁而富有解释力的说明。进而为法律研究提供一种简约而富有解释力的理论或视角。同时本文研究所获得的诸多结论也对我国的制度变革、法治建设具有重要的规范意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Law is a knid of social control approach and incentive mechanism by government’s implementation as the third party. The effectiveness of the legal system mainly depends on the fact that whether it can set appropriate legal responsibilities to different "harmful" behavior accurately and implement precisely, ie. the accuracy of control. To improve the accuracy of legal control contributes to a better deterrence to harmful behaviors, avoids the error deterrence to attainable behaviors, and also reduces the unproductive law enforcement’s costs which even may bring in loss. The accurate operation of the legal system must obtain sufficient informationas as the premise, but the information is never free. Therefore, the pursuit of the accuracy to social control will subject to information costs, and the information costs will also become the key variable to decide the effectiveness of legal system.This paper aims to apply the approach of economic analysis to study the accuracy of legal control, thereby to determine the information costs of the effectiveness of legal system, simultaneously to see about the relevant legal system through this key variable, ie. information costs and to discuss the dominant logic they hide. The loss which is caused by the deficiency of accuracy of legal control can be called error loss. As a kind of social control mechanism, legal system’s ultimate purpose is to improve social welfare by enhancing behavior. Therefore, the ideal legal system should seek the equilibrium between the error loss of legal control and the information costs, ie. the minimum of summation of the both. At this time, the net profit of legal control can get maximization. To better response to specific information environment so as to much closer to the institutional arrangements of the equilibrium point is the most efficient one.The first step of legal operation needs to establish inclusive and deterrent appropriate legal orders. This requires that law makes proper "typology" to objects’s adjustment and set the corresponding legal responsibility. The simple rule of ignoring more differences and considering fewer factors could help to save information costs, but it could bring greater error loss for social control. The complex rule that is distinguished more detailedly could enhance the accuracy, but usually also increase the information costs. Another form of legal order——"standard" is helpful for judges to obtain a higher accuracy, but it usually also means the higher information costs, the uncertainty and the risks of abuse of rights, especially in the countries with underdeveloped rule of law. The rule and standard have different advantages and suit to different areas respectively. Their cost-benefit is closely related to the judicial environment. What we usually discuss that the legislation "should crude" or "should complex" is the issues of the precision of the rules and standards and information costs in essence. This issue should be based on the specific conditions of China in different fields to find an efficient combination of rule and standard. The important function of due process is to increase information supply, reduce information requirements and to reduce public-to-government’s decision-making monitoring costs. It may be difficult for people to make judgments for the governmental substantive decision-making, but people can easily validate whether the government have violated the procedure. The due procedure makes substantive questions arbitration through rigorous formalistic "procedural" rules, and it helps to improve the comprehensive management’s profit of rule and standard.After created, law must be able to implement accurately, otherwise the control purpose of the law can not be achieved. Improving judicial accuracy, reducing error penalty and error acquittal are able to enhance the level of legal deterrence and obtain the better control effect, but also subject to information costs of discovery and checking fact. The accuracy is estimated by the ratio:the probability of criminals who are convicted and of innocent people who are wrongly convicted. In fact, the accuracy of the legal enforcement and information costs are closely related with justifiable approach, proof standard and proof procedure.These basic judicial systems influence the judicial accuracy and cost from different dimensions; in turn, their different forms and vicissitudes are also determined by diferent environments of information costs, and they are the responses for the system to changeable information costs. "Ordeal" is one judicial proof method under the environment of a low level of awareness, information technology backwardness and highly information cost. Relying on a series of institutional and technical arrangements, "ordeal" reduces or replaces the information needs. It is the production to adapt to the prevailing circumstances, and is the result to make balance between seeking social control’s accuracy and controlling cost. In ancient society, highly formalized and even mechanical substantive laws and procedural laws were an inevitable response to highly information costs at that time. From the "ordeal" to "sub", from "the informed jury" to the modern jury and from the "legal evidence" to "discretion", these changes reflect that the judicial systems vary along with different information costs. Under the invariable condition to information, the fact that the improvement of justifiable standard means increased information costs the single case needs is helpful to reduce probability that the innocent people are wrongly punished. But if the justical input keeps invariable amount, the probability that the real guilty person is wrongly acquitted may be increased so that the cost of different dimensions must be taken into consideration in adjusting justifiable standard. While information cost is greatly reduced, even though the justical input keeps invariable amount, the appropriate increased justifiable standard not only will reduce the probability that the innocent people are wrongly convicted, but also will not even will reduce the probability that the real guilty person is wrongly acquitted. At this time, it is efficient to improve justifiable standard. The best justifiable standard is closely related with the level of information costs. The justifiable procedure also influences the probability of wrongful punishenment and of wrongful acquittal simultaneously, and it is closely related with the information costs. Due process must seek balance between the accuracy improvement and the information costs, rather than a single increased protection intensity to the innocent.In the legal level, the implementation will meet the legal vagueness, conflicts, gaps and the situations of serious departure from the viewpoints of social justice, and so on. This refers to the issues of legal interpretation, supplement and continued making in complicated cases. Different interpretative methods means different information costss and accuracy. The judgment of formalism tendency is helpful not only to save judge’s referee cost, to obtain authoritative and persuasion of the adjudication, but also to improve legal certainty, and reduces the cost of people’s obedience, obstacles to reconciliation, and the monitoring costs to judges. That is why the formalism becomes the orthodox judicial ideology and could be also expected by society. However, in difficult cases, the formalized judgments will result in loss of substantial justice, and then two kinds of cost’s balanced questions will be confronted. The stronger formalized textualism interpretation and the stronger deliberate contextualism interpretation reflect the concerns for different costs. The judge will first attempt to choose interpretation approaches of fewer information cost to solve the case. In order to reduce the cost to convince (namely information costs), the judicial process is full of rhetoric. Ruling from the law is the most effective rhetoric; therefore a judge even in "law" has to put on the coat of "interpretation". Of course, this is a restriction law against the rhetoric. What is more helpful for judges’ decision is the social scientific knowledge rather than a moral theory. But moral discourse is often more rhetorical color, so even though we advocate that in difficult cases, consequential balance should be guided by social science, but we still approved the rhetorical strategy of moral discourse.Whether to consider the subjective intentions of behavior subject has a significant effect on the information costs of legal operation. The reason is that the the observation and verification cost of the subjective intent is extremely high, and even some of the information may not be obtained by other people except behavior subject. This refers to negligence liability and strict liability. In the infringement system, both of them are committed to making the sum of administrative cost in accident prevention costs, casualty loss and system operation to a minimum. Information costs determines their ability to meet targets and cost. The reason of negligence standard’s objectification lies in saving the information costs. The negligence liability subjects to the information costs of confirming negligence. And the strict liability subjects to the information costs of assessing and forecasting accident loss.The comparative advantages of systems lies on the information cost that their operation needs and the ability that they guide behavior subject to effectively exert private information under different circumstancesAll laws can be regarded as a kind of "deed (contract)" in some sense; in turn, the contract also can be regarded as a kind of "law" between special subjects in some sense. Therefore, the problem found in the discussion to the system of contract often extends to the whole legal system. In addition to law, the contract has other enforcement mechanisms, and different enforcement mechanisms have different information needs and information capabilities. Actually, the law itself also exists implementing body and method beside the government. A key function of the contract law is to provide easy observation, verification of contract programs, to reduce acceptable cost that the court confirms whether the litigant receives legal restriction voluntarily, and to reduce the wrong compulsion. Contract law also provides a large number of implicit clauses which are useful for the conclusion of contract and for the judges’ interpretation and supplement to contract, reduces the transaction costs and judicial cost, and improves the predictability of judgments. The judges’ incomplete contract’s supplement capability is limited, therefore strictly following the text of the contract will help reduce the referee costs, reduce errors supplement, prevent the abuse of power of judges, and urge the litigant to write in a more complete contract. As a result of the information costs and the judicial ability’s limit, the relational contract’s inspiration may not be more free supplement contract for judge, but reconsider other enforcement mechanisms which are different from law in information needs, and be more respectful to contract freedom and contract text in judicature. To some extent, these conclusions can also be applied to the operation of law itself.The competition between the different social control mechanisms largely depends on their ability to deal with the information costs. As "the king of philosophy", the greatest barrier of Plato’s "Republic" lies in highly information costs. Law is the rule of provisions. Relying on the general rule and the "typological" resolution to similar issues by similar treatment, what the legal superiority rests with reduces highly information costs needed by "concrete analysis of concrete conditions". Of course, owing to neglecting infinite difference for modulating objects, it results in the loss in social control’s accuracy. The law should pursue for the balance between the two situations. The formal virtues of the rule of law required "good law" is to reduce information costs in essence, and information costs offers a valid reference for understanding and explaining these formal virtues. The success of the rule of law is an effective response to the information issues not only of the government controlling society, but also of the society controlling government. The significance of freedom is the ability to effectively produce and utilize the scattered existing knowledge and information. In most cases, the fact that the government doesn’t have much more informational advantage is an important economic reason of limited government. The best boundary of government control relies on the balance between the controls of income and of cost. What is hidden in the controversy between "rule of man" and "rule of law" is still the balanced economic logic between the accuracy of social control and information costs.Hereupon, information costs is not only a object for study, but also a new research perspective. It can help us to understand lots of complex terms and theories, to face the nature of things, and to provide clear, concise and rich explanatory accounts for many questions. Then, it can offer a simple and explanatory theories or perspectives for legal reseraches. At the same time, the research conclusions achieved from this paper also establish important normative meanings to Chinese system transformation and legal construction.更多还原