【作者】 王庆丰；

【导师】 田平安；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 民俗习惯是特定社会群体在长期共同生产生活和相互交往中自发形成，用以规范人们之间权利义务关系，解决相互之间利益冲突与利益归属，为人们内心所确信、得到普遍公认并实际支配人们行为的习俗、习惯或者惯例的总称。民俗习惯与国家制定法，同为人类社会的基本规范。民俗习惯是国家制定法的根基和渊源，制定法通常源于对民俗习惯的概括和抽象。二者关系密切，功能互补，不可偏废。即使在现代法治国家，制定法也不可能完全替代民俗习惯。然而自改革开放以来，我国片面强调以制定法为中心的法治建设，完全忽视民俗习惯在法治建设中的功能和作用。这种简单的规则主义法治观并没有带来良法善治的理想结果，反而导致“规则失效”、“法治不适”等诸多问题，影响和制约了法治的顺利推进。实践证明，法治并非简单的法条之治，民俗习惯也是法治建设的重要因素，必须高度重视、认真对待。司法是法治实现的最后屏障。审判机关通过对具体案件的审理，集中表现制定法的实施过程，并将法治的实践形态具体化。通常而言，在司法实践中，制定法都是纠纷解决规则的首要选择。然而，对于具体判决而言，制定法从来不是唯一正确的裁判来源，民俗习惯等其他规范也是重要的渊源选择。那么，在涉及民俗习惯的案件中，法官应怎样看待民俗习惯？能否运用民俗习惯来处理纠纷？如何处理制定法与民俗习惯的关系？通过何种形式、运用何种方法来加以适用？等等问题，无疑时刻影响并拷问着法官的“神经”。在这一过程中，民俗习惯与制定法间对立与交错，矛盾与冲突，对抗与合作等错综复杂的关系和具体情态，也能得到最直观生动和最充分具体的呈现和展示。因此，以司法过程为视角和“窗口”，将民俗习惯纳入法治视野中加以考察，深研其意义，辨析其良莠，释放其功能，规范其行止，对顺利推进法治建设无疑具有重要的理论和实践价值。本文选择民俗习惯司法适用这个角度，拟立足于中国的现实国情和司法实践，深入探讨民俗习惯司法适用的理论依据和现实渴求，深入分析民俗习惯在当前司法实践中的运行状况和基本特征，深入查找民俗习惯司法适用不足的机制障碍和深层原因，并从适用的规范化、程序化、系统化三个方面，研究提出加强民俗习惯司法适用的系统方案。希冀通过对这种官方与民间，正式制度与非正式制度间的研究探讨，为我国转型期诸多社会矛盾和问题的解决扩充视野、开拓思路。除导论和结语外，全文共分五章加以论述：第一章为民俗习惯司法适用的机理。主要探讨在司法领域适用民俗习惯的理论基础和现实可能，从民俗习惯的内在特质及其适用的历史根源、实践价值等三个方面，来论述民俗习惯是“法”的有机组成，是建设法治的积极因素。首先，从内在特质分析，民俗习惯是法律的前身和来源，任何国家和民族法律的产生和发展，都离不开民俗习惯的内在支撑；是习惯法权的载体和反映，具有“先在”的法律意义；具有特定的规范属性，具有规范、约束、评价、制裁等特征；得到民众的信奉和遵从，将其作为自身的生活方式和行为模式。其次，从历史根源看，我国历来重视民俗习惯，在立法上以其为本，法出于礼，礼源于俗；司法中以其为源，可作为裁判的依据；倡导调处息讼，广泛运用民俗习惯；体风问俗，力求情理兼顾。最后，在实践价值上，适用民俗习惯，是补充民事法源的需要，增强司法效果的需要，维护民事秩序的需要，克服“法治不适”的需要。第二章为民俗习惯司法适用的现状。结合实证调查，笔者对民俗习惯司法适用的基本特点、存在问题和原因进行了梳理和分析。首先，在民俗习惯司法适用的特点上，呈现出纠纷形态的集中性，主要运用于传统民事纠纷领域；适用范围的有限性，总体上适用不多；适用层级的基层性，基层法院适用率更高；适用区域的差别性，农村和民族地区较城市更为广泛；适用方法的灵活性，调解多而判决少。第二，在民俗习惯司法适用的问题方面，存在适用范围狭窄、适用过程隐晦、适用方法混乱、适用结果差异等问题。第三，分析民俗习惯适用难的原因，主要在于重视不够、定位模糊、规则缺乏、机制缺位以及自身的不足。第三章为民俗习惯司法适用的规范化。从原则、重点、方式、方法、路径及边际等六个方面对民俗习惯的司法适用加以规范。指出民俗习惯适用应遵循补充、审查和效果等三原则。层级上，要突出基层法院；地域上，要突出民族地区；纠纷类型上，要突出民间纠纷。在适用形式方面，从认定案件事实、判断行为效力、丰富责任形式、形成裁判理由、作为裁判依据等五个方面加以论述。从适用的法律方法来说，则主要包括法律发现、合宪性解释、社会学解释、利益衡量、价值衡量等五个方面。适用的路径，则尽量采用调解这一主渠道；在裁判中的适用，分别不同情形，采取直接适用、参照适用和转换适用等三种形式。第四章为民俗习惯司法适用的程序化。本章主要研究民俗习惯适用于具体个案的一般程序和规则。作为前提，首先对当事人依民俗习惯取得诉权进行研究论证，并指出司法应依法保护当事人诉权的行使。进而探讨民俗习惯司法适用的举证程序、审查程序、排除程序和监督程序。其中，举证程序研究了证明对象，指出民俗习惯首先应作为待证事实来对待；在明确当事人举证责任的同时，应强化法院的查证义务。适用民俗习惯必须经过质证程序，组织当事人双方就民俗习惯的的真实性、合法性、关联性以及证明力的有无及大小予以说明和质辨，也可邀请专家证人出庭作证。认证方式则包括当事人自认、司法认知、经验法则和法律推定等方面。审查程序主要从事实审查和价值审查方面加以论证，强调所适用的民俗习惯必须具有稳定性与确定性、拘束性及现时性，同时须兼具合法性和合理性的要求。排除程序提出，民俗习惯会因违反法律原则、损害公共利益、违反政策规定及自身冲突而排除适用。监督程序从程序公开、司法论证、裁判说理和审级监督加以论述。第五章为民俗习惯司法适用的系统化。笔者主要从三方面探讨了民俗习惯司法适用的机制完善与优化问题。首先，立法上，要端正对待民俗习惯的态度；确立民俗习惯的法源地位，从“总则”上明确民俗习惯的可适用性；预设民俗习惯的适用空间，少设“强制条款”，多设“任意条款”，“归还”民俗习惯的应有调整领域；强化与民俗习惯的立法链接，加强对民俗习惯的调查研究，提升中央立法的科学与理性，突出地方立法的地域和民族特色。第二，司法上，要整合纠纷解决资源，拓宽民俗习惯适用的渠道，发挥人民调解、民间权威和少数民族纠纷解决习惯的积极作用；适当调整证据规则，通过证据规则的灵活运用，尽可能地追求和接近案件的客观真实，增强民俗习惯适用的实效；强化案例指导，发挥案例指导制度的灵活性、具体化、及时性优势，促进民俗习惯适用的统一；妥善安排审判形式，实行审判组织的陪审化，审判程序的人性化，审判场所的简易化和审判用语的乡土化，营造民俗习惯适用的氛围。第三，裁判上，要创新建立合法性兼顾合理性的裁判路径，在完善合法性论证的同时，要以民俗习惯的合理性增强裁判的可接受度；超越简单三段论的裁判模式，实现从单纯的“法律思维”到“复合思维”的转变；同时，要提高法官的司法能力，增强认识和把握社会矛盾、认识和把握社情民意、认识和把握法律精神等三种能力，实现从法律型向综合型的能力转变。更多还原

【Abstract】 Folk customs are generated in a particular society in which people have been livingtogether and communicating for a long time. They refer to a set of norms universally receivedin such society to regulate the relationship of rights and obligations, to settle conflicts andattribution of interest, and to dominate the behaviors of people. Being behavioral norms ofhuman society, folk customs and statutes are in close relations. Folk customs are therudiments and sources of statutes, while statutes are conceptualization of folk customs. Asincreasingly powerful statutes are, folk custom will not be replaced completely by the former.Since the reform and opening up of China, the mere emphasis has been put on statutes ratherthan folk custom in the development of rule of law, with the function and significance of folkcustoms ignored. The experiential lesson is that the simple-rule doctrine fails to producedesirable results in rule of law. Furthermore, it impedes the smooth progress of rule of lawwhich is not only the rule of articles but also the rule of folk customs. Therefore, folk customsplay an important and indispensable role and should be given enough attention in thedevelopment of rule of law.As the last safeguard of rule of law, hearing of cases by the judicial department is aprocess of application of law. A judge’s job is to apply specific articles to different cases andsettle disputes. Generally speaking, statutes are the first choice for judges in resolvingdisputes. However, statutes are not enough as alternatives also include folk customs and otherrules. In cases involving folk customs, how should a judge approach folk custom? How toapply folk customs to resolve disputes? How to deal with the relationship between folkcustoms and statutes? In which manner should folk customs be applied? Judges are alwaysoccupied with these questions. The complicated relations and situations between folk customsand statutes come out in the wash in the course of hearing. Thus, it is of vital significance tothe development of rule of law by applying folk custom in hearing to explore its meaning,probe into its advantages and disadvantages, give full play to it, and standardize itsapplication.From the perspective of adjudication and based on China’s actual situation and judicialpractice, the present study is intended to examine the theoretical possibility and practicalimplications of applying folk customs, to analyze the situation and effect of folk customs in the current adjudicative practice, to investigate into the institutional obstacles and inherentreasons of insufficient application of folk custom, and to propose solutions to the fullapplication of folk custom by courts by promoting standardization, proceduralizaition, andsystematization. Therefore, the present study is dedicated to providing judges with a newperspective in resolving various types of disputes in the current transitional period of Chinaby addressing the official and folk as well as formal and informal norms. Besides anintroduction in the beginning and conclusion in the end, the main body of the present studyconsists of five chapters.Chapter One is devoted to the mechanisms of adjudicative application of folk customs incivil trials, discussing its theoretical foundation and possibility, expounding folk customs asan organic component of law and a positive factor in legal construction, addressing itsfeatures, historical origin and practical value. Firstly, folk customs are the origin of statues innature. There would not have been any development of statues without the support of folkcustoms. As rules, they regulate people’s behaviors and are faithfully observed by people.Secondly, statues are rooted in rituals (li in Chinese) which originate from customs. Folkcustoms can be the legal ground of judgment since they involve human relations and tend tosettle disputes. Last but not least, folk customs are a supplementary source of law. They canalso strengthen the effect of judgment, maintain civil order, and overcome the illness of ruleof law. Therefore, folk customs should be considered as a basis of legislation and source ofjudgment. Every effort should thus be made to coordinate legal logos and legal sense indispute settlement.Chapter Two depicts the current situation of application of folk customs in civil trials.With empirical investigation, we analyze the basic features, existing problems and reasons ofapplication of folk customs. It is believed that firstly there are only a few types of disputeswhich folk customs can be applied to, and the scope of application should be confined totraditional civil disputes. Folk customs are applied mainly in rural and ethnic minority areasby primary courts. Because of the flexibility of application, meditation is more likely thanjudgment when they are applied. Secondly, the application of folk customs carries a variety ofproblems, such as limited scope of application, vagueness of application process, inconsistentmethods of application, and different outcomes. Thirdly the reasons of application problemslie in insufficient emphasis, ambiguous positioning, absence of regulations and relevantsystems, and its inherent defects. Chapter Three probes into the standardization of application of folk customs. To regulateits application, it is suggested that effective measures should be taken in aspects of principles,emphases, means, methods, paths and boundaries. The principles of supplementary role,review, and effect should be followed in the application of folk customs. In the discussion ofthe scope of adjudicative application of folk customs, we suggest that folk customs be appliedto cases concerning private disputes heard by lower courts, as well as cases in ethnic minorityareas. The ways of applying folk customs include finding the facts of the case, determiningthe validity of adjudication, diversifying the forms of liability assumption, and providingjuridical reasons and grounds. Search for applicable laws, constitutional interpretation,sociological account, interest measurement, and benefit balance can be methods. As for path,mediation is strongly recommended. When applied, folk customs can be directly applied, usedas a reference, or applied after transformation.Chapter Four is dedicated to the proceduralization of adjudicative application of folkcustoms. This part studies the general rule and procedure of application in individual cases.As a premise, one’s rights as a litigant based on folk customs should be protected by law. Thischapter also covers the procedures of proof-providing, review, exclusion, andsupervision in the application of folk customs. Proof-providing procedure is about the objectof proof. Our view is that folk customs are factum probandum. After burden of proof beingdefined, it is the court’s duty to examine the folk customs in proof-providing procedure.Procedure of examination is an indispensable due process, in which authenticity, validity,relevancy and credibility of folk customs are examined by litigants and experts who may becalled to testify as witnesses. The methods of confirmation include admission, judicial notice,and rule of experience, and presumption of law. The procedure of review is illustrated fromsuch aspects as fact findings and value determination. The stability and certainty of folkcustoms are examined, and they should also be legitimate, rational, binding, and up to date.Procedure of exclusion means that folk customs should be excluded if they are abhorrent fromthe principles of law, harmful to the public interest, against the public policy, orself-contradictory. The exposition on the procedure of supervision covers openness ofprocedure, judicial justification, reasoning in decision and trial grades.Chapter Five elaborates on the systematization of adjudicative application of folkcustoms. We discuss the optimization and perfection of adjudicative application of folkcustoms in three aspects. Firstly, correcting our attitude towards folk customs means that they should be regarded as source of law, leaving enough room for application and taken intoconsideration in legislation. The applicability of folk customs needs to be regulated in generalprovisions. Secondly, it is necessary to integrate dispute solutions, expand the applicationchannels, amend the rule of evidence properly, intensify the effect of folk customs application,perfect the case guidance system, reach an agreement of folk customs application, adoptreasonable trial styles, and create a supporting environment for folk customs application.Thirdly, legality co-exists with rationality in adjudication. Adjudication may be more readilyaccepted when the rationality of folk customs is seldom challenged. Accordingly, a judge’sreasoning style needs to be changed from “purely legal” to “compressive” by enhancing theability in understanding social disputes, ideology of the public, and spirit of law.更多还原