法律适用的理论重构与中国实践

【作者】 朱政；

【导师】 夏锦文；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 法学理论， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 法律适用的理论框架是法律方法论的基础性问题,而强调理论的实践性以及建构中国本土的法律方法体系,则必须建立在对中国当下司法实践的经验考察之上。本文法律适用的理论建构是以大陆法系传统为背景,以中国司法实践为潜在参照物的。因而可以说,理论建构与实践考察紧密相关。在理论研究部分,采取了法律适用的“理念—模式—要素”的分析框架,以一种“自上而下”的具体化的思路展开,亦即在讨论法律适用理念争论的基础上,分析法律适用模式的转型,并指出论辩推理模式的优越之处；进而,在论辩推理模式下,对法律适用的要素展开重构,而在这种理论模式下,它们能够得到合理的定位和很好的说明。具体说来,在法律适用的理念上,这里有两对暗含的矛盾,一是,严格裁判理念与自由裁判理念围绕“司法造法”(或者法官“自由裁量权”)的争论；二是,兼顾合法性和合理性裁判理念内部存在的潜在张力——法哲学上,法的权威性与正确性之争；政治学上,立法权与司法权之争。从制定法传统出发,兼顾合法性和合理性的裁判理念显然更值得追求。在法律适用的模式上,分别讨论了司法三段论模式、哲学诠释学模式、三段论推理下的自由裁量模式和论辩推理模式。相比较而言,论辩推理模式较之前三种“经典”模式,具有更佳的理论优势,能够更好的贯彻兼顾合法性和合理性裁判理念。可以认为,论辩推理模式建立在“推理核”和“论辩层”之上,因而理性化程度更高,具有可验证和可评估的特性。其中,“推理核”主要关心法律推理的起点和基本结构形式；“论辩层”旨在以程序性的论辩规则为核心,明确参与者在其中应履行的论辩义务。在法律适用的要素上,一方面,法律适用模式的实质内容是法律发现、法律解释、事实认定、法律论证、利益衡量、漏洞补充等等相互重叠的“片段性决定”；另一方面,这些要素之间的关系、存在方式,在不同的法律适用的理论模式中,又会呈现不同的格局。在论辩推理模式下,法律发现对应着法源多元论,其核心任务是法源的司法识别和规范冲突的解决；法律解释作为一种权威性论述,应作“减法”的课业——放弃对司法裁判的“正确性担保”,回归面对个案释放法律规范意义的“本色”；事实认定,应当明确关于事实的论辩是司法证明机理的核心内容,只有通过论辩、对话才能将碎片的证据拼接、还原为一副完整的事实“图景”；作为法律适用要素的法律论证,则主要是论题学取向的,是在具体问题上对实质性理由的展示和权衡。在实践考察部分,从中国的司法实践出发,寻求一种“自下而上”的路径,由现实可查的细节入手,逐步攀登,提高理论的“梯度”。这样做,一来,是为了增强理论的实践性,寻找与中国司法的结合点；二来,也是为建构中国本土法律方法体系,做一些基础性的准备工作。案例研究作为一种法律方法的实证性研究,既是法律适用理论的实践准备,又是实践本身,更是对实践的反思；因而,是考察中国司法实践的有效方式。基于此,本文选择了《最高人民法院公报》中近300件民事案例作为初步分析的对象,面向法律适用的要素——法源与法律发现的方法、事实认定的方法、法律解释的方法、法律论证的方法,展开具有一定深度的“描述”。并在此基础上,深化讨论：其一,对裁判文书载体(裁判理由)进行反思与重构。其二,案例研究虽然立基于细节的考察,但其重要的贡献则应当是形成司法实践的整体形象。从这个角度上说,官方所持的“法律观”具有明显的“形式化”倾向；另一方面,同时又可察觉到在具体个案中,法官具有后果取向的“实用主义”态度。这也提示我们,应重审当下中国司法的复杂性,以及理论与实践的互动关系。其三,站在法治论和司法现代化的高度,对当下中国的司法实践与法律方法论的研究展开反思。我们既要看到法律方法是司法现代化的技术之维,又需要认识到其本身的限度。因为,法律方法本身的性质决定了它能够维护法治的正常运行,却无法有力地推动法治进程,更谈不上“拯救法治”。进一步说,在当下中国的语境中,调试法律适用的理念以及建构法律适用的理论模式,都必须建立在司法现实之上,亦即需要在理论建构与司法实践之间展开“反思平衡”,在增强司法回应社会的能力同时,提高司法本身的品格。更多还原

【Abstract】 The theoretical framework of judicial application of law is a basic problem of legal methodology. What’s more, emphasis on the practical theory and construction of system of legal method in China must be based on empirical study of Chinese contemporary judicial practice. The context of theoretical study in this article uses the tradition of civil law system and Chinese judicial practice as a frame of reference. So, the theoretical study is closely related with the practical investigation.In the theory part, the analytic framework of "Ideology-Model-Elements" is applied. It follows the approach of "from top to bottom" to discuss problems:debating about ideology of the judicial decision, theoretical model transformation and the elements reconstruction under legal argumentation-reasoning model. In general, argumentation-reasoning model of legal application has the theoretical advantage. In the problem of ideology of judicial decision, there are two sets of implicit contradiction. The first one is the argument on "judicial law-making"(or the judges’ discretion) between ideology of the bound judicial decision and ideology of the free judicial decision. Second, it is the potential tension inside ideology of the legal and rational judicial decision. Specifically, it is a controversy between authority of law and rationality of law on the philosophy of law, and also a debate between legislative power and judicial power on the political science. From view of tradition of civil law system, the ideology of the legal and rational judicial decision is a better choice. In the problem of theoretical models of legal application, four theoretical models are considered. They are judicial syllogism model, philosophical hermeneutics model, discretion model under legal reasoning and legal argumentation-reasoning model. By comparison, argumentation-reasoning model of legal application has theoretical advantage and should be able to implement the ideology of the legal and rational judicial decision. In my opinion, there are two main points of argumentation-reasoning model of legal application, which are "reasoning nucleus" and "dialectical tier "."Reasoning nucleus" mainly concerns about start-point and basic construction of legal reasoning. The former is about legal theory of formal and informal sources of law, and the latter concerns how these premises can support the conclusion. With constructing the rule of procedural argumentation,"dialectical tier" dedicates to clarify the obligation of argumentation of the participants. So, the theoretical model has characteristics of verifiability and evaluability, which makes the rational degree higher. In the aspect of the elements of legal application, on the one hand, the substance of the theoretical model of legal application is the overlapping "fractional decisions" of legal finding, legal interpretation, fact-finding, legal argumentation, interests measuring, filling-up legal loopholes, etc.; on the other hand, the relationship between these elements and the pattern of elements are different in different theoretical models of legal application. In the argumentation-reasoning model of legal application, legal finding is corresponding to pluralism of sources of law. Its core mission should be to do judicial recognition of norms and deal with conflicts of norms. Legal interpretation, as an authoritative legal argument, should be "subtraction" homework--giving up the "correctness guarantee" of justice and returning to the "nature" of releasing of legal norms meaning. Fact-finding should be clear about that the debate around fact is the core mechanism of judicial proof, because only through debate and dialogue can those fragments of evidence be spliced and reduced into a "picture" of complete facts. Legal argumentation, as an element of legal application, is mainly related to topoi-oriented, a display and balance on substantive reasons of one specific issues.In the practical inspection section and the context of Chinese contemporary judicial practice, this article attempts to explore an approach of "from bottom to top". That is, the research work begins from judicial practice of details. And it should prepare for the "theoretical ascent". There are two purposes of this research work. Firstly, it looks for the combination of theory and practice; secondly, it makes preparations for construction of system of legal methods in China. Case study, as an empirical research of legal methodology, is both practical preparation of legal application theories and the practice itself at the same time. In addition, it is also a reflection of practice. So, it is an available way to inspect china’s judicial practice. Thus, this paper chooses nearly300civil cases from the "Supreme Court Bulletin (2004-2011)" as the preliminary analysis object. The main work is to describe the elements of legal application deeply, which are legal finding, fact-finding, legal interpretation and legal argumentation. What’s more, it discusses several following main problems on basis of cases study. Firstly, the judicial referee documents (judgment reasons) should be reflected and reconstructed. Secondly and more importantly, although the case empirical study is based on the investigation of details, its primary contribution is forming an overall image of judicial practice. From this point on,"idea of law" held by the official has a clear "formal" tendency. From another point of view, the judge has "pragmatism" attitude of consequences orientation in specific cases. It also suggests that we should review the complexity of judicial reality, and the interactive relationship between legal theory and judicial practice. Finally, it reflects on Chinese contemporary judicial practice and study of legal methods, standing on the point of the theory of rule of law and judicial modernization. On the one hand, it has to be realized that law method is the technological essence of judicial modernization. On the other hand, the nature of legal method determines its ability to maintain the normal operation of the rule of law, but not to facilitate the process of the rule of law as a strong impetus, let alone to "save the rule of law". Thus, its limitation must be recognized clearly. Further, in the context of contemporary China, debugging of the ideology of judicial decision and constructing the theoretical model of legal application must be built on judicial reality, which requires keeping reflective "equilibrium" between the theory construction and judicial practice. In conclusion, to enhance the judiciary ability to satisfy the social needs and improve the judicial quality itself as well is the ultimate goal.更多还原