民俗习惯的司法适用

【作者】 吕复栋；

【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】 近现代以来,我国的法律制定受西方法律文化的影响极大,重移植、轻本土是我国当代立法的主要特征。过于漠视固有的传统法律文化,使我国当代立法与本土法律文化渐行渐远。法律移植过程中出现的种种不适现象不断显现,其中重要的表现就是在某些特殊情况下,国家法的司法适用不能取得预期的社会效果。当前这种带有强制性特点的制度变迁与我国传统法律文化的完全融合难以在短期内达成,作为社会“调节器”之一的民俗习惯的法源地位及在司法实践中适用的状况将长期存在。尽管在现实的司法实践中已有部分地区的部分司法机关将民俗习惯引入司法,但这只是沧海一粟,甚至有些地区的司法机关片面排斥民俗习惯的司法适用。基于我国当下的国情、社情、民情以及司法状况,应将民俗习惯的司法适用提升到一个普适性的司法层面,作为一个一般性的司法规则来看待,从而指导司法实践,做到“案结事了”,促进社会治理创新,实现社会和谐稳定,进而弘扬传统法律文化,推动法制本土化发展,加快法制现代化进程。民俗习惯是民俗和习惯的总称,包含民俗和习惯两者的所有内容,它们之间是一种从属关系。民俗习惯既是指社会公众个人、社会团体组织或整个社会的传统风俗和礼节,也是指特定的区域范围内,有着相同或者相似的社会物质和精神生活、相同或者相似的历史文化传统、在同一个群体范围内被历代民众共同遵守的行为模式或行为规范,例如风俗习惯、民族习惯、交易习惯和社会规则等。古今中外,对于民俗习惯的法源地位、司法适用条件、司法适用效力众说纷纭、争议不断。从法的来源、根源和源泉的角度看,无论在私法领域还是公法领域,民俗习惯都具有法源地位。民俗习惯的司法适用条件,不必依据学界的“二要件说”和“五要件说”,只需满足四个条件即可,即该民俗习惯必须具有法律的规范意义,不得违反法律的基本原则和基本价值,经人们长期反复适用,人人都有遵守的意愿。民俗习惯的司法适用效力在不同法域适用可采取不同的规则。在公法领域,成文法的效力优于民俗习惯。在私法领域,当事人所为法律行为的内容包含民俗习惯的,约定优先；当事人就民俗习惯没有约定且不违反法律的强制性规定时,民俗习惯效力优先。当民俗习惯违反法律的基本原则时,成文法效力优先。从理论上看,民俗习惯的司法适用具有合理性、合法性和必要性。合理性方面,经济上的落后商品经济、政治上的宗法制度束缚、文化上的中庸之道以及立法上的私法伦理化和公法化是民俗习惯产生的社会根源。民俗习惯所蕴含的“民族情感”是民俗习惯司法适用合理性的心理基础,我国民俗习惯的发展变化无论在哪个历史阶段,都受到该阶段“民族精神”的影响,特别表现在“调处息讼为主,情理兼顾为要”对立法的渗透以及“俗、礼、法”三者的关系。自发秩序是民俗习惯司法适用合理性的社会根源,民俗习惯的产生属于自发秩序,从古至今,“以和为贵”都属于民俗习惯的核心内容,“以和为贵”和“调处息讼”也是我国司法实践活动的主要特征。合法性方面,主权者意志是民俗习惯司法适用合法性的政治基础。“私法自治”和“意思自决”是民俗习惯司法适用合法性的法理基础。国家法与民俗习惯的相互交融是民俗习惯司法适用合法性的制度基础。民俗习惯的“规范性”符合民俗习惯司法适用合法性的逻辑要求。必要性方面,民俗习惯司法适用是填补制定法调整功能不足的现实需要,是实现社会和谐的内在需求,是创新社会治理的重要手段。西方国家民俗习惯司法适用的路径主要包括：法律对民俗习惯的效力作一般性规定,在法律中具体规定民俗习惯优先于制定法适用,法官自由裁量适用民俗习惯,通过民俗习惯的司法适用形成法律原则或规则。当前我国民俗习惯司法适用的路径主要包括：将民俗习惯纳入国家制定法,最高法院制定司法解释吸收民俗习惯,地方法院制定指导意见或进行民俗习惯汇编,典型案例指导,以及法官自由裁量权的运用。民俗习惯在公法领域的司法实践中受到极大的限制,在私法领域有很大的适用空间。主要的原因在于公法更多的是体现国家意志,是国家行为活动的领域；而民俗习惯更多的是体现民间意志,是私人意志“尽情释放”的领域。民俗习惯作为法律的间接渊源,其司法适用必须满足四个条件：首先,必须具有法律规范意义,具有“规范性”；其次,不得违反法律的基本原则,要符合社会公德和公序良俗的要求,没有侵犯公共利益或他人合法权益；再次,必须经人们反复适用,长期存在；最后,必须人人都有遵守的意愿,为特定区域的人们所普遍认可。不是所有的民俗习惯均可以司法适用,必须具备规则性、法律特质、不违反法律的基本原则和不违反公序良俗以及社会公共利益的条件。民俗习惯司法适用的一般流程为当事人主张民俗习惯或法官根据释明权提出民俗习惯,当事人双方进行质证,司法机关适用民俗习惯并进行说理。民俗习惯司法适用的一般证明规则包括：当事人举证证明、法院依职权举证证明和法庭质证。对于已经被国家明确认可并吸纳入制定法之中的民俗习惯,具有法律的性质,人民法院可直接用来裁判案件,无需证明。对于没有被国家明确认可并吸纳入制定法之中的民俗习惯,或者在其他规范性文件中也查找不到的民俗习惯,当事人自己提供并证明,或法院依职权查证。实践中识别程序的提起应当包括当事人主张和法院提起两条途径,识别的内容包括事实识别、规范识别和效力识别,识别的标准有真实性、正当性、普适性、合理性和关联性。民俗习惯的应用可以是直接适用、替代适用、变通适用、补充适用和结合适用五种方式。民俗习惯与国家法在司法实践中冲突的原因主要表现在法律观念的冲突、规则与制度的冲突以及调控纠纷方式手段的冲突。解决的原则主要包括良俗原则、社会效果原则和现代化原则。在司法实践中,民俗习惯司法适用的问题成因主要是：民俗习惯自身的模糊性、法官主观认知的差异、良俗与恶俗判别难度较大、法官自由裁量权的滥用、法律效果社会效果的兼顾之难以及地域的限制六个方面。对于上述问题可以从以下几个方面着手解决：对民俗习惯进行整理和汇编、符合法律的基本精神、摒弃恶俗、对法官的自由裁量权进行限制、以社会效果为主法律效果为辅以及上级司法机关进行司法指导等。更多还原

【Abstract】 It’s a common view that one of the most significant characteristic of China’s law making is its transplantation style. Nearly all parts of Chinese written law were transplanted from the western country since the19th century. The traditional Chinese legal culture count for little during the law making, but the look down upon local culture has caused several severe issues. One of these issues is that lots of the law enforcement can not get the end they supposed to, this is a big matter we even can not settle in a short time. Under this circumstances, Social conventions, like other types of norm, are commonly taken to provide reasons for action, and have an important impact on judicial decision, should be invested in research. There are so many confusions and misunderstandings about social conventions in both theoretical and practical aspects, but at the same time the study (about social conventions) is not in popular demand. The main purpose I want to address here then is furthering the study about social conventions. I will argue, its not right to refuse to use social conventions in judicial decision, on the contrary, it should be a general legal obligation to lawyers.Conventions are one of the most ubiquitous phenomena of our social lives. They are constitutive elements of numerous practices we engage in. A social convention is a regularity widely observed by some group of agents. They are explicit agreements such as promises or contracts, enacted either by parties to the convention or by people suitably related to those parties.My aim is about the judicial use of social conventions. To make clear what is at stake, I divided my doctoral dissertation into several parts. First, I will begin by elucidating the social conventions’s status as an important source of law. Its validity varies from private law to public law. In the scope of public law, the statutes have priority over social conventions, while in the scope of private law, the contrary is the case, especially when law meets loopholes.From the perspective of theoretical aspect, the judicial use of social conventions has its rationality, legality and necessity. Our Chinese has a long history looking after harmony and developed its own way to solve disputes. It is a good heritage which we should inherit by following social conventions in court and definitively a wise way to handle the relationship between chinese traditional culture and the modern legal system. In addition, the supportable will of sovereign set up the political foundation for using social conventions in judicial decision, private autonomy set up the justification foundation for using social conventions and legal precedent and even the statues set up the institutional foundation for using it. What’s more, apply social conventions into judicial decision can create minimum cost to get the maximum benefit.Then, in Section two, I will lay out there are at least four conditions need to be satisfied before applying social conventions into the trial (being normative, the coherence of legal system, generally followed by subjects, indorsed by subjects). General obligation to use social conventions in judicial decision does not mean must apply social conventions in every case and every situation. Thirdly, giving careful understanding of the concept of social conventions, I do figure out that the best way to use social conventions in judicial decision is to introduce social conventions into statutes by judicial interpretation, set up the uniform reports of cases collected by the Supreme Court and follow it, make the best use of judicial discretion. In specific case, before judge use social conventions, he need to recognize the convention and embody it, then verify the validity of convention, elucidate it in the case context, and judge can use social conventions in at least five different ways.The conflict between social conventions and the statues in Chinese judicial decision, come to the point, is the conflict between two different ideas about the nature of law. We will surely run into some stone walls when we use social conventions in judicial decision with different issues, such as the vague of conventions, the capability to understand conventions, abuse of judicial discretion and so on, troubles are not the reason we can refuse to follow social conventions, in contrast, we should be positive to solve those issues in several ways, and those will further our understanding of the concept of law and harmony.更多还原