【作者】 孙光宁；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 关于可接受性的研究在很多人文社会科学中都有所涉及,也日益受到法律方法论研究的关注。无论是法学外部的哲学、语言学或者其他学科,还是法学内部的立法、司法和执法之间,都对可接受性有所界定。综合以上界定,我们可以得到关于可接受性的一些核心特征,首先,可接受性问题广泛的存在于社会科学的各种学科之中,其次,受众(听众)本位是可接受性的最重要特征。无论是对理论还是对事实的接受,总是需要存在特定的主体,受众当仁不让地扮演起这一角色。第三,可接受性总是带有折中的色彩或者因素。由于可接受性总是从受众本位的角度出发,而受众自身又具有多样性的特征,满足受众的多样性是难以通过单一方案或者结论予以应对的,特别是面对着疑难问题的时候,各种视角和观念很可能会发生严重冲突。第四,不确定性也是可接受性的重要特征之一。这一点与折中特征有着类似之处。面对复杂的受众,要获得其接受必然采取灵活多样的措施,第五,可接受性推崇形式与实质的分离,因为为了获得受众的接受,多种复杂形式的手段都有可能被动用,而这些形式上的手段与其背后的目的很有可能是分离的。而法律方法论内的可接受性有多种理论来源,主要包括新修辞学和非形式逻辑等等,其在法律方法论的研究中逐渐受到重视,有着社会原因、法律原因和学术原因。以上第一章的内容主要是从宏观上对法律方法论内的可接受性做一个总体性介绍。从法律方法的实践性角度来说,在基本上确立的可接受性的目标之后,问题的关键就在于如何在司法过程中实现可接受性,这也是本文主要论述的部分。笔者将实现可接受性的路径分为宏观架构和微观方法两个层面,分别通过第二章到第五章予以介绍。第二章主要介绍司法过程中的听众。这是从可接受性的核心特征中引申而来的。司法过程中的各方参与者,主要包括法律职业群体、当事人和一般公众,都是司法过程中的听众,也是可接受性的对象。就法律职业群体(法律解释共同体)来说,虽然从借用韦伯和鲍曼对共同体的分析可以看到,利益上的分裂阻碍着法律解释共同体的形成,但是,我们也应当看到,出于职业上的共同利益,从最低限度开始建构法律解释共同体还是完全有可能的。本章的内容扩展了以往理论中仅仅将当事人以及社会公众作为听众的局限,将法官也列入听众的范围,因为后者是前者所要争取的对象。要获得作为理想听众的法官对本方观点的接受,我们需要对其特征和要求进行深入而细致的分析其中比较突出的共同特征即“共性人格”包括：首先,在知识层面上,作为读者的法官应当具备对法律体系与法律渊源的准确掌握。其次,从思维层面而言,法官必须带有法律思维的前见来阅读案件和规范文本。再次,就技术层面来说,法官需要把握司法过程中各种法律方法的运行方式。最后,在心理层面上,法官应当向其预设的“理想人格”不断努力。面对当事人,法官从快捷解决纠纷、保证自身成绩的角度出发,也需要尽可能地获得当事人对判决结果的接受。一方面,虽然运用诉讼权利是所有当事人的共性,但是,不同的当事人作为听众对法官的影响也是相当迥异的。另一方面,在司法制度中,已经有多种设计意在提升当事人对裁判结果的可接受性。无论是证据开示,还是法庭辩论,都是为了使得当事人(及其代理人)能够透彻地了解裁判结果作出的过程及其依据,进而接受最终的裁判结果。应该说,如果能够得到充分利益,既有的司法制度就能够很大程度上实现当事人对裁判结果的接受。总之,在司法过程中,法官和当事人实质上互为听众,既相互制约又相互争取,共同对司法过程做出具有影响力的判断。听众的存在界定了可接受性的场域和背景,而第三章中的共识则是实现可接受性的出发点。听众的存在提供了无限的信息,而共识是听众的观念中普遍存在的核心观点,整个司法过程及其结果的论证都必须建立在这一基础之上。广义上的共识可以包括最终的裁判结论,这种意义上的共识经过了整个诉讼程序的运行,既定的结果只具有静态的意义。一般意义上的共识主要是诉讼结果出现之前,特别是在司法过程中经历不断修正的共识。从启动司法程序的角度来说,共识的缺位将使得纠纷当事人不会选择将司法作为其解决纠纷的方式,更不可能启动司法程序。共识是论证能得以进行并深入讨论下去的前提性条件,没有共识,任何纠纷解决机制都无法展开,更不用说纠纷的妥善解决。从目前的司法权运行状态来说,司法过程中共识的形成主要有法官释明和当事人协商两种主要途径。就前者来说法官在司法过程中形成共识主要是通过其释明权来进行的。释明权制度主要是对诉讼过程中的案件事实及其法律规范进行解释和说明,特别是就当事人提出的有关疑问,法官应当进行较为充分地阐释。就后者来说,当事人才是判决直接影响的对象,如果能够在司法过程中达成比较广泛的共识,那么,这种共识可以直接成为判决的内容。甚至,如果当事人能够就纠纷解决达成共识性的意见,那么,他们根本无需进入司法程序。从这个角度来说,当事人之间也可以通过包括司法程序在内的多种途径进行协商,从而增加其共识的内容,为形成可以接受的判决(或者处理结果)而奠定基础。就中国的司法环境而言,随着法律职业群体的不断成长,特别是其中律师行业的迅速发展,当事人可以借助其力量和资源实现更专业和便捷的沟通协商。所以,我们也同样需要对通过当事人协商而形成的司法共识予以关注。在民事法律中,合同法是对共识(合意)尤为强调的。传统的刑事法律强调国家对个人的单方面制裁和惩罚,一般并不允许协商,更难以容忍共识的存在,被告多是被动地应对。但是,以辩诉交易和刑事和解为代表的新型刑事制度却对以上传统的观点进行了部分修正。在具备了基本的框架之后,实现可接受性还需要一些具体的法律方法。鉴于目前法律方法的研究现状,法律解释和法律论证的研究相对成熟,这也是本文主要采用的两种实现可接受性的具体方法。第四章主要从权威视角分析法律解释如何为实现可接受性服务的。权威的内容、种类和程度对可接受性的影响是巨大而直接的。在现代社会及其司法过程中,权威能够提升可接受性的根基在于对程序及其相关制度的强调和推崇。学者们对权威的重视,从表面上看是为统治寻找合法性,但是更深层的含义是为了使得社会对统治予以接受。也就是说,对权威的重视及其研究实质上目的是为了更好地实现可接受性。从超凡魅力权威到传统型权威再到法治型权威,其中程序的作用愈发重要。随着社会的整体转型,外在强制已经不再成为唯一实现接受的手段,而通过程序实现接受已经成为普遍的呼声。通过对近年不断涌现的社会热点案件的社会关注可以看到,社会大众已经不再仅仅关注到案件的最终结果(虽然结果仍然非常重要),而是将案件的进程也纳入到关注的范围之内。当然,非职业群体的普罗大众能否以及在多大程度上理解司法程序是另外一个问题,但是,对诉讼过程的逐渐关注已经初显了程序权威的端倪。在既有的整体权力制度和社会现实规则不可能在短时间内发生重大调整的背景下,从可接受性理论的角度来说,我们应当强调通过方法论上的努力来树立司法的权威。无论是整体的司法制度、法律制度和政治体系,还是社会中既存的某些明规则与潜规则,都无法单独依靠司法自身的力量进行改变。基于此,司法者能够努力的方向应当是尽可能地在既有的范围内提升司法过程及其结果的质量,使其获得最大限度的可接受性。法律解释的各种具体解释方法,例如文义解释、历史解释、体系解释和社会解释等等,实质上都是借用了不同类型的权威为司法过程所运用,进而达到提升判决可接受性的目的。第五章主要从法律论证的主要目的——证立的角度来解读可接受性。证立理论在法律方法中的地位和作用表现在如下方面：首先,证立理论能够保证法律方法的目的性指向。其次,证立理论能够整合法律方法自身的体系构建。再次,证立理论能够在一定限度上防止司法腐败。最后,证立理论于法治中充分发挥程序作用的精神具有高度的一致性。证立的主要内容是实现某一过程或者结论的正当性,某一过程或者结论因此才能被接受。也就是说,正当性是实现接受的一个理由而非全部。正当性的内容随着时代发展总是处于流变之中,而不变的却是其服务的可接受性。法律论证的主要方法包括逻辑论证、对话论证和修辞论证,其中,逻辑论证方法和对话论证方法实质上可以归于修辞论证方法,进而也是为实现可接受性服务的。而所有论证方法的直接目的是为了实现证立,而证立的更深层目的仍然是为了实现可接受性。从这个角度来说,法律论证的实质效果就是因为证立而实现接受,在司法过程中运用以上几种具体方法反过来也有助于裁判过程和结果的接受。简而言之,本文的主体结构和内容可以概括为：“基于听众,分析共识,运用方法,实现接受”。当然,无论是在理论体系建构还是在司法实践运用上,可接受性还存在着不少的问题,也必然会引起若干质疑。任何单一理论都不可能“包打天下”,我们应当采取的态度是细致地分析质疑,理性的建构体系,以期在司法实践中尽绵薄之力。更多还原

【Abstract】 The researches concerned with acceptability which present in many theories of social science have attracted the attention of the jurists who research into legal methodology. There are definitions to acceptability not only in subject out of jurisprudence, such as philosophy, linguistics and so on, but also in legislation, justice and law enforcement interior of jurisprudence. In view of these definitions above, we could summarize some core characteristics of acceptability. In the first place, problems of acceptability consist in social sciences widely. Secondarily, audience standard is the most important characteristic of acceptability. Confronted with theories and facts, subject is always specific and often embodied in audience. Thirdly, there are always compromise characters in acceptability. In view of that audience standard is the starting point of acceptability, and there are various audiences existing, it is difficult to find a single scheme in response to the diversity of the audiences, especially to puzzling questions. Under the circumstances, a variety of perspectives and ideas are likely to be a serious conflict. Fourthly, uncertainty is an important feature of the acceptability. It is similar with the compromise as a characteristic. To be accepted, flexible measures must be used in face of complex audiences. Fifthly, the acceptability respected the separation of form and substance. Purposes of the flexible measures are likely to be separated. Sources of the acceptability within the legal methodology are various. New Rhetoric and informal logic are primary, they are getting more attention in legal methodology research for social reasons, legal reasons and academic reasons. Over the first chapter is mainly a general introduction of the acceptability within the legal methodology macroscopically.The key question is how to achieve acceptability of the judicial process after basically establishing the goal of the acceptability from the practical point of view of legal methods. And this is the main part of this article. The paths to achieve acceptability can be divided in two dimensions in ChapterⅡto ChapterⅤ——macroscopical construction and microcosmic method.The second chapter introduces the audience in the judicial process. It derived from the core characteristics of acceptability. The audiences including legal professional groups, parties and the general public also are objects of acceptability. In terms of the legal professional groups(legal interpretation community), interests hamper the interpretation of the law to split the formation of community, taking over the analysis of the community from Max Weber and Zygmunt Bauman. However, in consideration of the common interests of their own profession, the construction of legal interpretation community starting from a minimum is still entirely possible. This chapter extends the previous only to the parties and the public as a limited audience, the audience will be also included in the scope of the judge, as the latter is to fight for the former object. To get the judge as an ideal audience to accept this side of view, we need analysis their characteristics and requirements deeply. The more prominent common feature is "common personality". It includes that the judge should have the accurate of legal system and source of law in knowledge level firstly. Secondly, from the thinking level, the judges must thinking with the former see to read the case and legal norms. Thirdly, from the technical level, the judges need to grasp the various legal methods of operation mode in judicial process. Finally, from the psychological level, the judges should make great efforts to presupposed "ideal personality". Facing of the parties, the judges also need to get the parties acceptance as much as possible from the quick resolution of disputes and the guarantee of their performance point of view. On the one hand, although the use of right of action is common to all parties, but the influences from different parties are quite different. On the other hand, there are already a variety of designs intended to enhance the acceptability of the parties to judges in the justice system. Whether discovery, or court debate, is to enable the parties(and their agents) to comprehend the referee process and its basis, and then accept the final outcome of the ruling. If the existing judicial system can make people get the full benefit, it can achieve a large extent acceptability of the parties. In a word, judges and the parties are essentially listeners each other in judicial process. They both make influential judgments with mutual constraints and scramble.The presence of the audience defines the field and background of the acceptability, however, the consensus of the third chapter is the starting point to achieve acceptability. The presence of the audience provides unlimited information, and the consensus is the core concept of audience in common, the entire argumentation of judicial process and its results must be based on the consensus. Generalized consensus includes the final conclusions of the referee, it running through the entire proceedings, and the established results only have static significance. General sense of consensus mainly refers to the consensus before the outcome of proceedings, especially the consensus experiencing in the judicial process which are continuously revised. From the stand point of starting the judicial process, the omission of consensus will allow the parties do not choose justice as a way to resolve disputes, much less initiate judicial proceedings. Consensus is the precondition, so that argument can be carried out and discussed deeply. No consensus that any dispute settlement mechanism can not be started, let alone the proper settlement of disputes. From the view of the current running state of judicial power, the formation of consensus in judicial process has two main routes, those are the interpretation of judge and party consultations. In the former case, the consensus reached in the judicial process are mainly carried out through its power of interpretation. Aufklaeungsrecht system mainly explains the facts and legal norms in the proceedings. Judges should particularly explain the questions raised by the parties adequately. On the latter point, the parties are the direct affected objects of judgment. If a broader consensus is reached in the judicial process, it can be the content of a judgment directly. Even if the parties can reach a consensus on the nature of dispute settlement, they do not need access to the judicial process. From this point of view, the parties could consult with each other through a variety of ways including the judicial process to increase the content of their consensus for laying the foundation of the formation of an acceptable sentence. When it comes to the environment of China, parties can take advantage of their strength and resources to achieve a more professional and convenient communication and consultation, due to the continuous growth of the legal profession groups and the rapid development of the practice of law in particular. Therefore, we also need to pay attention to the consensus formed by the consultation of the parties. Consensus is particularly emphasized in contract law in civil areas. Traditional criminal law emphasizes the crackdown and penalties against individuals. Consultations are not allowed in criminal law, let alone tolerate the existence of a consensus. So the defendants respond passively at best. However, a new penal system represented by Plea Bargaining and victim-offender reconciliation has amended the traditional view of the above partly.After constructing the basic framework, the realization of acceptability also need some specific legal methods. Given the current status of the research of legal method, legal interpretation and legal argumentation are mature relatively, which is the two specific methods to achieve acceptability used in this paper. In the fourth chapter, the author analyses how legal interpretation serve achieve acceptability mainly from the authority perspective. The content, type and extent of authority affect the acceptability enormously and directly. In the modern society and its judicial process, the foundation of authority to enhance the acceptability is that putting emphasis on the procedures and related systems. The value that scholars place on authority, it’s surface is to find the legitimacy of the ruling, but the deeper meaning is to make society accept the ruling. That is, the important of authority and its research essentially aims to achieve better acceptability. From charismatic authority to the traditional authority and then to the rule-based authority, the role of program becomes more important. With the overall transformation of society, external force is no longer the only acceptable means of achieving, and achieved through process has become a popular call to acceptance. Through the emerging social hot cases can be seen that the general public have not only concerned about the final results of the case, but also the process of case, although the result is still very important. And of course, it is a separate issue if the non-professional groups to what extent can understand the judicial process or not. However, the gradual attention on the proceedings are now beginning the clues. Both the overall power system and the rules of social reality can not change significantly in a short time, in the background of this, from the perspective of acceptability theory, we should stress the importance of efforts to establish judicial authority through legal methodology. Whether the whole judicial system, legal system and political system, or some clear rules and unspoken rules existing, they can not change alone depending on the judicial power of its own. Based on this, the direction of the judiciary should be able to enhance the quality of the judicial process and the results as much as possible in the existing scope to maximize the acceptability. Specific interpretations of legal methodology including semantic interpretation, historical interpretation, systematic interpretation and social interpretation, are essentially applied for the judicial process by borrowing different types of authorities to achieve the purpose of enhancing the acceptability of judgments.In the fifth chapter, the author interprets acceptability mainly from the main purpose of legal argumentation angle. That is in terms of justification The status and role of justification express in the following aspects:first, it could ensure the purpose point of the legal method; second, it could integrate the construction of the system of legal methods of their own; thirdly, it can prevent corruption in the judiciary to a certain degree; finally, the spirit of the role it play in the program is highly consistent. The main content of justification is to achieve legitimacy of a process or conclusions, therefore, a process or conclusion can be accepted by people. In other words, legitimacy is a reason to achieve acceptable but not all. The content of legitimacy is always in flow with the times being, but the acceptability which legitimacy serves is invariable. The main methods of legal reasoning include logical argumentation, dialectical argumentation and rhetorical argumentation. Among them, the logical argument method and the dialectical argumentation method can be attributed to rhetorical argument essentially, and they are in serve to achieve acceptability. The immediate purpose of all the argumentation methods is to achieve justification, and a deeper purpose of justification is still to achieve acceptability. From this perspective, the real effect of the legal argumentation is due to justification to achieve acceptability. The exertion of the specific methods above helps the acceptance to referee process and results in turn.In short, the main structure and content of this article can be summarized as——based on audience, analyze the consensus, using methods to achieve acceptability. Of course, there are still many problems and queries in acceptability whether in theory system construction or in judicial practice. No single theory can go conqueringly. We should adopt the attitude that analyzing queries meticulously, constructing systems rationally, with a view of contributing to the judicial practice.更多还原