摘要: |
学界和实务界对阅核制存在认识分歧,分歧的根源是如何看待正当程序与实体公正的关系。若认为实体正当性来源于程序正当性,会质疑阅核制;若认为实体正当性可以独立于程序正当性,则未必会质疑阅核制。从认识论的角度来看,阅核制以理性主义认识论为基础,认为应该会有一个具有真理性的裁判方案在等待被发现。但即使是理性主义认识论也承认绝对的真理很难到达,当案件无法在真理性判断的基础上达成时,裁判的正当性只能通过正当的诉讼程序来得到保证。从现象学的视角出发,正当的裁判应当是通过诉讼程序对案件所形成的具有“主体间性”的认识结论,因此实体正当性不仅由程序正当性提供担保,实际上也只能通过程序正当性才能生产出来。基于此,程序的正当性就体现在它能够促成具有“主体间性”的裁判结论的形成。哈贝马斯的交往行为理论可以为建构这样的程序提供支撑。阅核制不仅违背了诉讼程序的正当性,实际上也不能增加裁判在实体上的正当性。应通过完善诉讼程序机制来增强诉讼程序的正当性,通过增强诉讼程序的正当性来提升裁判结果的正当性。 |
关键词: 阅核制 司法认识论 正当程序 实体公正 |
DOI: |
分类号: |
基金项目: |
|
Epistemological Review of “Review System” |
Duan Housheng
|
|
Abstract: |
There is a divergence between academics and practitioners on the review system, which is rooted in how the relationship between due process and substantive justice is perceived. Those who believe that substantive justice comes from procedural justice may oppose the review system, while those who believe that substantive justice can be guaranteed independently of procedural justice may not. From an epistemological point of view, the review system is based on rationalist epistemology, which believes that there should be a truthful adjudication program waiting to be found out. But rationalist epistemology also recognizes that absolute truth is hard to reach. If a judicial conclusion cannot always be reached on the basis of truth, its legitimacy can only be guaranteed by due process. From the perspective of phenomenology, the legitimate judicial decision should be the cognitive conclusion with inter-subjectivity, so the litigation procedure which can lead to inter-subjectivity is the due process. Habermas' theory of communicative action can provide a theoretical basis to construct such a procedure. The review system allows the higher trial power to make judgment on judicial conclusion arbitrarily, which is not beneficial to contribute to the inter-subjectivity of judicial decisions, not only violates procedural legitimacy but also cannot increase substantive justice. The legitimacy of the litigation process should be enhanced by improving the litigation procedural mechanism, thereby further enhancing the legitimacy of the adjudication results. |
Key words: Review System, Judicial Epistemology, Due Process, Substantive Justice |