法律事实形成的背后

发布时间：2018-03-14 06:29

本文选题：法律事实　切入点：叙事对抗　出处：《山东大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 法律事实的形成必须依赖于证据,但是,证据提供的仅仅是关于纠纷发生时的片段式的信息,只是事件,而不是一个连贯的丰满的事实,而法律事实必须是一个“作为陈述的案件事实”。传统法学理论认为的只要证据齐全,并且符合证据法律和程序法律的规定,那么就可以依据相应的法律规则进行裁决的观点是有失偏颇的。事实上,证据只是法律事实形成的必要条件而不是充分条件,是一个重要性因素而不是全部。在依据证据法和程序法认定证据后,法官还必须根据这些证据所提供的片段式的信息重构过去发生的与相关规则契合的法律事实,然后才能予以法律上的评价,赋予其法律上的后果。这就是一个法官依据依法确定了的证据“编造”符合法定事实构成的故事的过程。在这个过程中,挑选证据,不同程度的强调证据,赋予证据各种意义成为法官编造故事的主要手段,而这也就是所谓的剪裁事实。在重构过去发生的事实时,叙事、修辞成为主角,法官通过叙事赋予证据以逻辑顺序与法律意义,使断裂的证据提供的信息成为一个完整的故事。在一定意义上说,法律事实的形成就是重构历史的过程,故事构造历史,故事是表达这些原本性偶然事实的理想载体。当然,在法律事实的形成过程中存在着不同的叙事,因为过去发生的“故事”关乎着原告与被告的切身利益,甚至是身家性命,所以不同的主体会编造不同的故事,尽管依据的证据都是合法的,甚至是一样的。之所以形成不同的故事,是因为不同的故事对应着不同的法律规则,而不同的法律规则将赋予不同的故事以不同的评价,不同的后果,这种后果是不同的,当事人都希望避免对自己不利的后果。所以审判的过程就是当事人争夺叙述过去的过程,法律上的辩论是为了争夺讲述过去之特权的一场斗争。胜利者的权利便是用特定的含义去填充一则宪法条款、一条法律或一系列以往的判决,而那含义系从陈述其最初的情形及指定其在历史上的地位以来就一直有了。正是在这不同的对抗的故事中,我们有了思考现代法治的合法性、法治与民主的关系,以及法律本身的优势与局限的进路与素材。法律事实形成的背后有着惊人的斗争、秘密,这是以往的研究所没有揭示过的。在法律程序创立的空间内,法律事实是如何形成的,在法律事实形成的背后隐藏着什么,这是本文试图揭示的问题。本文主要论述的是法官是如何形成法律事实的,以及在法律事实形成的背后隐藏着什么这一问题,所以本文当然会论述到法律事实形成的两个层面——获得证据的层面与建构事实的层面。同时,本文尝试论述在法律事实的建构过程中出现的平民话语与职业话语的对抗问题。本文试图论述这种对抗暗含着现代法治的双重张力——法治的内在张力和法治的外在张力,从而法治的优缺点与合法性与民主问题在这种对抗的过程中暴露出来,并试图论述法官如何在此过程中面临的尴尬处境。
[Abstract]:The formation of legal facts must rely on evidence, but the evidence provides only a fragment about the dispute of the information, only events, rather than a coherent full of facts, and legal facts must be "as a statement of the facts of the case." the traditional law theory believes that as long as the evidence is complete, and in accordance with the provisions of evidence law and procedure law, then it can be settled in accordance with the rule of law point of view is biased. In fact, evidence is only a necessary condition for the formation of legal fact but not sufficient conditions, is an important factor but not all. Evidence in the evidence law and procedural law. Fit with the relevant rules of the legal fact that the judge must also fragment information reconstruction based on the evidence provided by the past, then you can comment on law, given its legal The consequences. This is a judge pursuant to the evidence of "fabricated" conforms to the legal facts which the course of the story. Selecting evidence in the process, emphasize evidence in different degree, giving evidence become the main means of the story, this is the so-called trimming narrative in fact. Reconstruction of past facts, rhetoric, become the protagonist, judge through narrative gives evidence in a logical order and legal significance, to provide evidence of fracture information has become a complete story. In a certain sense, the formation of the legal fact is the process of Reconstructing History, story structure of history, is the ideal carrier for the expression of these stories the original incidental facts.
Of course, in the form of legal fact of the existence of different narrative, as happened in the past "story" is related to the vital interests of the plaintiff and the defendant, even man's life and family possessions so different subjects, made a different story, although the evidence is legitimate, and even the same. The reason for the formation of a different story that is because different stories correspond to different legal rules, but different legal rules will give a different story to different evaluation, different consequences, the consequences are different, the parties wish to avoid their adverse consequences. So the trial process is described for the parties over the course of the law, the debate is to fight a fight about past privilege. The winner of the right is to fill a constitutional clause with specific meaning, a law or a series of the judgment, And the meanings from the statement of the initial case and specify its place in history has been there. It is different in this confrontation in the story, we have to think the legitimacy of the modern rule of law, the relationship between rule of law and democracy, into the road and material advantages and limitations as well as the law itself. Behind the formation of legal fact has a surprising secret, struggle, this is not revealed in previous research. Founded in legal proceedings within the space, the legal fact is how to form, what lies behind the formation in the legal fact, the dissertation attempts to reveal the problems. This paper mainly discusses the judge how to form the legal facts, and legal facts behind the formation of hidden in the question of what, so this will certainly be two aspects to the formation of legal fact, evidence level and construction level. With the facts When we try to against the problem of civilian discourse and discourse construction process in this occupation in the legal fact. This paper tries to discuss the antagonism implies the external tension of double tension - the rule of law of the modern rule of law is an inherent tension and the rule of law, the rule of law so as to expose the advantages and shortcomings of legitimacy and democracy in the fight in the face, and tries to discuss how to judge in the process of the embarrassing situation.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D90

【引证文献】