本文選題：法律事實　切入點：敘事對抗　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 法律事實的形成必須依賴于證據(jù),但是,證據(jù)提供的僅僅是關(guān)于糾紛發(fā)生時的片段式的信息,只是事件,而不是一個連貫的豐滿的事實,而法律事實必須是一個“作為陳述的案件事實”。傳統(tǒng)法學(xué)理論認(rèn)為的只要證據(jù)齊全,并且符合證據(jù)法律和程序法律的規(guī)定,那么就可以依據(jù)相應(yīng)的法律規(guī)則進(jìn)行裁決的觀點是有失偏頗的。事實上,證據(jù)只是法律事實形成的必要條件而不是充分條件,是一個重要性因素而不是全部。在依據(jù)證據(jù)法和程序法認(rèn)定證據(jù)后,法官還必須根據(jù)這些證據(jù)所提供的片段式的信息重構(gòu)過去發(fā)生的與相關(guān)規(guī)則契合的法律事實,然后才能予以法律上的評價,賦予其法律上的后果。這就是一個法官依據(jù)依法確定了的證據(jù)“編造”符合法定事實構(gòu)成的故事的過程。在這個過程中,挑選證據(jù),不同程度的強(qiáng)調(diào)證據(jù),賦予證據(jù)各種意義成為法官編造故事的主要手段,而這也就是所謂的剪裁事實。在重構(gòu)過去發(fā)生的事實時,敘事、修辭成為主角,法官通過敘事賦予證據(jù)以邏輯順序與法律意義,使斷裂的證據(jù)提供的信息成為一個完整的故事。在一定意義上說,法律事實的形成就是重構(gòu)歷史的過程,故事構(gòu)造歷史,故事是表達(dá)這些原本性偶然事實的理想載體。 當(dāng)然,在法律事實的形成過程中存在著不同的敘事,因為過去發(fā)生的“故事”關(guān)乎著原告與被告的切身利益,甚至是身家性命,所以不同的主體會編造不同的故事,盡管依據(jù)的證據(jù)都是合法的,甚至是一樣的。之所以形成不同的故事,是因為不同的故事對應(yīng)著不同的法律規(guī)則,而不同的法律規(guī)則將賦予不同的故事以不同的評價,不同的后果,這種后果是不同的,當(dāng)事人都希望避免對自己不利的后果。所以審判的過程就是當(dāng)事人爭奪敘述過去的過程,法律上的辯論是為了爭奪講述過去之特權(quán)的一場斗爭。勝利者的權(quán)利便是用特定的含義去填充一則憲法條款、一條法律或一系列以往的判決,而那含義系從陳述其最初的情形及指定其在歷史上的地位以來就一直有了。正是在這不同的對抗的故事中,我們有了思考現(xiàn)代法治的合法性、法治與民主的關(guān)系,以及法律本身的優(yōu)勢與局限的進(jìn)路與素材。法律事實形成的背后有著驚人的斗爭、秘密,這是以往的研究所沒有揭示過的。在法律程序創(chuàng)立的空間內(nèi),法律事實是如何形成的,在法律事實形成的背后隱藏著什么,這是本文試圖揭示的問題。本文主要論述的是法官是如何形成法律事實的,以及在法律事實形成的背后隱藏著什么這一問題,所以本文當(dāng)然會論述到法律事實形成的兩個層面——獲得證據(jù)的層面與建構(gòu)事實的層面。同時,本文嘗試論述在法律事實的建構(gòu)過程中出現(xiàn)的平民話語與職業(yè)話語的對抗問題。本文試圖論述這種對抗暗含著現(xiàn)代法治的雙重張力——法治的內(nèi)在張力和法治的外在張力,從而法治的優(yōu)缺點與合法性與民主問題在這種對抗的過程中暴露出來,并試圖論述法官如何在此過程中面臨的尷尬處境。
[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.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D90

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 吳亞輝;法律精確性問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：1610045