刑事诉讼法学方法论再反思--以刑事诉讼构造论为中心  

Rethinking the Methodology of Criminal Procedure Law--On the Construction of Criminal Procedure

作　　者：琚明亮 孟凡骞[2] Ju Mingliang;Meng Fanqian(School of Law,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China;Journal of Criminal Investigation Police University of China,Criminal Investigation Police University of China,Shenyang 110854,Liaoning,China)

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院,北京100084 [2]中国刑事警察学院《中国刑警学院学报》编辑部,辽宁沈阳110854

出　　处：《学术探索》2021年第10期55-62,共8页Academic Exploration

基　　金：2018年度国家社会科学基金青年项目(18CFX029)。

摘　　要：在刑事诉讼法学研究中,规范法学倡导者将法解释学或法教义学奉为自己的主要研究志趣,社会法学主张者则将其在经验事实基础上的因果分析与模型建构作为自己的主要研究进路。但在刑事诉讼构造论这一重要的诉讼原理问题上,无论是埃斯曼的三分法理论,还是以帕克为代表的犯罪控制与正当程序模式,当然也包括格里菲斯所主张的第三模式等理论,其在面对纷繁复杂且日渐多变的司法运行环境,以及社会治理需要等综合因素共同作用下的法律实践时,在解释力上均体现出自身研究方法的不足与局限,并由此使其成为研究上述两种法学研究进路的最佳切入视角。Marked by the binary opposition between social science law and normative law,there has been an important discussion on the research methods of law in China.Taking the study of criminal procedure law as an example,there are both advocates of normative law and advocates of social science law.The former regards legal hermeneutics or legal dogmatics as their main research interest,while the latter does causal analysis and model construction on the basis of empirical facts as their main research approach.However,in the principle of criminal procedural structure,whether it is the theory of three points of Eismann,or the model of criminal control and due process represented by Parker,and of course,the third models advocated by Griffith is included as well,they have increasingly demonstrated the deficiencies of their own research methods in terms of explanatory power when facing complicated and increasingly changeable judicial environment and legal practice that is under the joint action of comprehensive factors.These limitations and shortages make the best perspective to study the above two approaches to legal research.

关 键 词：方法论 规范法学 社科法学 刑事诉讼构造论 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]