中国传统司法如何处置“真伪不明”  

How to Deal with‘Unclear Facts of Cases'in Traditional Chinese Justice

作　　者：胡学军 Hu Xuejun

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学法律学院

出　　处：《中国法学》2022年第5期162-181,共20页China Legal Science

基　　金：2020年度国家社科基金一般项目“比较法视野下民事证据制度本土化研究”(项目批准号:20BFX094)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：客观证明责任问题存在于任何国家任何时期的诉讼制度中,这一论断并不适合古代中国。宋代相关判例中,法官在案件事实不清时存在着依道德规范来辅助事实判断的倾向。面对疑难案件,中国古代司法并不严格按形式逻辑思维得出最终结论,而往往将事实认定与法律适用混同于最后的裁判之中。欲理解中西对事实疑难案件迥异的处置方式及各自内在逻辑,唯有将目光投射到更广阔的制度背景上。现代证明责任理论的底流是实证主义法学思潮,而中国古代社会是一个功能未分化的社会,法律的儒家化及司法与行政一体化的特点使中国古代处置事实疑难案件的方法与西方近代证明责任制度存在隔膜。证明责任制度是一定社会发展阶段及特定法制模式与司法裁判模式下的产物。在证明责任制度本土化过程中,尤应注意其与现代司法理念及整体现代司法制度的协同发展。The assertion that the burden of proof exists in the litigation system of any country at any time is not suitable for ancient China.In the relevant cases of the Song Dynasty,judges tend to rely on moral norms to assist in the judgment of facts when the facts of the case are unclear.In the face of difficult cases,ancient Chinese judicature did not draw the conclusion according to formal logic thinking,but often confused fact finding and law application in the final judgment.To understand the different ways of dealing with difficult factual cases and their internal logic between China and the west,we should focus on their broader institutional background.The bottom stream of modern burden of proof theory is the trend of positivism law,while ancient Chinese society was the society with undifferentiated functions.The Confucianism of law and the integration of justice and administration made the method of handling difficult cases of facts in ancient China different from the western modern burden of proof system.The system of burden of proof is the product of a certain stage of social development and a specific legal model and judicial judgment model.In the process of localization of the burden of proof system in China,we should pay particular attention to the coordinated development with modem judicial ideas and the overall modern judicial system.

关 键 词：证明责任 疑案处置 真伪不明 法律儒家化 法律实证主义 

分 类 号：K22[历史地理—历史学] D929[历史地理—中国史]