资本“俘获”地方司法了吗?——基于2018—2020年南山法院涉腾讯判决书的分析  

Has Economic Capital"Captured"Local Justice?An Analysis Based on the Judgments of Nanshan Court Involving Tencent from 2018 to 2020

作　　者：陈杭平[1] Chen Hangping

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（诉讼法学、司法制度）》2023年第6期136-152,共17页Procedural Law And Judicial Systems

摘　　要：“南山必胜客”之说流传甚广,反映了公众对资本是否已经或者正在“俘获”地方司法的关注和忧虑。易言之,随着腾讯等超级私营资本的崛起,一种“资本俘获型”司法地方保护主义是否正在形成正引发争议。通过对网上公开之涉腾讯判决书的定量分析以及围绕关键个案展开的扩展式定性分析,我们发现腾讯在南山法院的胜诉率没有媒体渲染得那么夸张,并无证据显示南山法院常态化地对其进行偏袒。中国地方法院的公正性大致值得信赖,民事司法改革正朝着更好而非更坏的方向发展。腾讯之所以更容易胜出,根本原因在于其是“法庭常客”,较之对方当事人拥有更多影响诉讼结果的资源。The saying of“Nanshan Indomitables”has been widely spread on the Internet,reflecting the Chinese public's concern about whether economic capital has“captured”or is“capturing”local justice.In a word,with the rise of Tencent and other super private companies,whether a capital-captured pattern of judicial local protectionism is taking shape has aroused controversy.Through the quantitative analysis of judgments involving Tencent published online and the expanded qualitative analysis of two key cases,it is found that Tencent's winning rate in Nanshan Court is not as exaggerated as the social media,and there is no clear evidence to show that Nanshan Court routinely favors or protect Tencent.Taking Nanshan Court as an example,the fairness of local courts in China is generally trustworthy,and the civil judicial reform is moving towards a better direction rather than a worse one.Tencent is more likely to win because it is a“repeat player”before local courts and has more resources to affect the outcome of litigation than the opposite parties.

关 键 词：“南山必胜客” 司法地方保护主义 胜诉率 法庭常客 诉讼能力 

分 类 号：D926.22[政治法律—法学]