论司法裁判中具体化说理的方法论构造  

On the Methodological Structure of the Concretized Reasoning in Judicial Adjudication

作　　者：高尚 Gao Shang

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学

出　　处：《法制与社会发展》2025年第1期207-224,共18页Law and Social Development

基　　金：国家社会科学基金后期资助项目“司法裁判的说理与信服研究”(23FFXB009);中国政法大学青年拔尖人才培养支持计划的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：由回避说理导致的司法弱化是司法改革面临的重要难题,更是制约中国法治现代化进程的阻碍。能否对模糊性法律规定进行具体化说理,并且对照证据和案件事实进行分析论证,成为法官是否积极履行说理义务的重要判别标准。从重婚罪案例出发分析当前法官在面对模糊性法律规定时的说理策略、方式和所面临的困境,有助于充分展现具体化说理的必要性。具体化说理的实践路径分为两个层面:第一个层面是对模糊性法律规定进行具体化说理,其包括综合考察立法目的、对核心争议点进行论证以及扩充说理资源;第二个层面是结合案件事实和证据推进具体化说理,其主要借助案件事实进行类型化梳理以及通过动态体系的方式进行具体化分析,最终实现理、法、情的统一。Gao Shang;Inadequate judicial reasoning is a significant challenge to be addressed in judicial reform and poses the obstacles hindering the modernization of rule of law in China.The ability to provide concretized reasoning based on legal norms,analyze and demonstrate them in contrast to evidence and case facts has become an important criterion for judging whether judges actively fulfill their obligation to provide reasoning.Taking the judgment of bigamy as an example,analyzing the strategy,method,and difficulties of reasoning faced by judges when confronted with ambiguous legal provisions can fully demonstrate the necessity of specific reasoning.There are two dimensions to the practical pathway of concrete reasoning.Firstly,it involves the concrete reasoning of vague legal provisions through comprehensive consideration of legislative purposes,substantiation of core points,and expansion of reasoning resources.Secondly,it entails advancing concrete reasoning by integrating case facts and evidentiary acceptance.This is primarily achieved by utilizing case facts to facilitate categorical organization and through concrete analysis using a dynamic system approach,so as to achieve the unity of reason,law and sentiment.

关 键 词：裁判说理 模糊性法律规定 具体化说理 动态体系 案例 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]