讼师何以非法——以司法类型理论为视角的分析  

作　　者：陈刚[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海海事大学法学院

出　　处：《荆楚法学》2024年第6期137-148,共12页Jingchu Law Review

摘　　要：讼师是中国传统司法的重要参与者,但历代皆遭严加禁绝。“讼师何以非法”,成为众多研究者关注的焦点。借助达玛什卡的司法类型理论,以及职业社会学的职业系统理论,有助于推进对该问题的分析。达玛什卡认为,在科层式、政策实施型司法中,官员会表现出强烈的“职务独占性”倾向,包括诉讼当事人在内的诉讼主体,被视为被动的案件信息来源。官员们极度排斥其他群体对诉讼过程的介入。这与职业社会学所揭示的职业生态系统中相近职业的竞争、职业成长的有利契机在于存在“职业空位”等现象,若合符节。科层式官僚体制对“职业空位”的垄断,政策实施型司法类型所导致的官员的“职务独占性”倾向,无疑都是造成讼师非法的重要原因。Litigation masters have historically played a significant role in traditional Chinese judicial processes,yet the governments of various dynasties have consistently sought to strictly forbid their activities.The question,“Why have litigation masters been deemed unlawful?”has thus become a central concern for many researchers.A more nuanced analysis of this issue can be achieved by employing Damaška’s judicial typology theory alongside professional system theory from professional sociology.Damaška points out that within the hierarchical ideal and policy-implementing model,officials strongly favor“official exclusivity”.Litigants and other participants in the legal process are perceived merely as passive sources of case information,while officials exhibit a marked resistance to external involvement in litigation.This perspective aligns with the findings of professional sociology,which highlight competition among closely related professions within an occupational ecosystem,and how opportunities for professional growth often hinge on the existence of“vacancies”within that ecosystem.The hierarchical ordering’s monopoly over“professional vacancies”,and the policy-implementing model’s inclination toward“official exclusivity”,are undoubtedly key factors contributing to the unlawful status of litigation masters.

关 键 词：讼师 司法类型 职务独占性 职业管辖权冲突 

分 类 号：D929[政治法律—法学] D916