透视释明制度背后的权威逻辑:为积极释明辩护  

The Authoritative Logic Behind the System of Judicial Clarification:A Defense of Proactive Clarification

作　　者：赵志超[1] ZHAO Zhichao

机构地区：[1]山东大学法学院

出　　处：《中国政法大学学报》2025年第2期148-159,共12页Journal Of CUPL

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目“民法典权利实现视角下民事诉讼程序运行机制优化”(项目批准号:23BFX024)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：积极释明在诉讼实务中日渐式微的现象值得认真对待。透视释明制度背后的权威逻辑,《证据规定》第35条的废弃理由难以成立。一方面,法官的积极释明属于实践权威范畴,其本身未曾许诺释明内容无误,也不会因法官偶尔的犯错造成法官释明指令权威正当性的丧失,法官积极释明错误不可接受的批评不能成立;另一方面,法官的积极释明并没有侵犯当事人的自治空间,只是对当事人理性能力的补足,本质上促进了而非替代当事人的自我决定,法官积极释明有违中立性的质疑得以消解。法官积极释明有其必须存在的制度理由,建基于平等原则基础上的处分原则与辩论原则能够富有效率地型塑案件实体,但必须受到公平原则的限制,这种矫正是法律体系融贯性的内在要求,也是积极释明作为“法理型”权威的来源。Positive clarification is increasingly disappearing in litigation practice,which is worth taking seriously.The authoritative logic behind the system of perspective interpretation,the reason for the abandonment of article 35 of the“Evidence Provisions”is untenable.On the one hand,the positive clarification of the judge belongs to the category of practical authority,which does not promise that the content of the clarification is necessarily correct,nor will it cause the loss of the legitimacy of the authority of the judge’s clarification instruction due to the occasional mistake of the judge.Therefore,some people think that it is unacceptable for judges to actively interpret the error,and this criticism cannot be justified;On the other hand,the positive clarification of the judge does not violate the autonomy of the parties,but only complements the rational ability of the parties.In essence,it promotes rather than replaces the self-determination of the parties,and the doubt that the judge actively clarifies the violation of neutrality cannot be established.The principle of disposition and the principle of debate based on the principle of equality can effectively shape the substantive content of a case,but it must be limited by the principle of fairness.This correction is the fundamental requirement of the legal system,and it is also the source of the authority of positive interpretation as a“jurisprudential type”.

关 键 词：积极释明 实践权威 释明错误 违背中立 矫正正义 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]