摘要
从法律史的视角出发,对“情理”与“法律形式主义”、“司法衡平理性”和“法律现实主义”的比较显示,“情理”逻辑下的司法过程不仅不同于法律形式主义所主张的对于法律文本的三段论适用,也在根本上区别于普通法传统的衡平推理。法律现实主义发现了司法过程中的情感、性格、习惯等非理性因素,进而将这些因素或视为外在于理想司法过程的干扰因素,或认为其必须转换为更高层面的法律理性。与此不同,中国传统司法中的“情理”逻辑则在根本上承认了这些因素存在于审判过程中的合理性和重要性。作为整体认识世界方式和最高目标的“情理”是传统中国司法与西方司法的关键区别,中西司法审判的差异恰恰也同时揭示了社会整体层面的中西差异。
From the perspective of legal history,a comparison of"sentimentality"with""legal formalism,""judicial equitable rationality"and"legal realism"shows that the judicial process under the logic of"sentimentality"is not only different from the syllogistic application of legal texts advocated by legal formalism,but is also fundamentally different from the equitable reasoning of the common law tradition.Legal realism identifies irrational factors such as emotion,personality,and habit in the judicial process,and then views these factors either as interference external to the ideal judicial process or as having to be transformed into a higher level of legal rationality.In contrast,the logic of"sentimentality"in traditional Chinese justice fundamentally recognizes the rationality and importance of these factors in the trial process.As a way of understanding the world as a whole and as the highest goal,"sentimentality"is the key difference between traditional Chinese justice and Western justice,and the differences between Chinese and Western justice precisely reveal the differences between China and the West at the level of society as a whole at the same time.
作者
凌鹏
唐睿清
Ling Peng;Tang Ruiqin
出处
《中国社会科学评价》
CSSCI
2024年第3期126-137,160,共13页
China Social Science Review
基金
国家社会科学基金青年项目“中国传统社会中的土地与社会治理研究”(19CSH011)支持。
