审判中心论的话语体系分歧及其解决
樊传明审判中心论的话语体系分歧及其解决
Divergence of Trial-centered Discourse and Its Solution
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：樊传明
单位：华东师范大学法学院;国家2011计划司法文明协同创新中心
中文关键词：审判中心主义;以审判为中心;刑事司法改革;法教义学
英文关键词：trial centralism;trial-centered litigation;criminal judicial reform;legal dogmatics
中文摘要：
"审判中心主义"是中国学者在进行刑事诉讼制度的比较研究时，提炼出的理论术语；然后以此为参照，对中国的刑事诉讼制度进行类型化描述，开展相应的对策研究。"以审判为中心"则是在当代中国刑事司法改革实践的语境中，由改革决策层、执行部门提出的统括性术语；它旨在解决刑事错案频发、司法公信力不足等现实问题，是推进严格司法的工具性举措之一。这两种话语体系都指向中国的刑事诉讼制度改革，但它们在制度愿景、改革内容、价值定位、推进路径等方面存在诸多分歧。这些分歧导致理论研究和改革实践之间发生错位，使法学理论与法律实务无法就相应改革议题形成有效互动、共识与合力推进。一个或许可行的解决方案是，让二者共享建构性的刑事诉讼法教义学立场，竞争性地为刑事诉讼制度演进提供发展动力和解释框架。
英文摘要：
"Trial centralism" is a theoretical extraction made by Chinese scholars in the context of comparative research on the criminal litigation system and on the basis of observation of European and American legal systems. It is used as a frame of reference for categorizing Chinese litigation system, and for carrying out corresponding countermeasure study. By contrast, "trial-centered litigation reform" refers to a set of organizing principles proposed and implemented by reform decision-making and executive authorities in the context of contemporary Chinese judicial reform. It aims at solving certain practical problems, such as frequent occurrence of wrongful criminal convictions and decline of public trust in the judiciary, and functions as an instrument for advancing strict administration of justice. Both of the two discourse systems are directed to the reform of Chinese litigation system, but they have large divergences in such aspects as institutional visions, reform content, value orientation, and approaches to advancement. These divergences have led to the malposed relation between theoretical research and reform practice. As a result, legal theories and legal practice cannot really interact with each other, reach substantial consensus, and make joint contribution on the issue of "trial-center". One probably feasible solution to this problem is to enable the "trial centralism" theory and the "trial-centered litigation" policy to share a standpoint of procedural legal dogmatics in a positive and constructive way. By doing so, they will function as two kinds of "pre-understanding" in the sense of hermeneutics and competitively provide development motivation as well as interpretation frameworks for the evolution of procedural law.
全文阅读： 点击下载
