论文部分内容阅读
传统的事实发现理论从主、客二分的思维模式出发,认为司法过程就是一个探究案件事实真相的过程。作为事实发现理论的替代性理论,法律事实建构论指出,司法活动实质上是一种建立在主体理性认识活动之上的不同主体间的交往活动,因此,法律事实其实是在法定的程序空间内,由多方诉讼主体依据既定的规则建构起来的一幅案件事实图景。法律事实的建构要在正当程序中展开,并依赖一系列实体规则、程序规则及证据规则的保障。法律事实的正当性标准应由程序外的“真实”转化为主体间所达成的“程序内的共识”。
The traditional fact finding theory starts from the dichotomy between the master and the guest, and considers the judicial process as a process of exploring the facts of the case. As an alternative theory of fact finding theory, legal fact construction theory points out that judicial activity is essentially a kind of communicative activity among different subjects based on the subject’s rational cognition, therefore, the legal fact is actually within the legal procedural space , A multi-party litigant based on the established rules of the case to build a picture of the facts. The construction of legal facts should be started in due process and relied on a series of substantive rules, procedural rules and evidence rules. The legitimacy standard of legal facts should be transformed from “real ” outside the procedure into “consensus within the procedure ” reached by the main body.