论《监察法》中的“事实”——以诉讼真实为切入的分析
|
摘要
"事实"的认定对具体诉讼制度和程序设计具有指引作用。传统证据法意义上的客观真实是一种绝对论下的事实真相,法律真实则忽视了对案件事实的认识。法律适用的事实是在证据裁判原则主导下的案件事实,而发现案件事实需要在实在法的规范下进行。《监察法》中的"事实"具有两种含义,第一种是宣示意义的事实,第二种是通过证据来获得对案件认识的事实。《监察法》以实体公正和效率价值为主构建了诉讼结构,但应当更加注意程序公正的完善。
The confirmation of "facts" plays a guiding role in the specific litigation system and procedure design. The objective truth in the sense of traditional evidence law is a kind of factual truth under absolutism, while the legal truth ignores the understanding of the facts of the case. The facts applicable to law are the facts of a case under the guidance of the principle of evidence adjudication, and the discovery of the facts of a case needs to be carried out under the norms of the substantive law. The "facts" in the Supervision Law have two meanings. The first is the declarative facts, and the second is the facts that can be obtained through evidence. The Supervisory Law mainly constructs the litigation structure with the value of substantive justice and efficiency, but more attention should be paid to the perfection of procedural justice.
The confirmation of "facts" plays a guiding role in the specific litigation system and procedure design. The objective truth in the sense of traditional evidence law is a kind of factual truth under absolutism, while the legal truth ignores the understanding of the facts of the case. The facts applicable to law are the facts of a case under the guidance of the principle of evidence adjudication, and the discovery of the facts of a case needs to be carried out under the norms of the substantive law. The "facts" in the Supervision Law have two meanings. The first is the declarative facts, and the second is the facts that can be obtained through evidence. The Supervisory Law mainly constructs the litigation structure with the value of substantive justice and efficiency, but more attention should be paid to the perfection of procedural justice.
引文
(1)中央纪委国家监委通报今年上半年全国纪检监察机关监督检查、审查调查情况[EB/OL].[2018-08-27].中央纪委国家监委网站,http://www.ccdi.gov.cn/yaowen/201807/t20180719_175996.html.
(2)张建伟.证据法学的理论基础[J].现代法学,2002,(2):34-48.
(3)樊崇义.客观真实管见——兼论刑事诉讼证明标准[J].中国法学,2000,(1):114-120;卞建林,郭志媛.论诉讼证明的相对性[J].中国法学,2001,(2):167-176.
(4)陈一云.证据学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1991.114.
(5)张建伟.证明标准研究中的模糊视阈[J].政法论坛(中国政法大学学报),2005,(6):122-125.
(6)[7]张保生.法律推理的理论与方法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.469.471.
(7)王敏远.一个谬误、两句废话、三种学说[A].载王敏远.公法(第4卷)[C].北京:法律出版社,2004.253.
(8)吴宏耀.诉讼真实论纲[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.8.
(9)李红海.英国陪审制转型的历史考察[J].法学评论,2015,(4):180-187.
(10)[英]沃尔什.历史哲学[M].何兆武,张文杰译.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2001.11.
(11)[英]尼尔·麦考密克.法律推理与法律理论[M].姜峰译.北京:法律出版社,2005.84.
(12)[德]卡尔·拉伦次.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.160.
(13)张保生.法律推理的理论与方法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.469.
(14)张保生.刑事错案及其纠错制度的证据分析[J].中国法学,2013,(1):96.
(15)汪海燕.刑事诉讼模式的演进[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.1.
(2)张建伟.证据法学的理论基础[J].现代法学,2002,(2):34-48.
(3)樊崇义.客观真实管见——兼论刑事诉讼证明标准[J].中国法学,2000,(1):114-120;卞建林,郭志媛.论诉讼证明的相对性[J].中国法学,2001,(2):167-176.
(4)陈一云.证据学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,1991.114.
(5)张建伟.证明标准研究中的模糊视阈[J].政法论坛(中国政法大学学报),2005,(6):122-125.
(6)[7]张保生.法律推理的理论与方法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.469.471.
(7)王敏远.一个谬误、两句废话、三种学说[A].载王敏远.公法(第4卷)[C].北京:法律出版社,2004.253.
(8)吴宏耀.诉讼真实论纲[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.8.
(9)李红海.英国陪审制转型的历史考察[J].法学评论,2015,(4):180-187.
(10)[英]沃尔什.历史哲学[M].何兆武,张文杰译.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2001.11.
(11)[英]尼尔·麦考密克.法律推理与法律理论[M].姜峰译.北京:法律出版社,2005.84.
(12)[德]卡尔·拉伦次.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.160.
(13)张保生.法律推理的理论与方法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.469.
(14)张保生.刑事错案及其纠错制度的证据分析[J].中国法学,2013,(1):96.
(15)汪海燕.刑事诉讼模式的演进[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2004.1.