中国传统的司法与法学 修订版(4)

　　 不幸的是现在似乎还有人同意此说，不分青红皂白地将中国传统法制和法学一概否定，盲目地赞扬西方的法制和法学, 不知道西方人已看出他们自已的法制里有许多缺点，例如成案法 (case law) 的不确定性[11]，社会里缺乏诉讼以外的解决纠纷的机制[12]，许多律师不顾公平正义，唯利是图，被称为被雇的鎗手 (“hired guns”) [13] 或救护车的追逐者 (ambulance chaser) [14]，立法及司法被特殊利益团体 (special-interest groups, 如教会、工会、企业、财团、民间团体、种族集团) 所控制 [15] 等等；西方许多法学家则对目前仍在流行的实定法学 (legal positivism) 不满，而很欣赏中国传统法学将各种规范看成一个整体的观点 (holistic view) [16]。所以我要强调：西方的法制和法学虽有其长处，但并非没有缺点。我们在改进中国法制的时候，不能、也不该跟随西方人曲曲折折地走他们已经走过的路，犯同样的错误，寻求同样的补救办法，而应该深切地审视中外文化的优劣，取长舍短，选择一条最适合自己走的路；在研究法学的时候不可以为了一时的需要，鼓吹短视的做法，而应该看得高远一些，认清法学的基本问题, 先切实地去了解我国的传统，然后参考其它法系 (西方、回教、印度等) 的理论，综合中外的智慧, 盈漥而后进, 建立起一种更好的学说。这番话不是虚夸之言，我们读别人的著作，无论它多么博洽深奥，不要奉为圭臬，拾其唾余，而应该自行去思考基本问题，提出自已的看法。颜渊说，“舜何人也，予何人也，有为者亦若是”，我们也要自信并自勉：别人能做的我们也能，而且要做得更好。

Administration of Justice in Traditional China and Traditional Chinese Jurisprudence

（ Institute of History and Philology，Academia Sinica，Taipei, China）

Abstract: Administration of justice in traditional China has been criticized for disregarding established rules and precedents and thus likened to “Khadi justice.” It is a misunderstanding. Since the Qin and the Han periods when laws proliferated and decided cases recorded, traditional Chinese judges, as civil servants elsewhere, took the easy route of applying existing rules and precedents. In the absence of such guidelines they had to find other ways to solve problems brought to them, particularly civil disputes. In doing so, they would carefully examine the facts and resort to norms above the law (e.g., principles of equity and general precepts of justice), a practice shared by judges in all jurisdictions.

Traditional Chinese jurisprudence is said to be underdeveloped. This only demonstrates how ignorant the critics are. Even before the Qin, legal theories flourished. Through the later periods many scholars devoted themselves annotating the statutory laws and studying basic jurisprudential subjects such as the origin, objectives and functions of law, the relationship between law and other social norms, and left enormous amount of works of great profoundness.

The criticisms are apparently prompted by a now prevalent dissatisfaction with the present Chinese legal system, but a sweeping denial of the Chinese legal tradition is not a good starting point for improvement, especially if the critique is based on misunderstanding and ignorance.

Key words: tradition, administration of justice, jurisprudence.

参考文献：

[1] 贺卫方．法律人丛书总序[A]．孙笑侠等．法律人之治——法律职业的中国思考[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社， 2004．1-2．
[2] Coulson, Noel J., A History of Islamic Law, Edinburgh University Press, 1964; Conflicts and Tensions in Islamic Jurisprudence, University of Chicago Press, 1969; Turner, Stephen P., Weber, the Chinese Legal System, and Marsh’s Critique, Newsletter, Comparative & Historical Sociology, Winter 2002; Marsh, Robert M., Weber and the Chinese Legal System: A Reply to Stephen P. Turner (ibid); 林端 . 韦伯论中国传统法律 – 韦伯比较社会学的批判 [M]. 台北: 三民书局, 2004
[3] 左传•鲁昭公六年[M]
[4] 左传•鲁昭公二十九年[M]
[5] 张伟仁辑．陈金全注．先秦政法理论[M]．北京：人民出版社，2006．
[6] 张伟仁．中国法制史书目[M]．台北：中央研究院出版社，1976．
[7] 岛田正郎．中国法制史料[M]．台北：鼎文书局，1982．
[8] 张伟仁．清代的法学教育[A]．中国法律教育之路[C]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1997．145-247．
[9] Hans Kelsen, Pure Theory of Law, Berkeley, University of California Press 1967．
[10] Oliver W. Holmes, The Common Law, Harvard University Press, 1963 edition.
[11] Roscoe Pound, The Formative Era of American Law, (Boston, Little Brown 1939); Law Finding Through Experience and Reason (Harvard, 1960);Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Harvard, 1986); Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Harvard, 1978)．
[12] 347 US 483 (1954)．
[13] 163 US 537 (1896)
[14] 410 US 113 (1973)．
[15] 491 US 397 (1989)．
[16] 荀子•王制[M]．
[17] 张伟仁．良幕循吏汪辉祖[J]．台湾大学法学论丛，19．（1）：1-50，19．（2）：19-50．
[18] 荀子•君道[M]

共5页: 上一页 [1] [2] [3] 4 [5] 下一页