[1]康兰平.法治评估理论的跃升空间:实效法治观与我国法治评估实践机制研究[J].法制与社会发展,2017,(04):21-37.
点击复制

法治评估理论的跃升空间:实效法治观与我国法治评估实践机制研究()
分享到:

法制与社会发展[ISSN:1006-6128/CN:22-1243/D]

卷:
期数:
2017年04期
页码:
21-37
栏目:
法治中国
出版日期:
2017-07-10

文章信息/Info

作者:
康兰平
关键词:
量化评估规范法治观实效法治观中国法治实践学派本土化道路
Keywords:
Quantitative Assessment View of Legal Normativism View of Legal Pragmaticism China Practical School of Rule of Law Indigenized Transitional Approach
摘要:
近年来,伴随着对于法治状态进行现实测量的研究持续发酵,法治评估从应然层面的证立命题已经变成鲜活的生活事实。当前学界对于法治评估的理论基础可以概括为“规范法治观”,在思维方向上坚持薄法治与厚法治的二元分析框架:薄法治思维得之于确定性和可预测性,失之于内容的良善或正当性;厚法治得之于具体语境的考量,失之于法治独特意义的殆尽。两者困囿于“法治是什么”的理论罅隙中难以自拔,忽视了法治实施的具体语境和制度环境,影响了法治评估的效能发挥和长效实施机制构建。“实效法治观”的提出,有助于消解薄法治与厚法治的理论鸿沟,着眼于现实世界的法治运行和实施效果,克服当前法治评估实践中的形式主义、工具主义困局,为当前面临转型的法治量化评估提供包容性的理论框架、方法论基础和实施机制,推动法治评估成为检验法治实施效果的可行机制、反馈机制,迈向本土化的转型道路。
Abstract:
In recent years, with the unremitting prosperity of the study on the quantitative evaluation of rule of law, the rule of law assessment (RLA), which was just a justification proposition normatively, has been perceptibly materialized in our daily life. After decades of rapid development, while the assessment practices have been gradually growing into a new source of the establishment of the rule of law and a dynamic mechanism of this undertaking, their vulnerability emerged, including the inutility of the theory that presupposes its practice, the technical dysfunction occurring during its application, the unjustified non-disclosures of its specific administration, and the deficiency of related diagnosis program and feedback process which works based on the assessment results etc.. The current academic agreement on the theoretical basis of RLA may be summarized as a “view of legal normativism”, which insists on the dualistic, thin/thick rule of law framework: the both extremes on it hold their own merits and faults. The thin one provides certainty and predictability of the legal results, although its supporters might ignore necessary virtue and legitimacy. In contrast, the thick one emphasizes on the considerations relevant to specific circumstances, while its holders would overlook the purposes of the rule of law. The scholars separated by these two extremes indulge themselves in the hypothetical question, “What is the rule of law?”, disregarding the concrete contexts and institutional backgrounds in which the rule of law implemented,influencing RLA’s effectiveness and the construction of its long-term implementation mechanism. The supporters of the “view of legal pragmaticism” (VLP) concern the rule of law related to procedures and their efficacy in the reality, try to close the theoretical gap between the two extremes on the framework, and grapple to the dilemma created by formalism and instrumentalism. For the quantitative RLA,which faces the difficulties during the current reform, VLP provides a comprehensive framework, an inclusive methodological basis, and manageable implementation mechanism, contributing to RLA’s conversion to an available feedback mechanism for the test of the effectiveness of the rule of law administration, guiding RLA to a more indigenized transitional approach.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
*浙江大学光华法学院博士后研究人员,法学博士。
本文系国家社会科学基金重点项目“司法透明指数研究”(13AFX012)、中国法学会法治评估方阵重点课题“法治评估方法和指标比较研究”、浙江省2017年度教育科学规划课题“高校应对突发性事件的能力评估和提升策略研究”(2017SCG215)的阶段性成果。
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01