当事人主义:“转型论”信条批判分析

Party Doctrine:An Critical Analysis of the Creed of“Transformation Theory”

“转型论”界定当事人主义的标准与其将大陆法系民事诉讼也归为当事人主义的观点相冲突。其主张实际是准极端当事人主义。它不当援用了“法治三阶段说”,忽略了普通法系民事诉讼中的强职权主义成分,将法官职权介入大致对应于法官不中立。当事人主义不能“独占”其接受的结论,对其他重大问题的处理也不能提供帮助,家事案件的审理应采职权主义,这些都表明当事人主义不具有“顶层”地位。转型论要求对当事人主义的“绝对”服从近似于演绎论,排斥多角度的理性考量和论证。它对于当事人意志的尊重可能会流于形式,且已严重削弱释明制度,并可能对法官的事实认定产生消极影响。

The procedural standard of "transformation theory" is vague, while the substantive standard conflicts with the classification of the two legal systems as adversary doctrine. What it advocates is actually quasi extreme party doctrine. It improperly invokes the theory of "three stages of rule of law", ignores the strong authority doctrine in civil litigation of common law system, and puts the intervention of judge’s authority corresponding to judge’s non-neutrality. The theory of transformation cannot "monopolize" its accepted conclusions, nor can it offer assistance in dealing with other major issues. The recognition of the authoritarianism in the family procedure further dispels the "top" status of quasi extreme party doctrine. The "absolute obedience" required by it is similar to deductive theory, excluding multi-angled consideration and argument. Its respect for the will of the parties may be mere formality, and has seriously weakened the interpretation system;it may have a negative impact on the judge’s fact finding.