审判管理的运行体系和制度逻辑

Operational System and Institutional Logic of Trial Management

审判管理是法院内部约束、监督和调控审判权运行的各类机制的总称。在20世纪末至今的制度脉络中,审判管理呈现出应激式改革的特点,即阶段性地回应审判权下放趋势。当前的审判管理现代化改革亦处在该脉络中,即在司法责任制改革导致审判权进一步下放后,法院力图通过倡导阅核制、推行审判质量评估指标体系来约束审判活动。现行审判管理体系由三种运行机制组成:以案件审理流程为着力点的过程约束机制,以审判质效评价为着力点的事后考核机制,以审判权配置为着力点的事先审核机制。推行审判管理具有特定改革语境所赋予的正当性,但也存在背离该语境中一些既定目标的风险,包括与司法责任制的背反、对庭审实质化的架空、对正式程序规范的排斥、以政策一致性取代原则融贯性等。应基于案件分类调整审判管理的定位,弱化后果论管理逻辑,限制追求审判信息对称目标,从而推动审判管理制度逻辑的演进,塑造审慎、负责的法官角色。

Trial management is the general term describing various mechanisms that restrict,supervise and regulate the operation of the trial power inside the court.In its institutional evolution from the end of the 20th century to the present,trial management has shown the characteristics of stress reaction,that is,responding to the trend of trial power decentralization in stages.The current trial management modernization reform is a part of this evolution,i.e.,courts have been trying to restrict trial activities by advocating the case review system and implementing the trial quality evaluation index system since the judicial responsibility reform led to further decentralization of trial power.The current trial management system comprises three operating mechanisms,that is,the process-restraint mechanism focusing on the trial procedure,the post-assessment mechanism focusing on the trial quality and effectiveness,and the pre-review mechanism focusing on the allocation of trial power.The implementation of the trial management system has certain legitimacy given by the specific reform context,but there is a risk of deviating from some established objectives in that context,including the reversal of judicial responsibility,the undermining of substantive trial,the exclusion of formal procedural norms,and the substitution of policyconsistency for principle-coherence.China should adjust the orientation of trial management based on case classification,weaken the consequentialist logic,and limit the goal of trial information symmetry,so as to promote the evolution of institutional logic of trial management and shape the prudent and responsible role of judges.