政治修辞对法律论证的影响——以“兴隆公司诉祖大山”一案为例

The Influence of Political Rhetoric on Legal Argumentation——With the Case “Xinglong Company Accused Zu Dashan”as an Example

法律决定需要法律论证。法律论证有逻辑的和修辞的两个层次、两种方法,前者侧重法律论证的形式有效性,后者侧重论证内容上的可接受性。若想一个判决结果具有正当性应该经得起逻辑上和修辞上的双重检验。然而中国语境下的政治修辞往往过于强大,一方面扭曲了法律推理的方向,使得判决往往是根据预先确定的结论回溯它的案件事实和裁判规范而得出的;另一方面,使得法律论证背离了正义原则,判决结果不具有可接受性。欲重构法律论证的有效模式,应约束政治修辞对司法的干预,防止法律适用被政治口号所绑架,这首先要求理清法治与政治修辞的关系,其次要还原法律论证,使法律论证经过各种方法的适用后隔离政治修辞的影响,另外还要加强判决书的说理性。

Legal decisions need legal argumentation.Logic and rhetoric are the two levels and methods of the legal argumentation.Logic focuses on the formal validity of the legal argumentation while the rhetoric focuses on the acceptability of the content.So a judgment should stand the tests of both logic and rhetoric test at the same time if it wants to have legitimacy.But the political rhetoric is overly powerful in China,which would lead to two results:on one hand,it twists the direction of legal reasoning that the judgment is made by backtracking the facts of case and the norms of adjudication according to the predesigned decision;on the other hand,it makes legal argumentation deviate from the principle of justice and leads to the acceptability of the judgment.To reconstruct the effective model of legal argumentation,the legal profession should restrain political rhetoric from intervening justices and prevent the application of law from being kidnapped by political slogans.To achieve this goal,first,the relationship between law and political rhetoric should be cleared up.Next,the legal argumentation should be restored,which could make the legal argumentation to be insulated from political rhetoric by using a variety of methods.Lastly,the reasonableness of judgment should be strengthened.