摘要: 由于研究方法和研究视角的限制,中国刑事诉讼法学研究正面临前所未有的挑战。要走出学术困境,迎来法学研究的繁荣,刑事诉讼法学研究者应当在对传统的法学方法加以完善的基础上,引入社会科学的研究方法,从经验事实中提炼出有生命力的法学理论。为此,应当从中国问题出发,提炼出一些对中国问题具有理论解释力的概念和范畴;应当放弃那种动辄“赞美西方法制”、“批判中国法制”的研究态度,从中国移植西方法制的经验和教训中找到一些规律性的东西;应当从中国自生自发的司法改革中发现制度形成和生长的规律,从而发现那些真正有生命力的制度,并提出中国的法学理论;应当纠正那种过于重视引进西方证据概念和证据理论的倾向,从中国的司法哲学、法律史和法律实践中发现证据规则,形成自己的证据理论。
关键词:
刑事诉讼法学,
研究方法,
理论体系,
问题意识
Abstract: Due to the limitations and constraints of the research methods and perspectives, China's criminal procedure studiesare facing an unprecedented challenge.In order to overcome the academic difficulties and usher a prosperous criminalprocedure law study, researchers on criminal procedure law should not only commit to improving the traditional researchmethods, but also introduce into it the social science research methods which mainly focus on extracting the viable legaltheories from the empirical facts. To this end, we should proceed from China's own legal problems, and extract sometheoretical concepts and categories which,of some explanatory power to those problems; we should give up the per-functory study attitudes of “praise the western legal system” and “criticize China's legal system”,and try to find some-thing regularities from a number of experiences and lessons learned from the process of transplanting western legal systeminto Chinese legal system; we should try to find some theories and disciplines from China's own judicial reform, so as tonot only find those systems of true and real vitality,but also advance and bring forward China's domestic legal theory;and finally, we also should redress the wrong tendency of emphasizing too much on the introduction of western conceptsand theories of evidence, and try to summarize some evidential rules form China's judicial philosophy, legal history andlegal practice, so as to create and bring about our own theory of evidence.
Key words:
Criminal Procedure Jurisprudence,
Research Methods,
Theoretical System,
Problem Consciousness
陈瑞华. 刑事诉讼法学研究的回顾与反思[J]. 法学家, 2009(5): 61-74.
CHEN Rui-Hua. Review and Reflection on the Research of Criminal Procedure[J]. , 2009(5): 61-74.