國家通過基層法院對鄉村社會的法律治理 – 以B市Y區Y基層法院司法聯動為視角

State Legal Governance of Rural Society through Basic Level Courts -- An Observation on the Judicial Coordination Practices by Y Basic Level Court of Y District B City

Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis

View graph of relations

Author(s)

Related Research Unit(s)

Detail(s)

Awarding Institution
Supervisors/Advisors
Award date13 Feb 2017

Abstract

作為一個農業大國,面對著廣袤的鄉村社會,國家對鄉村社會的治理,一直是學者關注的重點,特別是伴隨著始于清末新政和民國年間中國現代民族—國家的建設以來。對鄉村社會治理的研究,主要有兩種研究視角:一是以國家為視角,自上而下地研究國家對鄉村社會的治理。重點考察國家權力對鄉村社會的擴張和控制。二是以鄉村社會為視角,著眼於鄉村社會內部治理機制的研究。上述研究更多關注國家通過政治、經濟手段對鄉村社會的治理,對法律治理研究不多。鄉村社會的視角側重於“自下而上”的分析,這種進路看到的只是在國家與社會的框架下,鄉村社會如何為保持自身的獨立而展開鬥爭,現代法律在鄉村社會造成的混亂,卻忽視了與現代民族國家建設緊緊相連的現代化進程所帶來的變化,上述討論很容易陷入法律的現代性與鄉村社會的傳統性的非此即彼的二元對立立場之中。而在以國家為視角的研究中,把各級國家機構,包括司法機關都當作統一整體,對國家本身的複雜性沒有足夠的認識,從而忽視了在治理過程中,國家權力內部——司法權與行政權之間平行整合、相互衝突協調的關係,以及這種關係給國家對鄉村社會的治理帶來的影響。本文以Y基層法院的司法聯動工作為視角,對在司法聯動過程中基層法院、鄉鎮政府以及包村法官、司法聯絡員的各種司法聯動行為進行細緻地描述,分析他們之間相互協助、衝突及平衡的關係,借以考察國家對鄉村社會的法律治理。

我運用社會人類學的田野調查研究方法和過程——事件的分析方法,把研究視野框定在一個小小的、自己所真實觀察和可以切實把握的研究單元上,從靜態研究轉入動態的“過程——事件”分析中去呈現複雜關係的實踐形態。根據自己四年來在司法聯動活動中的具體實踐、案例、對包村法官和司法聯絡員的訪談,描述了基層法院、鄉鎮政府、包村法官、司法聯絡員在司法聯動活動中動態的實踐表現,展示他們之間複雜的互動關係,進而更加深刻細緻地洞察和理解國家對鄉村社會的法律治理。

在寫作過程中,我還借鑒了擴展(延伸)個案研究方法。把Y基層法院的司法聯動工作看成是國家試圖通過法律對鄉村社會進行治理的一個側面,並通過窺視這個側面活動的發生、發展,以說明了國家對鄉村社會進行法律治理的若干重要層面。本文在展現對Y基層法院司法聯動中各方的規範性描述和日常實踐中的矛盾衝突時,不僅考慮內在的衝突,同時把它置於國家對鄉村社會法律治理的宏大背景中,去理解那些微觀處境如何被宏大的結構所形塑,把國家對鄉村社會法律治理的宏觀的思考通過有血有肉的詳細實例來呈現,進而把握國家權力與鄉村社會之間相互影響的關係。

本文共有七章:第一章導論,主要介紹研究背景、文獻綜述、研究方法、文章架構。

第二章通過對Y基層法院司法聯動工作具體實踐的描述,展示中國能動司法的雙重特點:訴訟外的積極與訴訟的消極。首先從Y基層法院的司法聯動下的法官包村的工作目標、工作方式、工作職責等方面進行分析,並結合最高法院關於能動司法的相關講話和司法解釋,說明中國能動司法的訴訟外積極特點;隨後,通過對Y基層法院法官在包村工作中遇到的對涉及出嫁女權益糾紛案件受理問題的不同處理方式,展示了中國能動司法在訴訟行為上表現出的回避性特點。其次,通過與美國司法能動主義進行比較,論證中國能動司法屬於形式意義上的能動司法。最後,對比能動司法與馬錫五審判方式在主體、手段、內容等方面的變化,並分析兩者的相似背景,提出能動司法是一種新馬錫五司法方式。

第三章著重分析Y基層法院開展司法聯動的原因,意圖說明能動司法是一種新的權力組織技術。人民法庭大規模撤並後,基層法院在空間上逐漸遠離鄉土社會。現代司法改革不僅進一步加劇了這種“身體”上的遠離,而且同時造成法院與村民心理上的疏離。這種“身體”上的遠離以及現代法律所造成的疏離給基層法院帶來的困境:司法權威受損。Y基層法院開展一系列司法聯動工作,正是試圖重新建立基層法院的權力組織網路,重新與鄉村社會建立直接聯繫,增強司法權威,進而完成國家對鄉村社會的法律治理。

第四章主要論述基層政府參與法院司法聯動的原因。第一部分首先論證了基層政府有效治理的缺失。第二部分描述了在依法治國的宏大話語下,基層法院在法律及國家財力的支持下與基層政府漸行漸遠,第三部分論述面對治理困境和基層法院遠離所造成的衝突,基層政府開始尋求幫助。通過司法聯動,基層政府重新審視和確定與基層法院的關係,政府與法院的關係已經從法院單方面的依附漸漸發展為雙方相互的依賴。

第五章描寫法官在司法聯動中所扮演的雙重角色,以及在這其中情願或不情願地穿行、抉擇,以此說明基層法院在對鄉村社會進行法律治理時的堅持與妥協。第一部分論述法官在司法聯動中所扮演的雙重角色,從法官角色叢觀點分析說明司法聯動中法官角色的實質拓展:從司法職能拓展到行政職能。第二部分描述法官如何穿行于雙重角色之間以及如何在雙重角色中平衡、取捨和抉擇,試圖在兩種不同的權力場域達致平衡。第三部分刻畫了包村法官在不同角色下的表現。第四部分論證包村法官的矛盾與糾結反映了現代法治與鄉村社會的衝突。

第六章主要論述司法聯動中司法聯絡員所扮演的角色和定位。第一部分描述Y基層法院如何選任司法聯絡員、確定其工作職責以及推動司法聯絡員具體工作的開展,展示司法聯絡員的被行政化特點。第二部分描述司法聯絡員在司法聯動中日常運作,分析司法聯絡員在不同利益狀況下積極與消極的不同態度,從而說明司法聯絡員功利性特點。第三部分展示了在行政權力和司法權力這兩種不同的權力結構之下,受到不同權力影響的司法聯絡員表現出同一面相,指出司法權力的孱弱是司法聯絡員消極應對司法聯動的重要原因,而司法聯絡員對司法權力的消極又反過來影響了司法權力進入鄉村社會的腳步。

第七章結語,對本文的主要觀點進行總結,並對存在的不足、以後的研究方向作一交待。

在本文中,我以Y基層法院司法聯動活動為背景,參與司法聯動的各方為敘述物件,分別描述了Y基層法院、Y基層政府、包村法官、司法聯絡員在司法聯動活動中的表現、作用,體現了基層法院對鄉村社會進行法律治理的過程。以往的研究大多以被治理物件——鄉村社會作為研究主體,注重鄉村社會面對國家法律治理的反應:抵抗、回避,或“迎法下鄉”。而本文則提供了一個全新的研究物件,即以國家治理主體之一——基層法院為視角,審視國家對鄉村社會進行法律治理的行為、效果。這與以前研究的最大的不同在於:國家對鄉村社會進行法律治理的主體之一——基層法院第一次作為具有獨立利益取向和行動能力的研究物件。本文將國家治理權力細分為行政權和司法權,將治理主體細分為政府和法院,從基層法院這個視角,考察在國家對鄉村社會進行法律治理過程中法院、政府、村幹部等各方之間相互的衝突與協作:一是基層法院與基層政府之間的相互影響和作用;二是作為國家和鄉村社會的重要仲介——村幹部在行政權和司法權不同的權力場域的面相;三是從微觀層面上考察司法權運作的末梢——包村法官的法律治理行動。本文細緻地刻畫了基層法院在對鄉村社會進行法律治理過程中所受到的各種影響:來自于平行方向的政府的或支持或推諉,來自於鄉村社會的或歡迎或抵抗或回避,以及這些影響反過來對基層法院的作用,體現了在法律治理過程中,基層法院、基層政府與鄉村社會三方的博弈,三方之間相互依賴、衝突、矛盾、協調以及平衡、相容的關係。揭示了國家對鄉村社會法律治理效果不僅受鄉村社會的影響,基層政府的作用同樣不容忽視。

本文試圖以一個內在視角,通過對一個基層法院司法聯動工作的深度刻劃,一是從國家權力的內部——行政權與司法權——描述權力之間的衝突、配合、協助、平衡,以及由此對國家法律治理鄉村社會的影響。二是在微觀層面,在國家司法權運作的末梢,既不是自上而下,也不是自下而上,而是在上下交接之處來考察國家對鄉村社會的法律治理。本文通過論述在司法聯動中,法院、政府、鄉村社會的司法聯絡員的種種表現,揭示這三者所代表的行政權、司法權及鄉村社會之間是如何相互作用、影響並相互塑造的,進而展示國家在對鄉村社會的法律治理過程中是如何遭遇抵抗、妥協並艱難前行。
As an enormous agricultural country, China attaches great importance to the governance of rural society. Much scholarly attention has been devoted to rural society governance, especially to the new deals at the late Qing Dynasty and the modern people-state development in the early stage of the Republic of China. Students of rural society governance employ mainly two perspective in studying this topic. One perspective is the institutional perspective, which examines the state’s governance from top down, especially how the state power expands and controls rural community. The other perspective focuses on the rural society and its internal mechanism, examining from bottom up how rural society strives to maintain its independence. Both perspectives have certain shortcomings: the latter illustrates the conflicts between the modern legal system and the rural culture, but often fails to see the profound changes in the process of modernization of rural society, which is closely related to the development of a modern state. Studies in this field thus tend to overestimate the contradictions between rule of law and rural traditions. The former perspective regards all government organs, including the judiciary, as a unity, and is not aware of the complex relationships between various government entities, the relationship between the judicial power and the administrative powers, and the influences of such relationship on rural society governance.
This dissertation studies the issue of rural society governance by examining the judicial coordination practices of trial Court Y. It illustrates how the trial court and the judges, the township government, and the liaison men coordinate with each other. Through analyzing the cooperation, conflicts, and balance of the above institutions and individuals, it helps understand the state governance of rural community with legal measures.

The data of this research are collected mainly through anthropological methods, such as field surveys and process-event measures. The research is framed in a unit, through which the author can shift from static studying to dynamic studying of process-event, in order to present in details the complicated procedures. Based on the author’s four years’ own practice of judicial coordination and her interviews with the judges and the liaison men, this dissertation unveils the different and mutually influenced roles of the trial court and the judges, the township government, and the liaison men. The analysis thus provides new insights into the state governance of rural community with legal measures.

The methodology of this dissertation also employs extensive case studies. This research understands the judicial coordination practice of Court Y as an aspect of the state governance with legal measures on rural community. Through examining the occurrence and development of this aspect, it reveals the important characteristics of the state governance of rural community with legal measures. In showing the normative referents and conflicts in the daily judicial coordination practices of Court Y, the author not only considers the conflicts themselves, but also put these conflicts under the background of the state governance of rural community with legal measures, so to understand how minor conflicts are shaped by the institutional framework. The author also uses concrete examples to demonstrate theoretically the macro framework of the state governance of rural community and to grasp the reciprocal influences between the state power and the rural community.

This dissertation is consisted of seven chapters.
Chapter 1 explains the research background. It also reviews relevant literatures, introduces research methodology, and clarifies the structure of this dissertation.

Chapter 2 presents the judicial coordination practices of Court Y, which illustrates two characteristics of the Chinese mode of “active adjudication”: out-of-court activeness and in-court passiveness. Firstly, this chapter explains the out-of-court activeness by analyzing the judges’ work objectives, work methods, responsibilities, and relevant policies and judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court. Secondly, it analyzes how the judges handle cases involving rights of women married to non-locals, and reveals the passiveness of Chinese adjudication. Thirdly, through comparison with the activism of American judicial practices, it argues that the Chinese mode of “active adjudication” is formalistic. Finally, by comparing the subjects, measures, contents, and backgrounds of the contemporary practices of judicial activism with those of the Ma Xiwu style adjudication in the past, this chapter concludes that the contemporary practices are the revival of the Ma Xiwu style adjudication.

Chapter 3 focuses on the motivation of Court Y in its practices of judicial coordination, and defines active adjudication as a means to establish new power structures. After the reform of the court system, trial courts are gradually moved away from the rural community. Modern judicial reforms have further increased the distance not only physically but also mentally, leaving trial courts in a dilemma. The judicial authority is thus undermined. Court Y’s judicial coordination practices are attempts to rebuild the power structure at grassroots level, which connects the judiciary and the rural society, enhances judicial authority, and eventually improves the state governance of rural community.

Chapter 4 discusses the motivation of the local government in their participation of judicial coordination practices. Firstly, this chapter illustrates the lack of effective governance at grassroots level. Secondly, it points out the status quo that the trial court, which is legally and financially supported by the state, is detached from local government. Thirdly, it shows how the local government reconciles the tension caused by the detachment of the trial court. Through the practices of judicial coordination, the local government redefines its relationship with the trial court. The relationship gradually develops from the trial court’ unilateral reliance on the local government to mutual reliance.

Chapter 5 discusses the dual roles of the judges in judicial coordination, particularly their struggling and decision-making in the process, so to illustrate the persistence and compromises of the trial court in the legal governance of rural society. Firstly, this chapter explains the judges’ dual roles, and analyzes the substantial extension of the judges’ roles from the judicial to the administrative domain. Secondly, it describes how the judges make choices between their dual roles, in order to achieve balance under the two sets of power structures. Thirdly, it depicts the activities of the judges who are responsible for specific villages. Finally, it argues that the disputes and problems encountered by the judges responsible for specific villages represent the conflicts between the modern ideal of rule of law and the traditions of rural society.

Chapter 6 talks about the role and status quo of the liaison men in judicial coordination. Firstly, this chapter introduces how the liaison men are selected, how their duties confirmed, and how their works oversighted by the trial court, so to demonstrate the administrate embeddedness of the liaison men. Secondly, it presents the daily work of the liaison men and their activeness and passiveness due to various interests, which reflect their utilitarianism. Thirdly, it shows the common features of the liaison men under the administrative power structure and the judicial power structure. It argues that the weakness of the judicial power is the main cause that the liaison men perform their duties passively in judicial coordination, and such passiveness in turn impedes the judicial power from intervening rural society.

Chapter 7 is the epilogue, which summarizes the arguments of this dissertation, reflects the limitations of this study, and prospects further steps of research.

This dissertation examines the judicial coordination activities of Court Y. It illustrates respectively the behavior patterns and functions of Court Y, the local township government, the judges, and the liaison men in judicial coordination, and reveals the process of legal governance of rural society carried out by the court. Existing literatures on rural governance mostly choose rural community, which is the object of state governance, as the research object. They focus on the responses of the rural community to the state governance, i.e. resistance, elusion, or “receiving the law to the countryside.” Focusing on the local court, which is one of the state’s governing institutions, and its activities and effects of governance, this dissertation introduces a new perspective and research object. It innovatively regards the trial court as an independent institution with its own interest and capacity in state governance. In this dissertation, the state governance power is divided into the administrative power and the judicial power, and the state governance institutions are categorized into local governments and courts. From the perspective of a local trial court, this dissertation studies the conflicts and coordination among the local government, the court, and the local cadres in the process of promoting state governance. In particular, the dissertation discusses three aspects of conflicts and coordination, namely the reciprocal influences between the local court and the government, various roles of the local cadres under the administrative and judicial power structures, and the legal governance practices of the judges who are responsible for specific towns or villages. This dissertation presents in details the influences the local court undertakes in the process of legal governance, including support and prevarication of the local government and embracement, resistance, and elusion of rural community. These findings shall illustrate how the local court, the government and the rural community interact with each other under the mixed relationship of reliance, conflicts, contradictions, balance, and competence. The dissertation thus helps understand the functions of grassroots institutions in the state governance of rural society.

Further, the dissertation provides insights into judicial coordination of the trial court in two respects. On the one hand, it documents, from an internal perspective of state power, the conflicts, cooperation, assistance, and balance of the administrative and judicial power. On the other hand, it examines the state governance of rural society at the roots of judicial organs not from top down or bottom up, but at the joint point of power and force. By analyzing the behavior patterns of the court, the local government, and the rural community in judicial coordination, this dissertation tries to portrait how administrative power, judicial power, and rural society interact with, influence, and shape each other. Thus it enriches our understandings of how the state manages resistance, compromises, and makes progress in the promotion of legal governance in rural society.