数字司法的方法论立场：功能主义抑或规范主义?
作者简介:雷磊,中国政法大学钱端升讲座教授(北京 100088)。
基金项目:
本文系2024年度国家社会科学基金重大项目“应对新一轮科技革命的法治体系完善与基本法理研究”(24&ZD133)的阶段性成果
摘要: 随着大数据与人工智能技术在司法领域的应用，功能主义方法论与规范主义方法论之间的张力日益凸显。功能主义秉持工具主义法律观和结果导向的评价标准，将司法定位为社会治理活动；而规范主义将司法定位为法律适用活动，秉持依法裁判论的立场和权利本位的法律观。数字司法实践中两种方法论立场的张力，在法认识论层面呈现为数据计算与论证说理的认知分歧，在法价值论层面表现为效率与公正这一经典难题的数字化再现，在法政治学层面则展现为技术赋能与权力异化的双重可能。单纯的二元对立无法适应复杂司法实践。未来的数字司法应走出非此即彼的选择，基于“规范主义为基，功能主义为器”的立场，迈向一种负责任的数字司法创新范式，牢牢捍卫法治的核心价值。
Methodological Standpoint of Digital Jurisdiction: Functionalism, or Normativism?
Abstract: With the application of big data and artificial intelligence technology in jurisdiction, a tension is increasingly prominent between the methodologies of functionalism and normativism. The functionalism, by instrumentalist view of law, defines jurisdiction as an activity of social governance, while the normativism, by defining jurisdiction as an activity suitable to the law, upholds the standpoint of judgement by law and a view of primacy of rights. In the practice of digital jurisdiction, the tension between these two methodological standpoints presented as a cognitive division between digital computing and argumentation-and-reasoning in epistemology of law, while in the value of law, it presents as the digital reappearance of a classical dilemma of efficiency and justice, and presents as a double possibility of technical empowering and power-alienation in the realm of legal politics. A pure dualism could not adept to the complicated judicial implementation. The future digital jurisdiction must avoid an either-or choice, and based on the standpoint of "taking normativism as foundation, and functionalism as the instrument", adopt a responsible innovation paradigm of digital jurisdiction, to ensure the kernel value of governance by law.
点击查看大图
下载:
沪公网安备 31010102003103号