贺卫方：司法独立应该先行

bridged

本文通过一路BBS站telnet客户端发布


by petofiwen

翻译了贺卫方先生的一篇文章，生平第一次翻译，时间又有些仓促，英文水平又有限，错误之处还请大家指正。



Judicial Independence Should Come First (I)

The petition system is one with inborn relations to the rule of men.

司法独立应该先行（一）



信访制度根源于人治



Peking University law professor He Weifang has made a name for himself as an activist calling for reforms of the judicial system in China. He believes that judicial independence should be the top priority for China’s leadership. A system must be established outside of legislative and executive branches so that judicial powers are not tainted by unethical influences, according to the professor, and there must also be a limit to the appeal process that can continually overturn rulings. Professor He also believes the petition system does more harm than good in solving legal disputes. Recently, he spoke with Beijing Review reporter Li Li about the petition system and legal reforms in China.

最近，贺卫方教授就中国信访制度以及司法改革接收了北京周报的采访，这位北京大学法学教授因积极呼吁中国司法改革而著名，他认为司法独立应该作为中国的决策者首要关注的问题。这位教授认为必须建立一个独立于立法权以及行政权系统的司法权系统，所以司法权才可以免于各种侵蚀而忠于自己应该忠于的职业道德；对于不断地推翻已有裁定的上诉也必须要有一个限制；贺教授还指出信访制度在于解决法律争端上反而更加有害。



Beijing Review(Q): Against China’s social backdrop, what kind of role is the petition system playing to ease social tensions?

He Weifang(A): I think the recent attention given to petitioning is more about how to press petitioners to give up rather than how to solve the problems of each individual. As far as I know, local governments have sent a large number of interceptors to Beijing, which is obviously not aimed at solving problems through the petition system.

北京周报（问）：结合中国的社会背景，信访制度是被定位在缓解社会中途中的什么角色？

贺卫方（答）：我想最近来信访制度的工作重心在于如何让信访者放弃他们的问题而不是如何解决他们的问题，据我所知，地方政府早就派出了大量拦截者到北京——这些拦截者明显不是旨在通过信访制度来解决问题的。



I think petitioning is a comprehensive social problem. It is definitely abnormal or even unimaginable for a country pursuing rule of law, such as China, to have people from all over the country travel to the capital to make injustices known to state leaders.

The major reason for this is our seriously flawed judicial system, which is unable to effectively solve social problems. The function of the court system is none other than to redress grievances in a timely manner. But if the judicial system was under external interference, it would fail to judge cases according to law fairly and independently. The best example to illustrate the weaknesses of the judicial system is the unresolved petition cases about resettlement disputes. The resettlement initiatives backed by the government usually deprive ordinary people of an equal opportunity to bargain. Then the only way out is to resort to the legal system. However, courts have failed to judge these cases independently. Instead, they have been reduced to a proxy of local governments, which adds a mixture of judicial power to administrative power.

我认为信访是一个广泛的社会问题，对于一个法治国家更是不正常乃至不可想象的事件，例如中国，去让全国各地的人来到首都好让国家的领导人得知他们所遭受的不公正的待遇。

造成这个问题的主要原因使我们司法系统的严重缺陷，这个缺陷导致了他不可能有效的解决社会问题，法庭系统的本来功能就是用来在一个合理的时限内平息不满，但如果司法处在外界干扰之下，就无法根绝法律公正独立的裁决案件。说明司法系统弱点的最好的例子就是无法解决的导致不满的拆迁安置案件——这种不满主要在于政府通常剥夺了一般人拥有平等的同其交易的机会，于是唯一的办法就是采取法律途径了，但是法院根本无法独立判决此类案件，因为他早就已经被降低到作为当地政府一个代表的位置了，结果就是司法权和行政权已经难以区分。



Recently, the Supreme People’s Court issued a judicial interpretation on resettlement, which says courts would refuse to accept any litigation involving resettlement issues. This act has ended many people’s last hope. Of course, those who are unsatisfied with compensation arrangements can still appeal to local governments. But if the government is the initiator of the resettlement, the effort will be in vain since the government is both the umpire and player. Therefore, undercompensated people have to go to higher-level governments or even the central government to let their injustices be known.

最近，最高人民法院出台了关于拆迁问题的司法解释，其中指出法院要拒绝审理任何有关拆迁问题的案件，这个举动结束了许多人最后的希望。当然，对拆迁补偿金不满的人依然可以向地方政府申诉，不过假如政府就是拆迁的实行者，那么政府作为选手和裁判势必会让百姓的努力变成徒劳，于是，对补偿不满的人只好寻求更高一级的政府甚至是中央政府来诉说他们遭遇的不公正。



Q: How do you view the relationship between the petition system, China’s social and cultural background and the evolution of the legal system?

A: China’s traditions and political culture demonstrate that we usually rely on a wise monarch or a great leader to achieve fine governance. This kind of tradition is deep-rooted. Chinese history shows that people were afraid of power sharing due to the suffering it brought them by corrupt local officials. The only hope was that a wise emperor would deliver justice to them.

问：您对于信访制度与中国社会文化背景以及法律系统的进步有什么看法？

答：中国的传统和政治文化显示我们通常把社会管理的正义的实现寄希望于一个明君或者其他卓越的领袖，这种传统是有深厚土壤的，中国的历史表明老百姓因为地方官员带来的腐败而害怕分权——因为他们希望的是一个智慧的皇帝来给他们履行正义。【这句话翻译的不好，请高手指正】



The difference is quite vivid when comparing China with Western countries, especially Britain. In England before 1066, the king also assumed such a role. That’s why the king was deemed the source of justice. Commoners who were wronged also put their hope into getting the king’s personal attention. However, in the process of the king sending officials all over the country to try cases and solve disputes, professional knowledge gradually took shape. A stable case-law system then came into being. That meant the judgment of cases would strictly follow legal precedents. The operation of the legal system does not only solve an individual case but also offers a legal basis for ruling on cases. In other word, the same principles should be applied to similar cases. Therefore, once a set of rules are in place, the judicial system is bound to work independently, using its own logic to judge cases without being influenced by any external power.



通过比较中西方国家会发现二者的差距是鲜明的。在西方，特别是英国，在1066年以前的英格兰，国王充当的也是这样的一个角色，这也是国王被当做正义的渊源的原因，犯了错的平民期待自己可以引起国王的主意，但是，在国王派出官员到全国各地裁决案件解决争端的过程之中，专业知识逐渐形成了，稳定的判例法系统也出现了，这意味着案件的判决将严格的遵循先例，法律系统的运行过程中不仅仅解决个别案件也用来确定判决案件的基本规则，简单来说，相似的案件必须运用相同的规则。这样，一旦在一个地方确定了规则，司法系统就必须独立的运作以让他用自己的逻辑而不是任何外部的权力意志去解决案件。



The traditional Chinese governance structure is totally different. In China’s history of more than 2,000 years, there had been no court in the modern sense until the turn of the 20th century. The separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers that has been prent in Western countries was never known in Chinese society. In judging cases, officials are more concerned about solving an individual case than forming a set of strict rules. Therefore, a sound governance structure, a tradition of judicial independence or professional legal knowledge failed to be developed. As a result, whoever could exert more pressure over decision-makers would eventually reap a more favorable result.

传统的中国统治结构则完全不同，在2000多年的中国历史上，直到20世纪都没有现代意义山的法庭，更没有西方产生的行政权立法权与司法权的三权分立体制。在裁判案件之中，官员更喜欢解决具体案件而不是创立普遍的规则。这样，健全的统治结构连同司法独立和专业的法律知识都没有产生，结果，谁可以给决策者施加更大的影响力就自然可以获得更好的结果。



Q: Do you believe there is a contradiction between the petition system and China’s goal to build a society ruled by law?

A: The petition system seems to have maintained hope for disadvantaged people who have suffered injustices, but as a matter of fact, it is like drinking poison to quench a thirst. Instead of being devoted to constructing an independent legal system and enhancing its justice, we always try creating exceptional precedents

问：您认为信访制度和中国依法治国的目标存在矛盾吗？

答：信访制度的目的在于给遭受不正义对待的弱势群体一扇门，但是结果却更像饮鸩止渴，不是下大力气去建立独立的司法系统加强其正义反而是创立完美的个案。



One event that got enormous media coverage in 2003 was that Premier Wen Jiabao helped a migrant laborer get back defaulted wages. Despite the positive coverage, the side effect of it was tremendous. Though our premier loves his people, he can only help no more than a handful of migrant workers get their wages back. The side effect was that ordinary people began to believe that as long as they got the chance to meet the premier or the president, they could also have their problems solved. This incident has spurred on more petition efforts. In the process, a reliance or even worship of state leaders has developed at the cost of building and perfecting the legal system. After all, we endeavor to build a country ruled by law, rather than one ruled by a wise leader. The petition system is one with inborn relations to the rule of men. In a society dominated by the rule of men, even a wise monarch can easily evolve into a big tyrant.

2003年新闻媒体广泛报道的一个事件是温家宝总理帮助一个migrant laborer（农民工？）讨回被拖欠的工资，尽管是正面报道，但负面影响却是巨大的：虽然我们的总理爱他的人民，但是他最多也可以帮助多少migrant laborer讨回他们的工资呢？负面报道让人认为除非一般人可以见到总理或者主席否则他们是不可能解决他们的问题的。这个小插曲鼓舞了信访的人，在这个故事中，对于国家领导人的依赖和崇拜的发展是建立在对法律系统的损害这一代价之上的。毕竟我们是要依法治国，而不是依英明的领导治国，信访制度根源于人治，而在一个人治的社会里，任何明君都可以轻易地退化为暴君。

[To be continued]

待续。。。。。

--