裁判文书是审判工作成果最权威的体现，也是法官辨法析理、定分止争、弘扬法治的重要载体。加强裁判文书的说理，使裁判结果产生的过程公开透明，是当事人及社会公众的热切期盼，也是理论界与实务界的共识。裁判文书说理本质上是一个实践问题，也是各项司法改革措施的成果折射。党的十八大以来，特别是十八届三中、四中全会的召开，在党中央的重大决定中明确提出要加强裁判文书释法说理，裁判文书说理的地位和重要性显著提升，最高人民法院和地方各级人民法院积极探索和完善裁判文书说理的相关机制，裁判文书说理改革步入了快速完善的轨道。

裁判文书说理具有多重研究价值。公平正义是司法永恒的主题，也是人民的真诚期盼。司法是维护社会正义的最后一道防线，司法公正主要体现在裁判文书说理中。民事审判工作是人民法院审判工作的重要组成部分。近年来，民事案件一直占据人民法院诉讼案件总量的六成以上，是司法服务经济社会发展的“主战场”。随着人们生活水平和法律维权意识的提高，民事纠纷数量呈现出爆发性增长的趋势，也出现了越来越多的新类型、疑难、复杂案件。与此同时，民事案件裁判的结果又与人们的生产生活息息相关，每个案件中当事人的权利主张能否得到支持，直接影响着当事人个人家庭生活，关系着企业的生死存亡。随着裁判文书的上网公开，人们可以方便查看裁判文书，这使得个案的公正关系到整个社会的公正，因此，每个案件的说理，都是在捍卫整个社会的公正。

民事裁判文书是人民法院在民事诉讼中，为解决当事人之间的争议，依照民事法律规定，就案件的实体问题和程序问题而制作的具有法律效力的司法文书。裁判文书说理是民事裁判文书的灵魂。提高裁判文书说理性，主要是督促法官在民事裁判中通过辨法析理告诉当事人和公众，司法的判断标准是什么，以及为什么作出这样的判断，也就是要求法官阐明民事裁判结论的形成过程和正当性，旨在提高民事裁判的可接受性，让“正义不仅要实现，而且要以看得见的方式实现”，达到法律效果和社会效果的有机统一。

研究民事裁判文书说理，需要结合我国目前民事裁判文书改革的发展情况，并从司法实践中民事裁判文书说理存在的问题入手，深入探析研究阻碍民事裁判文书说理发展的各种因素，结合民事诉讼的基本逻辑和裁判文书说理的方法，有针对性地提出如何加强民事裁判文书说理的建设性意见。本文分为五章，基本上按照“理论基础分析—改革发展现状—困境及成因剖析—方法路径—制度路径”的顺序予以展开。研究的逻辑主线是，首先分析民事裁判文书说理的基本内涵，随后梳理民事裁判文书说理改革的脉络，并分析司法实践中民事裁判文书说理存在的问题，在此基础上剖析导致“说理难”的深层次成因，最后从微观层面和宏观层面分别提出民事裁判文书“说理难”的解决路径，即民事裁判文书说理的方法以及裁判说理改革的制度保障。

民事裁判文书说理研究是一项系统工程，研究的第一步是对核心概念“裁判文书”和“说”“理”分别进行理论分析，确定本文的研究对象为民事判决书和民事裁定书说理。在此基础上，对民事裁判文书说理的基本内涵，以及说理的对象和功能进行研究，民事裁判文书说理面对不同的对象，发挥着不同的价值功能。再从法官的义务、司法公正的需求、司法公开的倒逼作用三个方面阐释民事裁判文书说理的重要性。

近些年，民事裁判文书说理改革引起了最高人民法院和地方各级人民法院前所未有的高度重视。我国民事裁判文书说理改革发展历经了起步阶段、发展阶段、深化阶段，民事裁判文书说理的水平有了明显提高，但也反映出改革中的一些问题，需要在后续发展中进一步完善。具体到司法实践现状中，本文结合一些改判、发回重审的案例展开了实证研究，从证据认定说理、事实认定说理、法律适用说理和法律程序说理四个方面，归纳分析了民事裁判文书说理现状中的不足之处，为深入研究困境及成因探明了方向。

在民事裁判文书说理困境的表征之下，存在着一些困扰法官说理的深层次原因：不愿说理、不敢说理、不善说理。司法实践中出现“说理难”的情况，其实是“多因一果”。主要原因有以下四个方面：一是裁判说理的法律依据、推理模式决定了现有说理模式。二是提高说理性的前提是需要转变法官“重结果、轻说理”“重官本位、轻当事人”等陈旧的司法理念，树立重视裁判说理的新认识。三是与说理相关的配套制度如评价机制、激励机制、保障机制等缺位，制约了说理的发展。四是分析“人的因素”，法官需要具备什么样的专业素质才能匹配说理这项高难度工作。只有对“说理难”的困境作出有效诊断，才能对症下药，为提高裁判文书说理性找到正确的路径。

提高民事裁判文书说理性的解决路径，可以分为方法路径和制度路径。从微观层面来看，方法路径旨在回答民事裁判文书说理应该“说什么”以及“怎么说”的问题，也就是民事裁判文书说理的内容和方法。首先，归纳出民事裁判说理过程中需要遵循的四大原则，即合法性、合逻辑性、针对性和必要性；其次，在分析民事裁判文书的样式结构和民事裁判的逻辑结构基础上，提出构建以争议焦点为中心的民事裁判文书结构；再次，聚焦说理核心内容（审查判断证据、认定事实、法律适用、自由裁量权）详细阐述说理方法，同时兼顾情理的融入与文理的修辞表达，为提升民事裁判文书说理水平提供方法支持。从宏观层面来看，制度路径的着力点是：民事裁判文书说理改革不是单兵突进，说理活动需要在一个保障机制更完善的司法环境中才能发挥更大作用。基于此考虑，建议：一是完善民事裁判文书说理评价标准，这是改善说理现状的前提。二是建立刚性约束机制，将民事裁判文书说理义务上升至法律层面；优化激励机制的逻辑并加强民事裁判文书说理专项培训，提高法官说理意愿和能力。三是明确法官的说理责任豁免，调整民事裁判文书的撰写规则和署名规则，给予法官更多自由说理的空间，让法官安心审判，乐于说理。

Judgment documents are the most authoritative legal instrument of the results of trial work. Judgment documents play the role of the most important carrier, through which judges are able to discern the law and reasoning, determine the disputing points and end the dispute, and promote the establishment of rule of law. Strengthening the reasoning of the judgment documents and making the outcome of the judge decision be open and transparent, is the ardent expectation of the parties and the public, as well as the consensus of the academic team and practical circles. The reasoning of judgment documents is essentially a practical issue, and it also reflects the results of the judicial reform measures. After the convening of the Party's 18th National Congress, especially the Third Plenary Session, the Fourth Plenary Session, under the major decisions of Party Central Committee, it is clearly proposed to strengthen the interpretation of the law. The status and importance of the reasoning of the judgment documents significantly enhanced. The Supreme People's Court and local people's courts at all levels actively explore and improve the mechanism related to the reasoning of the judgment documents, which makes the reform of the reasoning of the judgment documents go into a track of rapid development.
The reasoning of judgment documents has multiple research values. Fairness and justice are the eternal theme of justice and are also sincere expectations from the public. Justice is the last line of defense to maintain social justice, and judicial justice is mainly reflected in the reasoning of judgment documents. Civil trial work is an important part of the trial work in people's courts. In recent years, civil cases always account for more than 60% of the total number of litigation cases in the people's courts, which is regarded as the "main battlefield" of judicial services for economic and social development. With the improvement of people's living standard and awareness of legal rights, the number of civil disputes has shown an explosive growth trend. And there are more and more new types of difficult and complex disputes. At the same time, the results of civil cases are closely related to people's daily life. Whether the rights of the parties in each case can be supported or not directly affects the life of each individual, family, and the survival of the impacted legal entity. With the openness of the judgment documents on the internet, people can easily view the judgment documents, which makes the justice of individual cases related to the justice of the whole society, therefore, the reasoning of each case is in defense of the justice of the whole society.
Civil judgment documents are judicial instruments with legal effect, which are made subject to the substantive matters and procedural matter of each case, and issued by the people's court in civil litigation in line with the provision of civil laws, in order to resolve disputes between the parties. Judgment documents reasoning is the soul of the civil judgment documents. Improving the reasoning of judgment documents, mainly relies on urging judges to let the parties and the public know the standard of judicial judgment and the reasons to make such judgment through legal analysis in civil adjudication. That is to say judges are required to clarify the process of the civil adjudication conclusions formation and legitimacy in order to improve the acceptability of civil adjudication, through which we are aimed to achieve the goal that "justice is not only realized, but also realized in a visible way", and achieve the organic unity of legal effects and social effects.
To study the reasoning of civil judgment instruments, we need to consider the development of civil judgment documents reform in China, take account into the problems of civil judgment documents reasoning in judicial practice, and analyze and study various factors which hinder the development of civil judgment documents reasoning; consider the basic logic of civil litigation and the method of judgment documents reasoning, and eventually put forward constructive opinions on how to improve the reasoning of civil judgment documents in a targeted manner. This paper is divided into five chapters. It is developed basically according to the order of "theoretical basis analysis - reform and development of the current situation - dilemma and analysis of the causes - methodological path - institutionalized path". The logical order of the research is to first analyze the basic connotation of reasoning in civil judgment documents, then sort out the reform of reasoning in civil judgment documents, and analyze the problems of reasoning in civil judgment documents in judicial practice, and based on above, analyze the deep-seated causes of the "difficulty in reasoning", and finally propose a solution path for the "difficulty in reasoning" in civil judgment documents from micro level and macro level respectively, which would be the methods of reasoning of civil judgment documents and the institutionalized guarantee of reforming the reasoning of judgment.
The study of the reasoning of civil judgment documents is a systematic project. The first step of the study is to analyze the core concepts of " judgment documents" and "reasoning" respectively. The research object of this paper is the civil judgment and civil ruling reasoning. On this basis, study on the basic connotation of reasoning in civil judgment documents, as well as the object and function of reasoning, the reasoning of civil judgment documents plays different functional value when facing different objects. Then explain the importance of reasoning in civil judgment documents from three aspects: judges' obligations, the demand for judicial fairness, and the role of judicial openness to force.
In recent years, the reform of reasoning of civil judgment documents has attracted unprecedented attention from the Supreme People's Court and local people's courts at all levels. The development of reasoning reform of civil judgment documents in China has gone through the initial stage, the development stage and the deepening stage, and the level of reasoning of civil judgment documents has improved significantly, but it also reflects some problems in the reform, which need to be further improved in the subsequent development. In particular, with respect to the current status of judicial practice, through the analysis of some re-sentencing or remanded cases, this paper carries out an empirical study from the perspective of the evidence identification reasoning, factual reasoning, law and regulations application reasoning and legal procedural reasoning, and summarizes and analyzes the shortcomings of the status quo of civil judgment documents reasoning, which directs the way for in-depth study of dilemma and causes.
Under the surface of civil judgment documents reasoning dilemma, there are some deep-seated reasons troubled judges’ reasoning: unwilling to reason, afraid to reason, and not good at reasoning. The "reasoning difficult" situation exists in judicial practice, in fact, reflects "multiple causes with one consequence". The main reasons fall into following four aspects: first, the legal basis and reasoning mode of adjudication reasoning determine the existing reasoning mode. Second, the condition precedent of improving the reasoning is to get rid of the consideration about "paying attention on results, but lightening reasoning" "paying attention on the official position, but lightening parties’ demands" and other old judicial philosophy, and establish a new understanding of the importance of reasoning. Third, the absence of supporting systems related to reasoning, such as evaluation mechanisms, incentive mechanism, protection mechanism, etc., which restricts the development of reasoning. Fourth, the analysis of the "human factor", that is what specific professional qualification is required for judges to complete the difficult work of reasoning. We shall be able to prescribe the right remedy and find the right path to improve the reasoning of judgment document only when the “reasoning difficult” dilemma is effectively diagnosed.
The solution to improve the reasoning of civil judgment documents can be divided into methodological and institutionalized paths. From the micro level, the methodological path aims to answer the question of what and how to reasoning in civil judgment instruments, which are the content and methods of civil judgment instruments reasoning. Firstly, the four principles needs to be followed in the process of civil judgment reasoning, including legality, logic, relevance and necessity; secondly, on the basis of the analysis of the style structure and the logical structure of civil judgment documents, to propose a judgment documents model which is centralized with the dispute; focus on the core elements of reasoning (review judgment evidence, identify the facts, application of law, discretion) and elaborating on the reasoning methods, and taking into account the integration of reason and the rhetorical expression of literature, to provide methodological support for improving the level of reasoning of civil judgment documents. From the macro level, the focus of the institutionalized path is that the reform of reasoning in civil judgment documents is not a one-man army, and reasoning activities can only play a greater role in a judicial environment with better protection mechanisms. Based on these considerations, it is suggested that: firstly, to improve the reasonable evaluation standard of reasoning in civil judgment documents, which is the premise of improving the current status of reasoning; secondly, to establish a rigid restraint mechanism to raise the obligation of reasoning in civil judgment documents to the legal level; to optimize the logic of the incentive mechanism and strengthen the special training of reasoning in civil judgment documents to improve judges' willingness and ability to reason; thirdly, to clarify the immunity of judges from responsibility for reasoning and adjust the rules of writing and signing civil judgment documents, and give judges more room for free reasoning, so that judges can judge with peace of mind and enjoy reasoning.