網絡犯罪證明難題司法治理的邏輯與方向，以2004-2024年司法解釋與規範性文件為考察對象

中國司法機關習慣通過制定司法解釋和規範性文件來治理刑事證明難題。對2004-2024年網絡犯罪司法解釋及規範性文件進行考察，發現此種回應型司法治理現象具有如下特徵:治理載體為司法解釋及規範性文件，治理主體乃最高司法機關中的特定人員，治理方法系單點式地總結經驗回應特定難題，治理思路是在傳統證明體系外設置例外性、特殊化規範。政策實施型司法是運用司法解釋等回應證明難題的原因，三機關相互配合為司法解釋等的聯合制定提供條件，實用型規範制定思路可保障規範的可操作性和實效性，全面式司法證明控制邏輯下例外性規範設置是必然選擇。正因如此，回應型司法治理模式雖能快速緩解證明難題，卻存在規範性問題、實效性問題及權利保障難題。從短期來看，可堅持回應型治理思路，推動例外性規範的體系優化;但從長期來看，應借助既有制度優勢，轉向變革型治理思路，推動證明體系和程序的合理優化。

Chinese judicial authorities have traditionally addressed challenges in criminal proof through the issuance of judicial interpretations and normative documents. A review of judicial interpretations and normative documents concerning cybercrime from 2004 to 2024 reveals several characteristics of this responsive judicial governance phenomenon: the governance instruments are judicial interpretations and normative documents; the governance actors are specific personnel within the highest judicial authorities; the governance method involves summarizing experience and responding to specific problems in a targeted manner; and the governance approach is to establish exceptional and specialized rules outside the traditional evidentiary framework. The use of policy-implementation-oriented adjudication explains why judicial interpretations and related instruments are employed to address evidentiary challenges. The coordination among the three key institutions provides the conditions necessary for the joint issuance of such interpretations, and a pragmatic approach to rulemaking ensures the operability and effectiveness of the resulting norms. Within a comprehensive model of judicial proof control, the establishment of exceptional norms becomes an inevitable choice. Consequently, while the responsive judicial governance model can quickly alleviate evidentiary challenges, it faces issues of normative coherence, effectiveness, and rights protection. In the short term, it remains appropriate to adhere to a responsive governance approach and promote the systematic optimization of exceptional norms. However, in the long term, it is necessary to leverage existing institutional strengths and shift toward a transformative governance approach, aimed at rationally optimizing the evidentiary system and procedural structures.