论文部分内容阅读
我国指导性案例制度采取演绎式结构而非归纳式结构,导致其缺乏英美法系判例中“关键事实的区别”机制,地方法院无法从案例中获得立法权限,因此从本质上区别于英美法系的判例制度。而从其形成目的来看,指导性案例之设立乃是为了调动基层司法主动性、实现基层司法经验的制度化和加强对于具有社会影响力案件的监测,并且以此建立以基层经验为基础的集中决断模式,因此其自下而上的生成方式区别于司法解释的自上而下的生成方式。虽然指导性案例制度存在诸如最高院与最高检分别发布的指导性案例可能存在权属冲突、地方性司法经验推广的可能性以及指导性案例制度演化等问题,但是其建立表明了我国更加贴近本土实际,从盲目追随西方法治标准开始转向了更为实用的以解决纠纷为目的的本土标准。
The guiding case system in our country adopted a deductive structure rather than an inductive structure, which led to its lack of a mechanism of “difference of key facts” in the common law jurisprudence. The local court can not obtain the legislative authority from the case. Therefore, it is essentially different from Anglo-American Legal system of case law. From the perspective of its formation purpose, the guiding case is set up to mobilize the grassroots judicial initiative, to institutionalize the judicial experience at the grassroots level and to strengthen the monitoring of socially influential cases, and to establish the basis of grass-roots experience Therefore, the method of bottom-up generation is different from the top-down generation of judicial interpretation. Although the guiding case system has such problems as possible conflict of ownership, the possibility of promotion of local judicial experience and the evolvement of the guidance case system, such as guidance cases issued by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the establishment shows that our country is closer to the local In fact, starting from the blind pursuit of Western standards of the rule of law, it has turned to a more practical indigenous standard for the purpose of resolving disputes.