论文部分内容阅读
司法方法在司法实践中的应用是以司法能动为前提的。试想,如果一个法官只是机械地适用法律而没有任何能动性可言的话,那又谈何发现法律、解释法律以及进行利益衡量呢?近代的法制变革使中国选择了大陆法系,“司法克制”成为其主要特色,“司法能动”的空间被压缩至最低。前者要求依法裁判,法官不可释法、造法;后者则可适当采用社会规则裁判,法官也可释法、造法。单从此点看,大陆法系的司法风格与中国古代法家相近,英美法系的司法风格与中国古代儒家相近。在中国目前的司法改革中,虽然不能像儒家的司法传统那样致力于国法与社会规则之间的平衡,也不能像英国那样追求普通法与衡平法(实质上也属于社会规则)之间的平衡,而是应当在坚持国法优先(司法克制)的前提下,给予“司法能动”以一定的空间,使法官在解释法律和利益衡量的时候能够自主选择国法之外的社会规则进行裁判,以便更好地实现公平正义。
The application of judicial methods in judicial practice is premised on the judicial initiative. Just think, if a judge just applies the law mechanically but does not have any motivation at all, then talk about discovering the law, explaining the law and making a profit measurement. In the recent legal reforms, China chose the civil law system, “judicial restraint ”As its main feature, the space for“ judicial acumen ”is compressed to a minimum. The former requires that judgments be made according to law, judges should not interpret laws and make laws, while the latter may properly adopt rules of social order, and judges may interpret and make laws. Judging from this point of view, the judicial style of the civil law system is similar to that of the ancient Chinese legalists. The judicial style of Anglo-American legal systems is similar to that of ancient Chinese Confucianism. In the current judicial reform in China, although it is impossible to devote itself to the balance between state law and social rules as the Confucian legal tradition does, nor can it pursue the balance between common law and equity (essentially social rules) as Britain did , But should give “judicial active” a certain amount of space under the precondition of giving priority to national law (judicial restraint) so that judges can independently decide social rules other than the national law when interpreting laws and interests, In order to achieve fairness and justice better.