我国“能动司法”的本义与反思

发布时间：2018-03-04 13:10

本文选题：能动司法　切入点：司法能动主义　出处：《上海交通大学》2012年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：“能动司法”自2009年作为中国社会主义司法的重要理念被大力倡导和推广以来，这个本土语境的概念与西方语境中的“司法能动主义”（judicial activism）之间，一直存在着歧义认知和指陈错位的深度纠葛，为相关理论探讨和实践开展埋下了偏颇和混乱的伏笔。两者在知识和语言上存在一定联系，部分理念也有重合，但本质（基本内涵与核心价值诉求）上却有泾渭分明的区别。两者在语词使用上的关系，具有分析哲学提出的“家族相似性”特征——形似而质异——具有相似性而绝非共同性。实际上，“能动司法”是我国“服务大局”这一特有“政治—司法意识形态”的一部分，而“司法能动主义”则是根植于英美法系、具有鲜明美国特色的司法哲学，两者之间并没有任何客观意义上的直接关联，把两者视为同一或同类概念，源于反向格义的思维定势。能动司法是我国司法界在法治进路转型过程中自主提出并统一推行的司法理念及相关实践。其核心含义是，司法权主动、积极、充分地利用一切合法资源，运用各种可能的司法手段追求法律、社会、政治、经济等多重效果的统一，最大限度地发挥司法的效能。这其中既具有司法面对风险社会进行积极考量和靠前作为，回应社会变迁和民众需求调适审判方式的合理性；也蕴含着司法“能动”失度，过分迎合政治需求和非制度化民意，甚至从中立裁判者异化为矛盾制造者，自毁公信力长城的巨大危险。法律系统的“必要封闭性”，即“外部因素进入法律系统必须通过合法性过滤才能成为法律决定理由”这一封闭程度的底线，是法律系统具有自主性的基础，也是司法能够在真正意义上展开“能动”（而非“被能动”或乱动、盲动）的前提。对“为大局服务，为人民司法”、“追求多重效果统一”等这些能动司法的宗旨，应当给予正确的理解：首先，司法服务政治大局，必须保持相对独立性，始终不能突破中立裁判者的角色限定，司法只有坚持做好“合法性”服务与规制（合法的给予保护，非法的予以取缔），政治才可以避免更深层的合法性危机，社会才能避免陷入大规模的失范失序。其次，司法尊重民意，主要是在遵从包含着制度化民意的法律这个意义上，只有在极特殊情况下才会对非制度化民意给予考量，司法活动的合理效果目标应当是让人民信任，而非让人民满意。再次，，能动司法追求“多重效果统一”这样一种“综合可接受性”，必须加上“以法律效果为基础”这一限定，判决等司法活动的结果必须以是否符合法律的首要价值——公平正义为首要标准，在保障司法公正的前提下和合法性允许的范围内，再尽可能地追求理想的政治、经济、道德等效果。
[Abstract]:Since 2009, as an important concept of Chinese socialist justice, the concept of "active justice" has been strongly advocated and popularized, between this concept of local context and "judicial activism" in the western context. There has always been a deep dispute between ambiguity cognition and the dislocation of reference, which has laid down a biased and chaotic foreshadowing for the discussion and practice of relevant theories. There is a certain connection between the two in knowledge and language, and some concepts also overlap. But the essence (the basic connotation and the core value demand) has a clear difference. The relationship between the two in the use of words, In fact, "active justice" is a part of the unique "political-judicial ideology" of our country, that is, "serving the overall situation". "Judicial activism" is rooted in the common law system and has a distinctive American characteristics of judicial philosophy, there is no direct connection between the two in an objective sense, the two are regarded as the same or the same concept. The thinking pattern derived from the reverse meaning. Active justice is the judicial idea and related practice that the judicial circles put forward and carry out uniformly in the course of the transition of the rule of law in our country. Its core meaning is that the judicial power takes the initiative, actively and fully utilizes all the legal resources. Using all possible judicial means to pursue the unity of the legal, social, political, economic, and other multiple effects, and to maximize the effectiveness of the administration of justice. The rationality of responding to the changes of society and the needs of the public to adjust the way of trial also implies that the judicial "initiative" is out of order, which excessively caters to political needs and non-institutional public opinion, and even dissimilates itself from a neutral judge to a contradiction maker. The danger of self-destructing the credibility of the Great Wall... the "necessary closeness" of the legal system, that is, the bottom line of the degree of closure that "external factors entering the legal system must be filtered through legitimacy to become grounds for legal determination." It is the basis of the autonomy of the legal system, and the premise that the judicature can carry out the "initiative" in the real sense (rather than "being moved" or "moving blindly"). The purposes of active justice, such as "serving the overall situation, serving the people's justice" and "pursuing the unity of multiple effects," should be correctly understood: first, the judiciary must maintain its relative independence in serving the overall political situation. We can never break through the limitation of the role of neutral referee. Only by insisting on the service and regulation of "legitimacy" (protecting legally and outlawing illegally) can politics avoid a deeper crisis of legitimacy. In order to avoid a large-scale disorder in society. Secondly, judicial respect for public opinion, mainly in the sense of compliance with laws that contain institutionalized public opinion, is considered only under very special circumstances. The objective of the reasonable effect of judicial activities should be to make the people trust, not to satisfy the people. Thirdly, the "comprehensive acceptability" of the active judicial pursuit of "unification of multiple effects" must be limited by the addition of the term "based on legal effects". The outcome of judicial activities, such as judgment, must be based on whether or not it conforms to the primary value of law-fairness and justice as the primary criterion, and on the premise of ensuring judicial justice and to the extent permitted by its legitimacy, and then, as far as possible, pursue ideal politics and economy. The effect of morality, etc.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D926

【参考文献】