以基层经验为基础的集中决断模式——论我国指导性案例制度的本土化趋向

发布时间：2018-05-01 04:00

  本文选题：指导性案例制度 + 关键事实的区别　； 参考：《中国刑事法杂志》2012年06期

【摘要】：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。
[Abstract]:The guiding case system of our country adopts the deductive structure rather than the inductive structure, which leads to the lack of the "distinction of key facts" mechanism in the common law jurisprudence, and the local courts can not obtain the legislative competence from the cases. Therefore, it is essentially different from the case law system of Anglo-American law system. From its forming purpose, the guiding cases are set up in order to mobilize the judicial initiative at the grass-roots level, to realize the institutionalization of judicial experience at the grass-roots level and to strengthen the monitoring of cases with social influence. And based on the grass-roots experience, the centralized decision model is established, so its bottom-up generation is different from the top-down generation of judicial interpretation. Although there are some problems in the guiding case system, such as that issued separately by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate, there may be conflicts of ownership, the possibility of popularizing local judicial experience, and the evolution of the guiding case system, etc. But its establishment shows that our country is closer to the local reality, from blindly following the western rule of law standards to the more practical local standards for the purpose of resolving disputes.
【作者单位】： 厦门大学法学院;
【分类号】：D926.2
，

本文编号：1827608