能动司法与实用主义后果论——基于“法治”理念的一个检讨

发布时间：2018-06-13 01:24

本文选题：能动司法 + 实用主义后果论　；参考：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2012年05期

【摘要】：从裁判方法的视角来看,中国能动司法命题所倾向的实用主义后果论对"依法裁判"的法治理念构成了挑战。实用主义后果论强调司法裁判要"解决问题",而不关心如何依据制定法或先例来解决问题。作为一种没有法治观的裁判方法,它颠覆了法治的逻辑,使我们失去了在司法实践中对法治理念进行价值诠释的机会。此外,即便强调能动司法所主张的后果是"让人民满意",并由此通过民主和法治的内在关系来作出辩护,其也忽视了民主审议观念中的规范性共识与经验性共识的区别;另一方面,把能动司法和实用主义后果论限于疑难案件的辩护方式同样是失败的,疑难案件并不是我们放弃依法裁判的当然理由,其反而要求我们进一步反思依法裁判和法治的重要性,从而确证妥当的裁判方法。
[Abstract]:From the point of view of judgment method, the pragmatic consequence theory of China's active judicial proposition challenges the legal concept of "judging according to law". Pragmatist consequence theory emphasizes that judicial judgment should "solve problems" rather than how to solve problems according to laws or precedents. As a judgment method without the concept of the rule of law, it subverts the logic of the rule of law and makes us lose the opportunity to interpret the value of the concept of rule of law in judicial practice. Moreover, even if it emphasizes that the consequences advocated by active justice are "satisfying the people" and thus justifies through the internal relationship between democracy and the rule of law, it ignores the distinction between normative consensus and empirical consensus in the concept of democratic deliberation; On the other hand, it is also a failure to limit the theory of active judicial and pragmatic consequences to the way in which difficult cases are defended. Difficult cases are not the natural reason for us to give up adjudication according to law. On the contrary, it requires us to further reflect on the importance of the rule of law and the rule of law, so as to confirm the proper method of adjudication.
【作者单位】：山东工商学院政法学院;
【基金】：山东省社会科学规划研究青年项目“法律的内在价值与司法解释互动研究”(11DFXJ02)
【分类号】：D926

【共引文献】