司法能动主义的法理分析

发布时间：2018-08-27 17:59

【摘要】：司法能动主义主要包含了三方面的含义,即,司法审查意义上、实用主义进路下以及混合意义上的司法能动主义。直接反对司法形式主义与极端理性主义的法律实用主义,代表了一种积极的和能动的法律改良思想,与司法能动主义在本质上是一致的。实用主义进路下的司法能动主义在实践中主要表现为承认司法活动的外部社会目标、明确法官造法的正当性、更少强调必须遵从先例、较大的法官自由裁量权以及强调司法的回应型。司法能动主义的出现,在法哲学层面上主要是法治理论深化的结果：传统法治理念理想化地要求法官只能依据现有的原则或法律断案而不得受其它因素影响,后现代法治观解放了形式主义法治思想,使法官进行法律判断、形成法律决定的过程得到重新诠释。在法学方法论层面,司法能主义解决了形式法律与逻辑推理之困境。在社会现实层面,司法能动主义反映了司法权与政治相融合的趋势,是应社会观念的变迁倾向和国家范式的转换需要而生。司法能动主义的正当性是相对的,能动之限度的把握是问题关键。在规范法官自由裁量权问题上,应当把裁量结果的客观性作为根本约束以及将理性因素作为自由裁量的优先考量因素。在法官造法的限度上,适用的情形和适用的原则是法官主要把握的两个方面。此外,程序正义是司法的最后防线,在“形式法庭”与“实质法庭”之间,还应当把发挥能动作用的主要场域限定于“实质法庭”阶段。在某种程度上,司法能动主义既是现实所需,又是社会和法治发展到一定阶段的产物,我国现阶段将能动司法作为司法改革的突破口符合法治发展的一般规律。但是,司法能动主义的确是个危险的理论,我国的现实土壤仍然缺乏保证其健康生长的许多有机成分。
[Abstract]:Judicial activism mainly includes three meanings, that is, judicial activism in the sense of judicial review, pragmatism and mixed sense. Legal pragmatism, which directly opposes judicial formalism and extreme rationalism, represents a positive and dynamic idea of legal reform, which is consistent with judicial activism in essence. In practice, judicial activism under the pragmatic approach is mainly manifested in the recognition of the external social objectives of judicial activities, the clarification of the legitimacy of the judge's law-making, and the less emphasis on the need to abide by precedents. Greater discretion of judges and emphasis on judicial responses. The emergence of judicial activism is mainly the result of the deepening of the theory of rule of law on the level of philosophy of law: the traditional concept of rule of law idealizes that judges can only decide cases according to existing principles or laws without being affected by other factors. The postmodern view of rule of law liberates the formalistic thought of rule of law, makes the judge to judge the law, and reinterprets the process of forming the legal decision. At the level of legal methodology, judicial activism solves the dilemma of formal law and logical reasoning. On the social reality level, judicial activism reflects the trend of the fusion of judicial power and politics, and is born in response to the changing tendency of social concept and the change of national paradigm. The legitimacy of judicial activism is relative, and the limit of initiative is the key to the problem. In regulating the discretion of judges, we should take the objectivity of the discretion as the fundamental constraint and the rational factors as the priority of discretion. In the limit of the judge's making law, the applicable situation and the applicable principle are the two main aspects of the judge's grasp. In addition, procedural justice is the last line of defense of justice. Between "formal court" and "substantive court", the main field of active action should be limited to the stage of "substantive court". To some extent, judicial activism is not only the need of reality, but also the product of the development of society and the rule of law to a certain stage. At this stage, the active judicature is regarded as the breakthrough of judicial reform in our country, which accords with the general law of the development of the rule of law. However, judicial activism is indeed a dangerous theory. Our country's realistic soil still lacks many organic components to ensure its healthy growth.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926

【相似文献】