【作者】 刘晓宏；

【导师】 黄文艺；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 最高人民法院的司法解释备受法律实务界的重视与法学理论界的青睐。围绕最高人民法院司法解释制度及其相关问题，学界展开了持久的讨论。相对于理论性分析而言，也许实证性考察能更为直接地发现其中存在的真正具有法律意义和现实意义的问题。为此，本文尝试做这样一种努力：以1997年司法解释规范化进程启动以来最高人民法院所制定的349件司法解释文件及相关文献资料为实证资源，对“最高人民法院司法解释”进行考察。相关讨论围绕司法解释权、司法解释程序、司法解释文件展开。在司法解释制度中，这三者至为重要而又密不可分：司法解释权是司法解释制度得以建立的起点，司法解释权行使的动态过程即为司法解释程序，其物化成果即为司法解释文件。关于“最高人民法院司法解释权”，本文探讨了两个问题。第一个问题是，司法解释权的规范合法性。有关最高人民法院司法解释权的规范散见于不同法律文件之中。通过对该类规范的分析，以及对其效力的论证，可以确定，最高人民法院的司法解释权有现行法律上的依据；在规范层面，可将该项权力界定为，最高人民法院就审判工作中法律的具体应用问题进行解释的权力。第二个问题是，司法解释权的现实合理性。在现阶段，受制于法律的不完善程度和法院系统的现实状况，由最高人民法院通过行使司法解释权的方式制定有关法律规则，是完善法律以满足审判需求的唯一制度选择。而最高人民法院司法解释权的实际运作，在向规范层面的“法律的具体应用”输送了丰富内容的同时，也找到了与其他主体的解释权和谐共存的逻辑。简言之，最高人民法院的司法解释权应审判需求而生，在法律限定的范围内行使，且很少与相关权力发生冲突，因而，其具有现实合理性。关于“最高人民法院司法解释程序”，本文针对不同程序，采取了不同的考察策略。首先，关于司法解释的制定程序，相应讨论从规范和实际运作两个方面展开。司法解释制定程序的规则过于笼统，难以对制定工作形成实质性制约。在制定司法解释时，最高人民法院注重对法律、审判实践、司法政策和社会现实等因素进行考量。这一做法在一定程度上弥补了前述的制度缺陷，但该种考量本身也得失兼有。其次，关于司法解释的修改、废止、清理、监督等程序，由于有关规范较少，相应讨论主要从这些程序的实际运作方面展开。司法解释的修改、废止、清理、监督等程序的良好运作，是司法解释实现规范化、系统化、合法化的必要条件。最高人民法院司法解释文件庞杂、规则混乱的状况与前述程序的“漫不经心”和“消极怠工”密切相关。这主要表现为：一方面，最高人民法院极少启动司法解释的修改、废止、清理程序；另一方面，有权主体极少启动监督程序，而最高人民法院又采取了反监督策略，这使得最高人民法院的司法解释在多数时候享有监督豁免。关于“最高人民法院司法解释文件的实质合理性”，本文探讨了四个问题。其一是，“司法解释的规范地位”。最高人民法院的司法解释是规范性法律文件，其效力低于法律。最高人民法院应进一步巩固司法解释的独立性地位，以使其更好地指导审判实践。其二是，“司法解释制定的必要性”。最高人民法院制定司法解释，应接受两方面因素的制约，即审判实践的需求以及法律问题的复杂性程度。满足以上两项条件的司法解释便符合了必要性要求。通过实证考察，可以发现，在司法解释中必要的解释和不必要的解释均有存在，它们各自又可分为不同类型。其三是，“司法解释内容的合法律性”。司法解释必须接受解释对象的制约，即司法解释的内容应具有“合法律性”。“合法律性”要求司法解释不能违背法律；违背法律的情形包括违背法律目的、违背法律原则和违背法律规则。这三种情形在司法解释中都能找到例证。其四是，“司法解释效力的规范化”。司法解释必须接受自身地位的限制，这主要表现为司法解释的效力应满足规范化要求。有关司法解释“时间效力”的规则极不完善，严重影响了司法解释的统一适用。对此，最高人民法院应及时研究制定相应规则，以使司法解释的效力符合规范化要求。关于“最高人民法院司法解释文件的形式合理性”，本文对司法解释文件的三个主要组成部分——文号、标题、正文分别进行了考察。就形式合理性的要求而言，文号的规范化程度很高。标题的规范化程度较低，并且，其各组成要素的规范化程度也不一致。其中，“文件形式”较为规范；“标题样式”则十分混乱；“标题内容”在规范性、明确性、简洁性和统一性等四个方面存在欠缺；“题注”则有使用过度之嫌。司法解释文件的正文由“制定说明”和“条文”两部分构成，而条文是按照一定的体例编排起来的。“制定说明”一般表意笼统甚至错误，司法解释文件可将其略去。有一部分司法解释的编排体例不规范，应当予以纠正。司法解释条文内容与标题内容一样，也在规范性、明确性、简洁性和统一性等四个方面存在欠缺。最高人民法院的司法解释制度是司法制度的一个缩影，它清晰地折射出我国法治进程的复杂与艰难。随着社会和法制的发展，最高人民法院司法解释的体制和形式或许会发生根本性的变革。不过，目前，最高人民法院有必要进一步探索完善司法解释制度的方法并努力践行，以使该项制度能够在法治进程中留下浓墨重彩的一笔。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation draws much attention of legalpractitioners and the favor of the legal theory workers. Around the system of theSupreme Court’s judicial interpretation and related issues，academia has launched along-lasting discussion. Relative to the theoretical analysis，perhaps empirical studymay more directly find the question which really has legal and practical significance.This paper attempts to do such an effort: depending on 349 judicial interpretationsand relevant literature enacted by the Supreme Court as empirical resources since1997 when judicial interpretation standardization process starts，to inspect "theSupreme Court’s judicial interpretation". Related discussion is around the followingthree issues：the power of judicial interpretation and judicial interpretationprocedures，and judicial interpretation files. In the system of judicial interpretation，these three are inseparable：the power of judicial interpretation is the starting point toestablish judicial interpretation system, the dynamic process of the exercise ofjudicial interpretation power is the judicial interpretation procedure，and itsmaterialized achievement is the judicial interpretation file.About "the power of judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court"，this paperdiscusses two problems. The first issue is the normative legitimacy of the power tointerpret the specification. Specification of the Supreme Court’s power ofinterpretation is scattered into different legal documents. Through the normativeanalysis，as well as its effectiveness is proved，it can be identified that theSupreme Court ’s power of legal interpretation has the current legal basis; in thenormative level，it can be defined as the power while the Supreme Court makeconcrete application interpretation in trial work. The second question is the actuallegality of the power of judicial interpretation. In the present stage，subject to the imperfect law and the reality of the situation of current court system，SupremeCourt formulates relevant legal rules through the exercise of the power of legalinterpretation. It is the only system selection to legal perfection in order to meet thetrial needs. And the actual operation of the Supreme Court’s power of legalinterpretation conveying the rich content to "the concrete application of the law" inthe normative level，at the same time，also found the harmonious coexistence logicwith other subjects who also have interpretation power. In short，the power ofjudicial interpretation of the Supreme Court meets the trial needs. The exercise ofpower is within the framework of the legal limit，and is rarely associated withconflict，therefore，it has realistic legitimacy.About "the procedures on the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation"，according to different procedures，this paper takes a different inspection strategy.Firstly，on making process of the judicial interpretation，the discussion startedfrom two aspects，the specification and the actual operation. Procedures and rulesof judicial Interpretation are too general，it is difficult to form a substantiveconstraints on the formulation work. In the development of judicial interpretation，the Supreme Court focuses on consideration of factors such as law，trial practice，judicial policy and social reality. To a certain extent，this approach make updeficiencies for the system mentioned above，but the kinds of considerations arealso pros and cons to both. Secondly，there are less relevant norms on changes，repealed，cleaning，supervision procedures of the judicial interpretation，andrelevant discussions commence from the actual operation of these procedures. Goodoperation of changes，cancellation，the clean-up and supervision of judicialinterpretation is a necessary condition to achieve standardization，systematizationand legalization of judicial interpretation. The chaotic state of complex rules ofSupreme Court is closed related to the previous program’s "casual" and "slack". Thisis mainly manifested as，on the one hand，the Supreme Court rarely start changes，cancellation，clean-up procedures on judicial interpretation; on the other hand，very few body standing on their rights start supervisory procedures，the Supreme Court in most of the time enjoys the supervision exemption of their judicialinterpretation by using anti-supervisory strategy.About the "Substantial legitimacy of judicial interpretation files by the supremepeople court"，this paper discusses four questions. The first is "the normative statusof the judicial interpretation". The judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court isnormative legal documents，its effectiveness is under the law. The Supreme People’s court should further consolidate the independent status of judicial interpretation, soas to better guide the judicial practice. The second is "the necessity of judicialinterpretation". The Supreme People’s Court’s judicial interpretation should besubject to two factors，namely the demand of judicial practice and the complexityof legal issues. To meet the above two conditions of the judicial interpretation willmeet the necessary requirements. Through empirical study，it can be found that inthe judicial interpretation，necessary explanation and unnecessary interpretationboth exist，each of them can be divided into different types. Thirdly，it is about the"legality of the content of judicial interpretation". Judicial interpretation must acceptthe interpretation object’s constraints，namely the content of the judicialinterpretation should be" legitimate". "Legitimacy" means that judicial interpretationcan not be contrary to law; violation of legal cases include violates the legalpurpose，contrary to legal principles and rules of law. The three kinds of situationsin judicial interpretation can be found in the example. Fourthly，judicialinterpretation must accept the position’s constrains，it is mainly manifested as thejudicial interpretation’s effectiveness should meet standardization requirements.Rules of judicial interpretation of the "time effect" are very imperfect，and itseriously impact on the uniform application of judicial interpretation. In this regard，the Supreme Court shall promptly study and formulate the appropriate rules，so thatthe effectiveness of judicial interpretation meet the standardization requirements.About form legitimacy of judicial Interpretation，this paper investigated thejudicial interpretation documents’three main components - the number，title，andbody. About the request of form legitimacy，there is a high degree of standardization of the number; but there is a low degree of standardization of thetitle，and their respective components’degree of standardization is also inconsistent.Among them，the more standard is "file form"，the heading styles is veryconfusing; title content is inadequate in four aspects such as normalization，clarity，simplicity and uniformity; "caption" is used excessive. The body of judicialinterpretation file is composed of two parts，the enactment and the provisions，theprovisions are according to certain style choreography. "The formulation of mainmeaning" is too general and even errors，it can be omitted from the judicialinterpretation of document. There is a part of the judicial interpretation layout is notstandardized，which should be corrected. Content of judicial interpretation also lackthe normalization，clarity，simplicity and uniformity as content of title.The system of judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court is amicrocosm of the judicial system. It clearly reflects the complex and difficult processof the rule of law in China. With the development of the rule of law and society，system and forms of judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court may be undergoinga fundamental change. However，at present，the Supreme Court need to furtherexplore the various programs that improve the system of legal interpretation andefforts to practice hard，so that the system is able to leave an indelible mark in thebuilding process of the rule of law.更多还原