【作者】 郝丽芳；

【导师】 谭融；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 中外政治制度， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 美国在宪政民主的建构和发展过程中,始终面临宪政和民主间关系的调和问题,作为宪政结构重要组成部分的联邦司法系统成为美国宪政秩序的重要维护者。美国宪政民主发展的历程表明,联邦法院充当着宪法和法律的解释者、权力限制和权利的维护者以及社会与政治发展平衡者的角色。成为“宪政主义和民主”二者间的“扣链齿轮”,在维护美国政治体制和宪政民主方面发挥着重要的政治性作用。美国自建国以来,学者和政治家们提出了一系列有关联邦司法政治的观点,包括“最小危险部门”、“范围有限的‘巨大政治权力’拥有者”、实用主义“司法性立法”、趋同性决策者、“反多数难题”和“捕蝇纸法院”等。受诸种因素的影响,法官在审判过程中往往适用不同的解释标准,所谓“解释主义”和“非解释主义”的概括表达了司法审判中法官司法理念的不同,由此而衍生了司法克制主义和司法能动主义。然而,无论美国联邦法院和法官采用何种解释标准或原则,他们都被历史地赋予对宪法和法律的解释和守护权,尤其是司法审查权的运用,使联邦法院成为反对政治专横的强大壁垒,在美国政治系统中地位不断攀升。20世纪五、六十年代以来,美国联邦法院摆脱以往的被动状态,在维护公民权利方面扮演了新的角色。保持正当法律程序、保护少数族裔权利、性别平等、保护隐私权和言论自由等一系列议题被置于联邦法院面前。保护公民权利在一定程度上表现为处理政府与个人之间的关系、以及对宪法权利法案和公民自由平等权利的解释和捍卫。通过对诉讼案件的审理,联邦法院为少数群体的利益诉求提供了表达渠道,体现了社会价值的走向。美国联邦司法系统在司法裁决和对法律加以解释的过程中经常会面临两难的选择,囿于司法体系天生的被动性和制度性限制、以及基于自身权威性的考量和美国社会利益的多元性,联邦法院在司法判案过程中通常会谨慎行事,实用主义哲学与普通法传统共同作用下,呈现出实用性特点。以“实用主义”的态度面对不同领域运用不同方法,采用“多数原则”对棘手问题作出判决。同时在一些具体问题上采用模糊化的处理方式,以应对所面临的反多数困境,在协调诸种紧张关系的同时平衡社会与政治发展,谨慎推动社会与政治的变革和前行。更多还原

【Abstract】 The United States, in the process of constitutional democracy construction and development, is constantly faced with the problem of reconciliation between constitutionalism and democracy. As a crucial constituent part of constitutional system, the federal judicial system serves to protect American constitutional order. The development course of American constitutional democracy makes clear that the federal courts serve as the interpreter of constitution and laws, power restrictor and rights protector, and balancer between society and politics, acting as a "essential sprockets" connecting "constitutionalism and democracy", and play an important political role in maintaining American political institutions and constitutional democracy.Since the founding of the United States, scholars and statesmen have proposed a series of theories on federal judicial politics, including "the least dangerous branch","limited’enormous political power’owners", pragmatic "judicial legislation", convergent policy-making,"counter-majoritarian dilemma" and "flypaper courts" and etc. Judges, in most cases, employ different interpretation criteria due to various influencing factors. Generalization of so-called "interpretivism" and "noninterpretivism" thus expresses differences in judicial principles used by judges in the process of judicial adjudication, which, as a result, generates the concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint. However, whichever interpretation criteria or principles employed, federal courts and judges of the United States are given the rights to interpret and guard constitution and laws by history, especially the application of judicial review power, which makes the federal courts become a powerful barrier against political domineering and continuously elevates the status in American political systems.Since1950s and1960s, federal courts of the United States have broken away from the passive state in the past and began to play a new role in protecting civil rights. A series of issues, including maintaining due process, guarding minority rights, gender equality, protecting privacy and freedom of expression, were placed in front of the federal courts. Protecting civil rights, to a certain degree, is demonstrated as dealing with relationship between government and individuals, interpreting and defending the constitution, the bill of rights and citizens’freedom and equality rights. The federal courts provide an expression channel for appeals for interests of minority groups by trying court cases, which presents the trend of social value.The federal judicial system of the United States is often faced with a dilemma in the process of judicial decision and interpreting legislations. Limited by the natural passivity and institutional rules of the judicial system and based on the consideration of its own authority and diversity of American social interests, the federal courts usually act cautiously in judicial judgments, show the features of practicability in the philosophy of pragmatism and the common law tradition. The federal courts use different methods in different areas adopting "pragmatic" attitude, and use "majority principle" to make a decision on tough issues. In the meantime, the federal courts employ obfuscation treatments on specific problems to answer counter-majoritarian dilemma, balance social and political development while harmonizing various strained relations, and carefully promote social and political transformation and advancement.更多还原