【作者】 朱福勇；

【导师】 李祖军；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 民事法官是应该本着法律的公平正义精神,通过适用一系列司法技术能动的解决纷争,进而发展法律,推动社会进步,还是应该只奉行消极裁判原则,固守已有的法律规则,严格遵循“三段论”的逻辑推演,仅求独善其身?这既是使法官困惑的现实问题,又是需要学者和社会公众努力反思的理论难题。作为一名长期工作于实践部门同时又从事学术研究的博士研究生,试图立足实践,提出民事法官能动性这一概念,并对其进行阐释,力图回应上述问题,进而为我国民事法官能动性的规制提供一个理论解释和制度规范方案,以克服“三段论”逻辑推演的局限性,弥补法律规范之不足,实现民事诉讼之目的,走出概念法学推崇的“法典万能”的误区。本文除引论和结语外,共由五部分组成。其中,引论通过提出问题,指明了民事法官能动性研究对于解决我国民事司法功能性缺陷的现实困境、推进民事司法改革的渐进深化、完善我国民事法律统一适用机制和丰富、发展我国法学理论研究的重大意义。第一章以中外学者的著述为基础,明确界定民事法官能动性的内涵、性质、特征,以及追溯了法官能动性的历史发展。本文认为,自由裁量权一词含义本身不够精确并具有多种含义,且我国学者所界定的自由裁量权难以解决法律规则模糊、法律规则冲突、法律规则缺位以及适用法律规则显失公平等问题。而源于美国的司法能动主义着重强调法官立法、司法审查和遵循先例,难以契合我国国情。因此,本文将民事法官能动性界定为,我国特定语境下,法官依法享有的认定事实的自由心证权、程序管理权以及适用法律的解释权、酌情作出决定权和自由选择的裁量权,以及当出现法律规则模糊、冲突、缺位和法律规则适用显失公平等情形时,所赋予法官合理解释、平衡、选择适用法律规则和填补法律漏洞的权力。它具有司法权属性,是民事法官所特有权力,并贯穿于民事诉讼始终,具体表现为手段与目的理性、技术理性、实践理性和职业理性等。它是法官有限的积极能动,并以社会公平正义为最终的价值依归。它主要包括法官认定事实的自由心证权、程序管理权以及法律适用权。其中,法律适用权包括法官对法律的解释权、酌情作出决定权、选择和平衡的裁量权以及填补法律漏洞权。在漫长的嬗变过程中,法官能动性理论呈现法官无能动性、绝对的法官能动性和相对的法官能动性三种样态,其主导性理念是在法律规范的稳定性和实际生活的变动性之间、普遍正义与个别正义之间以及法律规则与自由之间寻求平衡。尽管存在历史、文化传统等差异,但是法官能动司法是两大法系国家的一致选择,只是幅度、大小不同而已。随着两大法系国家日益交流融合,已形成一种宏观框架内的法律规范与法官能动性结合之趋势。第二章在对民事法官能动性之争进行评介的基础上,论述了民事法官能动性的哲学基础和法理学基础,阐释了法官能动性行使的原则。本文认为,法官能动性强调民事司法对社会发展的有用性,是为了解决当下社会存在的实际问题,实现涉案当事人的平等保护,这是民事司法回应社会需要的理性选择。尊重和正确看待法官经验远比单纯的逻辑指引更有助于化解社会矛盾,解决实际问题。民事法官能动性与司法工具论有着本质区别,民事司法依循自身发展规律,在有限范围内调整矛盾,履行社会控制、政策实施等衍生职能,虽在范围和强度方面弱于立法权或行政权,但绝非意味着法官仅能消极懈怠。民事法官能动性有着深厚的哲学基础,绝对与相对的辨证关系要求民事法官与时俱进地克服时代和法律规范的局限性;一般与个别的辨证关系要求法官能动地兼顾普遍正义与特殊正义;主观与客观相互关系要求法官对个案和规则作出更具有合理的认识和判断;逻辑与经验的运用要求法官把理性的逻辑推演与经验法则相结合。民事审判是一项由法官主导并参与的社会活动,不可能如科学实验一样精密准确。由于法律规范的局限性、法律的不确定性、法官伦理自主性的要求、民事程序权利生成功能的选择、民事司法裁判方法的体现以及实现民事诉讼目的需要等因素制约,法官需要在法律规范的指导下能动地解决纷争,实现社会公平正义。然而,法官能动性是一柄双刃剑,它在追求司法公正的同时,又极易为法官滥用。为了确保法官能动性规范行使,法官能动性的行使应遵循合法原则、合理原则、诚信原则、公序良俗原则以及公平与利益衡量原则。第三章以法官能动性的支持体系为着眼点,从立法、程序、主体三个维度阐释理性化的能动裁量制度,确保司法公正的实现。本文认为,事实认定从一定程度上说是法官自由决定的过程,因此,法官能动性是通过对当事人自认的认定、司法认知、事实的推定、经验法则的运用、证明责任的分配和证明标准的适用,以及对证据的审查与判断等方面的把握与判断来实现的。尽管各国对诉讼程序管理方面的权能发挥和运用程度有所差异,但法官在程序控制、证据的收集与调查、法官询问权和释明权的行使以及特殊程序管理等方面均体现出了能动作用。法律适用是法官将纸上法律规范运用具体个案的活动过程,它要求法官在法律规范指引下,运用哲学的方法、进化的方法、传统的方法和社会学的方法能动的适用法律,以达到解决纷争,实现诉讼目的,尤其是在法律规范模糊、冲突、缺位和法律适用显失公平时,则更加凸显法官能动性,并透过公正、民主的程序,慎断纷争、重新分配利益,实现社会公平正义。第四章以两大法系主要国家实践为视角,阐释了法官能动性限制的根源及途径,以保证法官能动性的正当行使。本文认为,从社会角度来说,法官与其职业的社会阶层、社会认同、宗教和政治信仰以及物质待遇密不可分,民事法官易受个人利益的影响;从自然生理角度来看,诸如主观偏好、情感倾向以及其他非理性因素对法官亦产生一定影响。法官在显示其社会特征的同时,仍具备自然人所拥有的弱点,而这些人性弱点在审判活动中的表现制约了法官能动性的正当行使。加之,民事审判权控制着资源、易受一些社会不良风气的影响,特定历史时期和利益驱动的影响更加剧了部分法官的权力滥用,继而走向腐败,这是对法官能动性限制的主要根源。为了确保法官能动性的良性运作,依循民事诉讼的规律和特质,应从立法、程序、主体、审判制度与体制和“交涉性”诉讼对话机制等五个方面对其加以规制。第五章以我国民事法官能动性运行现状为考察对象,论证了我国民事法官能动性规制的现实条件,提出了规制途径。本文认为,法官恪守成文法,严格司法无疑是我国法治环境的主流。实践中,法官能动性客观存在且不可避免,但束缚过多,法官便不可避免成为“刀锋上的舞者”。因此,处于困顿之中的法官能动性发挥十分有限,不能达到应有的功效。难以圆满的法律规则、粗糙的方法论、严苛的制度约束、步履蹒跚的司法改革和失范的法官能动现象就是法官能动现状不佳的有力说明。目前情势下,程序正义与实体正义并重理念的形成、法官职业化建设稳步推进、人民陪审员制度的有效运行、案例指导逐步规范、调解制度的不断健全、平衡个案正义与普遍正义的需要以及司法审判发展的客观现实为法官能动性规制提供了条件。因此,我国在规制法官能动性时,应从树立维护司法公正的理念、完善民事法律制度、加强司法解释的指导力度、强化对法官裁判行为的实践控制、保障和落实法官能动性的规范行使以及营造良好的社会法治环境六个层面着手,以实现其良性运作。为了确保论证的科学性和实效性,本文注重辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义研究、普适性研究与语境性研究、规范性分析与实证研究以及法理学分析与部门法研究相结合的方法,并坚持研究视野的开放性和研究方法的综合性,结合司法实践,围绕民事法官能动性的相关问题进行探究性分析和论证,力求在理论层面使其正当化、实践层面使其具有可操作性,以期在影响或引导改变实务中的运作模式方面有所突破。更多还原

【Abstract】 Should civil judges uphold the spirit of equity and justice,settling the disputes through judicial techniques and thereby develop law and push the society forward or should they live up to the principle of being passive and the existing rules in deciding the cases,strictly obeying the logic of syllogism so as to keep integrity in decisions.This has long been a problem for the judges as well as a difficult theoretical question which calls for thoughts in scholars and the public.As a doctor degree student who has long worked in the practice as a judge as well as is keen on the theoretical research,I am trying to put forward the notion of civil judges’ activism and elaborate it so as to address the above-mentioned problems.The paper hereby try to give its reasonable explanation of this and his advice on systematical device in order to overcome limitations of syllogism and correct the mistakes of conceptual legal education in that the code is al-mighty and can solve any problem.The paper includes five parts together with the introduction and the conclusion.For the introduction,the paper put forward the problem and point out that the subject studied hereof is significant in deficiency of our civil adjudication and push forward the reforms in civil adjudications and therefore perfect the unified mechanism and amplify and develop the significance of theoretical study hereof.Chapter 1 is based on the books of the scholars at home and abroad,defining clearly the meaning,nature,properties and historical development of the judges’ discretionary activism. The paper believes that the concept of discretional power itself is imprecise and has many meanings and the concept defined by our scholars is incapable of solving the problem of the ambiguity of the legal rules,conflict thereof,absence of the correspondent rules and obvious inequity therein.Meanwhile,judicial activism originating from America stresses more on the judges’ ability in legislation,judicial review and following the precedent which is not identical with our status quo at home.Hereby,the paper introduced the terms ’initiative and activism of judges in civil cases’,namely,the judges’ power of freedom of assurance when ascertaining the fact,managing of the procedure and explaining the law,discretion in decision and freedom in choice and their ability in choosing proper procedures and laws and ability in making up for law deficiency for the problems of equivocal rules,conflicting provisions, absence of relevant laws as well as obviously unfair circumstances and therefore their ability of reasonable explanation,balance,choice of legal rules and power in making up of loopholes. Judges’ judicial initiatives and activism in civil cases has properties of adjudication,which belongs merely to the judges in deciding the cases and it is professional methods,objects, techniques,practice and as well as professional ethics and reasoning,which is limited initiatives and designed to realize social justice and faimess,which includes mainly the judges’ power of free assurance in ascertaining the fact,managing of the procedures and the application of the law which contains power of explanation of laws in the judges and decisions in accordance with the circumstances,discretional power of choice and balance and that of supplementing the loopholes.On the long process of changing,theory of judges’ activism has shown three forms of non-activism,absolute initiative and relative mobility,of which the main ideology is to attain the balance between stability of the statutes and varying social practices,general justice and unique one and provision and freedom.Despite differences in history,culture,the judges’ initiative and activism has been identical choice of the two legal systems only for the extent and range.With the intermingling of the two systems,a trend of combination of legal regulations and judges’ activism under the macro-freme has come into being.Chapter 2 mainly comments on the philosophy and jurisprudence of judges’ discretionary abilities on the basis of analysis of argument concerning the judges’ initiatives.The author believes that the judges’ activism emphasizes the utility of civil adjudication towards the social development,which is designed to safeguard the equity of the parties solving the existing problems.This is the choice of judges with reasoning.Therefore respect and justifiably consider the experience of judges far outweighs simple logic in settling the social disputes and solving the real problems.Civil judges’ activism differs much from the theory of adjudication as a tool in that civil adjudication solves problems according to its own rules and handles the social contradictions in a limited range;perform social control and the execution of policies and other derivative function.Although weaker and narrower compared to legislation and administration,it doesn’t necessarily mean the slackness and passivity of the judges’ power.Civil judges’ activism has a profound foundation of philosophy,and absolutely and relatively dialectical relationship has called for progressing of civil judges in overcoming restriction of times and legislation;generally and individually dialectical relationship has called for objective choice and judging power thereof,therefore balancing between general and individual justice;mutual relations between subjective and objective calls for balances between rigid rules and initiative adjudication and thereby come to more reasonable knowledge and judgment concerning individual cases;logic and experience call for the combination of two by the judges.Civil adjudication is a social activity led by judges which shouldn’t be as precise as scientific apparatus.Considering limitation of statutes and judges’ ethics thereby with the goal of showing existence of civil procedures as well as purpose of civil procedures,the judges are usually under the guidance of legal provisions in realizing the purpose of civil procedures.However,judges’ activism is a two-edged weapon,which is easily subject to the judges’ abusing of it in pursuing the judicial justice.In order to safeguard the justifiable application of the judges’ activism,the principles of legitimacy,reasoning, credit,public order and moral and that of equity and interest balance should be conformed to.Chapter 3 begins with supporting system of mobility and activities in judges,regulates reasonable discretion from three layers i.e.legislation,procedure and subject and thus promotes and pushes judicature towards justice.The paper believes that ascertaining the fact is the process of a free choice and inner assurance with the judges.Therefore,the judges’ initiative is through confirming the parties" admission and judicial recognition,facts presuming,and law of experience,application of distribution of proving liability and level and reviewing of proofs and evaluation.In spite of the differences in each country in managing the procedures,judges have all displayed their mobility in controlling the process, collection of evidences,survey and inquiry as well as explanation and managing the unique procedures.Application of law is the process of judges’ applying the written regulations to individual cases which calls for,under the guidance of legal regulations,methods of philosophy,evolution,tradition and society on the judges’ part so as to settle the disputes, attain the goal of civil litigation especially at the time when the legal regulations are ambiguous,contradictory,absent and obviously unfair.This displays the judges’ initiative, reallocate the interest and realize social equity and justiceChapter 4 is mainly on justifying the activities in judges through examining the corresponding two legal systems,defining the origin and approach of limitations of judges’ activities so as to ensure its proper function.The paper,through the angle of society,believes that,as a profession,the judges’ self-acknowledgement of social identity,religion and political belief and salaries greatly impact their professional initiatives in deciding the cases, and their hobbies and their emotional preference and tendency and other factors also influence their mobility.While showing their social characteristics,they have their natural weakness in human beings which more or less affect their act in the court when applying activism.Hereby, the paper concludes that owning to many factors like bad social customs,social contradictions of particular period of history,pressure from out the court and their own interest therein,the abusing of activities and corruption arises,which is the reason of limiting the judges’ activities and mobility.To ensure a good function of judges’ activism,we should,in accordance with the property and regularity of civil procedural law,regulate it through legislation,proceedings,subject,judicial rules and institution,and communicative dialogue of the parties.Chapter 5 is based on our status quo in judges’ activities and probes into our practices and therefore comes to regulatory methods.The paper sees that to strictly obey the statutes and adjudication has become the mainstream of our legal environment.In practice,judges’ activism does exist and can’t be avoided,however there’re too many restrictions on it and the judges have inevitably become ’the dancer on the blade’.Therefore,the effect of judges’ activism has been limited for being in the dilemma.Non-perfect law,rough researching methodology,rigid provisions,slow judicial reform and chaotic judges’ mobility have all been the status quo of the judges’ activism.Admittedly,we are now in the environment of establishing judges’ activism and mobility,for our ideology of procedural law weighs now as much as substantial law,judges’ group construction has been progressing,people’s jury has functioned well,guidance of cases have gradually been regulated,conciliation has been continuously perfected together with demand of balanced individual and general justice and the practices of development in judicial decision have made it possible to regulate the judges’ activism.Hence,we should,when regulate the judges’ activism,establish the notion of maintaining the judicial justice,perfect civil adjudications,strengthen the judicial interpretation,intensify control of the judges’ decision,safeguard and implement justified application and establish a good social legal environment.In order to ensure the science and effectiveness,the paper concentrates on the dialectical historical materialism and its common use in the linguistic context,regulatory and practical study combined with study of legal theory and law divisions and keep the research vision broadened and research method comprehensive,probing into the judges’ activism and relevant problems with examining judicial practices,trying to justify its theory and work out the systems and its operations,expecting the breakthroughs in the civil judicial practices.更多还原