【作者】 胡君；

【导师】 赵明；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 由于制定法规则并不能给所有案件提供裁判依据,因而法官总是面临着是忠于法律还是背叛法律的两难选择。在目前能动司法已成基本共识,但能动的法官到底能走多远?是如哈特所言在规则之外就是法官自由裁量的空间,还是应该受到一些应有的约束以免造成法官的专横?即司法能动的限度何在?西方的原则裁判理论和实践为我们指引了方向。国内法治建设正处于转型期,司法实践总是走在理论前面。各级法院“大胆”运用原则裁判的案例不在少数,但原则裁判一直没有得到理论界的应有重视。目前各地法院运用原则裁判引发的争议不绝于耳,不仅民众常常质疑其公正性,学者亦非议不已。法院已面临“法律原则如何适用”的难题。泸州继承案之后学界给出了一些答案,但目前的研究还主要停留在对西方理论与实践的介绍,这是远远不够的。因此有必要对我国司法实践中原则裁判的现状做一些实证研究,以期发现原则裁判中的的中国问题和成因,进而寻找适合当前国情的对策,进一步完善原则裁判。这篇文章试图就此做些工作。文章的主要内容和思路:在文章第一部分,我们以《最高人民法院公报》的典型案例为主要范本展开分析,探讨原则裁判在当代中国的境遇:原则裁判主要发生在民事领域,常被法官用作裁判依据的法律原则往往是民法中的基本原则,如诚信原则、公平原则等等,甚少用内容相对具体的一般原则。在原则适用的方式上,除了少数案例的判决以外,很多适用原则裁判的判决没有进行充分的说理论证,甚至对该案是否有相应的法律规则进行规范也不论证,而是直接适用法律原则进行裁判。原则裁判适用比较随意,导致二审或再审的改判率较高,同样的案件在不同的法院对于适用原则裁判的看法不一致,而从对泸州继承案等一些非公告案例判决的社会质疑声中,我们可以发现人们对原则裁判的担忧:原则裁判可能会导致判决的确定性悖反,可能会滑向道德裁判的深渊,甚或会沦为法官恣意裁判的遮羞布,而主要目标在于个案正义的原则裁判还可能对法治所追求的体系安定造成致命的破坏。文章第二部分,我们拟探讨原则裁判步入困境的原因:首先从法律原则自身的模糊性、伦理性等方面着手,分析原则裁判的不确定性有其必然性;其次从传统情理型司法与原则裁判的“形似神非”展开分析:“形似”导致我们对源自西方的原则裁判没有经过充分论证就予以了接受,并且这种“形似”导致我们今天适用原则裁判时仍没有摆脱情理型司法的思维模式;“神非”说明了情理型司法与原则裁判的本质区别,因而情理型司法在法治语境下应该有一个现代转型;进而分析我们对西方原则裁判理论的继受与误读:从民国时期以来,我国接受的主要是大陆法系的立法模式,“法理”或“原则”即是那时进入我国法律之中,今天我们的民事立法仍然走的是大陆法系的传统:开篇就规定法律原则。但却没有如台湾地区民法第一条那样明文规定法官在法外裁判的法源及其顺序。上世纪八十年代重启法制建设以来,我们学界流行的是德沃金的法律原则理论。殊不知德氏的原则理论与大陆法系的原则裁判实践有着较大的区别。而欧陆国家的原则裁判与我们实践中的原则裁判更为相似,而欧陆的原则裁判理论与实践在近几年才开始进入学界的视野,实务界根本还没有来得及掌握欧陆的原则裁判方法,因此这种“误读”与“迟读”也导致原则裁判没有得到学界的智识支持,因而出现适用的混乱局面也就不足为奇了。文章的后两个部分拟重点寻找原则裁判的出路。在目前法官司法素养难以在短时间内大幅度提高的情况下,我们不妨从两方面寻找原则裁判的出路:方法完善与程序规制。就方法完善而言,首先拟厘清法律原则的内涵,其次以欧陆原则裁判模式为参照,探讨原则裁判的场域与方法:法律原则作用的场域不外乎三个:引导法官前理解的法律原则、作为裁判理由的法律原则和作为裁判规范的法律原则的方法,而我们拟重点探讨作为裁判规范的原则裁判方法:原则裁判的时机、具体化的方法、案例类型的建构、原则冲突的权衡等等。就原则裁判的程序规制而言,首先我们认为应该学习欧陆和台湾地区民法的立法模式,从立法上确立法外裁判的法源及其顺序,为法官在法外裁判时指明一个方向。当然,有学者提出以“事理之性质”作为法外裁判依据,也有学者认为应该借鉴台湾地区民法第一条之“法理”作为最后的法源。在对这些观点进行评述后,文章认为应该结合当前国内的实际,还是以通常理解的“法律原则”作为法外裁判最后的法源为好。最后探讨原则裁判的司法程序规制途径:加强原则裁判中的协商机制,增加原则裁判结论的合意性;加强原则裁判判决文书的论证说理,以确保法律原则具体化为可操作性的裁判依据;借鉴法国“法院之友”制度,以加强原则裁判的权威性和可接受性;鉴于基层法院的法官的司法素养整体偏低,可以考虑提高原则裁判的审判级别;为确保原则裁判的确定性,可以在建立法律原则案例类型的基础上,确定最高法院公报判例的约束力。最后需要说明的是,如何获致正当性的司法裁判是一个非常复杂的问题,而涉及争议较大的原则裁判更是如此。究其原因是多方面的,比如有宏观的司法体制架构问题、司法腐败等法官“德”之缺乏的问题等等。本文并不可能进行一个全方位的研究,文章主旨主要是从方法论的角度,从完善法官的裁判之“才”的角度来展开。这是阅读本文时要注意的问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 As the result that the positive laws could not provide the judgments grounds for all the cases,the judges always have to face upon the dilemma to be loyal or be betrayed to the law. Therefore,the current active judicature becomes a common sense in current situation.And whether the next step would be the space-exited of judicial discretion outside the rules as Hart said or be the necessary limits to avoid the abuses by judges and what extent should be the limits to the active judicature.All of these questions in practices and theories guide us to the direction of the principle judgment in western judicature.The construction of legal system turns into the period of transformation in China and the judicial practices would go ahead.The courts in different ranks have made some number of cases fitted with legal principles "bravely",but the activities of principle judgments haven’t been emphasized by the academia.There are a lot of arguments regarding these judgments in some different areas today and the public and the experts both question upon their certainty and the justification.So the problem of "how the legal principles apply" is an issue that the courts must encounter.After the attempts by the case of the heritage in Luzhou,the current studies and researches are still rest on the introductions of the western prevalent practices and theories,which is leave far away.So it’s necessary to make the positive researches on the current conditions about the legal principles judgments in order to find out the origins and the Chinese contexts for this problem and get the some further arrangements and perfections for this sort of judgments.These are the tasks the author tries to achieve in this dissertation.And the main structures and approaches in this paper are following:Chapter 1 is to analyze the classical cases in the bulletin of Supreme Court as the samples to explore the situation regarding the principle judgments in China that the most principal-applied cases take place in the civil areas and the principles are usually the basic rules in the civil law as the principles of honesty and fair not the general principle with the certain rights and obligations.In the method of application of principles,many applied cases are lacking of the abundant legal reasoning in the judgments and the arguments of the legal rules but to make the judgments depend on the principles directly except for some special cases.The random applications of the principles trigger the high ratios of the second or the final judgments and the different judgments over the same case by the different courts bring out a lot of questions by the public in the classical cases.And we may find that the worries by the public on these judgments are the following:the principle-applied cases would be opposite the direction of the certainty of judgment and also be intent to the abyss of the moral judgment or the cover for the judges to abuse the principles and the most dangerous one is that the principle-applied in one single case justly would damages the certainty of the whole legal system deadly.Chapter 2 is to discuss the reasons that make the principle judgments into the trap:the first one is that the ambiguous and ethical factors among the principle itself cause the uncertainty of the principle-applied judgments;the second one is that the similarity between the traditional model of the motional judgments and the principle-applied cases which induct the undemonstrated facts as the principles in judgments acceptably and could not get rid of this judgment model even nowadays while the "difference" of the two models gives the distinguished factor essentially.Therefore,the modern transformation in the tradition model should be exhibited in order to analyze the acceptance and misinterpretation of western principle judgments:at the beginning of the R.C.,Chinese judicature absorbed the legislated model of European continent as the word of "jurisprudence" and "principle" introduced into the legal system.Thus the way of civil law in the legislation would be the principles at first alone the tradition of the classical model but not the article of the legal resources out of the written rules like the 1st Article of the regional civil law in Taiwan.Since the reconstruction of legal system in Chinese mainland in 80’s of 20th century,the influential theory is the Dworkin’s principles in laws in the academia.Unfortunately,a few of the scholars in China realize the great differences between the Dworkin’s theory and the traditional theory concerning the principle-applied judgments.Comparatively,the continental model is more similar with the real situations in Chinese principle judgments and oppositely there are few specific models about the continental principle judgments in Chinese legal communities and the works of introductions are launched in recent years.So this sort of "misinterpretations" and "post-interpretations" make the effects on the indifferent attitudes in academia and the orderless situation in the applications.The last two parts in the paper are the outlets for the principle-applied judgment.At present situation that the low capacity of the judges in China,we may research the resolution in the following two aspects:the perfection of methods and the regulation of process.On the first side,we should clear out the connotation of the legal principle primarily and on the second one we should discuss the applied fields and methods of the principle judgments as the samples of the continental model.And the fields are the following three:one is that the pre-understanding of the legal principle by judges;two is that the judicial reasoning of legal principle and the methods as the judicial rules of legal principle.And the focus is the later one in this part such as the chances,the specific ways,the construction of case models and the balance for the conflicts of principles etc.As for the regulation of process in principle judgments,we should learn form the legislations of civil laws in the continent and Taiwan area at first to establish the orders and legal resources outside the legal rules as a certain direction for the discretion.Surely some scholars have raised that the "quality of the facts" could be the standard and the others considered that the 1st Article of civil law in Taiwan should be the "principle" for the out-of-rules judgments.After the comments about the ideas above,the author believes that we should take the common sense about "legal principle" as the last legal resource for this kind of judgments better under the situations of China and the foreign states and areas.Finally the regulation of judicial process about the principle judgments is discussed as the following points:one is to enforce the arguments in the judicial papers to guarantee the legal principle changed into the practical legal reasoning;two is to enhance the authority and acceptance for the principle judgments;three is to enhance the judicial ranks for these principles-applied cases in light of the low professional qualities in some regional courts;four is to establish the certain boundaries of the cases in the bulletin based on the classical models of the legal principle-applied cases for the certainty of these judgments.What is the last illustration in this paper is that how to get a correct judicial judgment would be a very perplex question and the principles-applied cases with the great debates have more problems in this direction.Examining the basis,there are various factors among the angle of "morality" about the judges such as the problem of the magnificent judicial system and the judicial corruptions.So this dissertation could not give a comprehensive study from all the perspectives but only chose the standpoint of methodology of principle-applied judgments in order to improve the "talents" of judges in these cases,which is an important issue emphasized by this text.更多还原