【作者】 郑金虎；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 利益衡量被视为法官能否做出正确司法判决民的关键所在而受到学术界的高度重视,被称为司法的“黄金方法”,其在当今世界各国司法实践中的运用也已成为一种普遍的趋势。从世界各国的整体角度来看,利益衡量论的研究已经形成了成熟的代表性理论并显现了其重要的学术意义和实践价值,但这一领域的研究仍存在许多理论难题需要进一步的研究来破解,以期使这一法律方法能在当今时代在理论上得以进一步完善与发展,在实践中发挥出其潜能和更大的作用。第一章是对法学史上利益衡量论的代表性学术派别及其理论观点的简要梳理,以期准确把握这一理论研究的宏观进路,理清已有研究的成就与需要进一步研究的问题,以恰当定位自己的研究起点。利益衡量作为一种法律方法,是20世纪之初以赫克为代表的利益法学在批判概念法学的基础上、适应时代的需要提出并发展起来的。从总体上来说,赫克的利益法学所采取的是一种折衷立场,他既批判概念法学也反对自由法学,兼顾法律的稳定性与个案裁判的妥当性,在法律方法上他首开了利益衡量论的先河,并形成了包容利益概念理论、利益衡量应用场合、利益衡量标准及操作方法等方面内容的完整理论体系,做出了极重要的贡献,但其理论也存在一些不足甚至缺陷。庞德社会学法学的利益衡量论对各种利益的揭示、对各种利益所进行的细致的分类,以及如何协调各种冲突的利益的评价标准的阐述是其法理学之最为突出的贡献,特别是庞德所构建起的关于利益分类的百科全书式的宏大体系是其他利益理论中最富代表性的成就,对后世产生了深远的影响并有着重要的借鉴意义。日本的利益衡量理论被很多日本学者看成是日本主流法解释论发展的最高点,至今依旧构成日本民法解释论的理论基础是日本学者为了解决日本法律与现实社会之间的断裂和冲突而学习他国理论并使其本土化的成果迥异于他国、充满了东方智慧并具有日本特色的法学方法论。我国利益衡量论的研究是上世纪90年代在梁慧星先生等学者的引领下展开的,已取得了很大进展,但整体来说,我国的研究还处于初级阶段。从利益衡量论研究的整体来看,学术界已取得了具有重要意义的成就,但也仍面临着诸如利益衡量标准、如何防范法官恣意等方面的理论与实践难题。第二章是关于利益衡量的基本理论问题的研究,包括对利益衡量论基本概念的辨析、利益的分类问题、利益衡量的必然性及其原则。基本概念辨析是利益衡量论研究中最具基础性的工作,理论界关于利益的定义有着多种不同的理论主张。基本思路是在探讨利益的基本特征、构成要素及利益本质的基础上界定利益范畴,利益与法律利益、法益、权益等相近概念既有一定的联系,也有不同之处须加区别。利益衡量是本理论体系中最为核心的范畴,它与价值衡量是有着不同的衡量指向、认识层面、衡量方法；利益衡量与利益考量是意义大体相同的概念,二者的区别只是强调重点的不同。利益种类的划分在利益衡量理论与操作中具有特殊重要的意义,不同种类的利益要有不同的衡量方法,我国法学界已进行了比较系统的研究,综合已有的理论研究成果并根据利益衡量操作的需要,利益可以根据不同标准划分为法律利益与法律之外的利益；当事人的具体利益、群体利益、制度利益和社会公共利益；同质利益和非同质利益。司法过程利益衡量的必然性在于法律所调整的利益之间的冲突性、司法过程的性质及其法官的职责、法律规则解的复数性、法的稳定性与社会情势之间的矛盾。而利益衡量作为一种法律方法的必要性则主要是由于完善法律方法体系的理论与实践需要。利益衡量的原则是利益衡量过程中所必须遵循的基本准则,合法性原则的实质在于对法官恣意的制约,这是法治的基本要求；利益最大化则是利益衡量的直接目标追求；正当激励原则是法官个案之外所肩负着意义更为深广的使命；而司法克制原则这是维护法治的需要与利益衡量方法的根本性质使然。第三章是对有关利益衡量操作问题的研究,包括利益衡量的应用场合、利益衡量的标准及操作方法。利益衡量的应用场合是利益衡量操作中的一个前提性问题,利益衡量的应用场场域问题涉及到利益衡量方法应用的部门法范围、利益衡量的空间框架、利益衡量应用的案件类型等方面的问题。作为一种具有普适意义的法律方法,利益衡量的应用范围不限于民事法律领域,而且适用于其它各部门法领域,只是各部门法领域有不同的衡量方法。从利益衡量运用的空间范围来说必须是法律框架之内的衡量,这是关于利益衡量空间的总体框定,同时意味着“法外空间”不应进行利益衡量,其运用的案情条件是个案中存在具体利益冲突的场合,即利益衡量所针对的是个案中的具体利益,衡量的对象是合法利益,同时这些利益之间必须存在法律规则无法自行消解的冲突。就其运用的案件类型来说,既适用于疑难案件也适用于简单案件,只是两者有不同的衡量目标与方法。利益衡量标准是利益衡量论最为核心的问题之一,作为一种理想的标准模式,应当是针对个案的衡量标准,体系化而不是单一指标的衡量标准,实质合理与形式合法相统一的标准并以最优司法判决结果为目标。利益衡量的具体操作方法为实质判断加上法律根据,其具体方法骤为：利益识别、法律解释、利益选择与校正、法律理由随附。第四章是利益衡量的实证分析与具体操作规则研究。操作规则的研究在利益衡量论中具有重要的意义,只有发展出一套较为完整的操作规则,利益衡量才具有方法论的意义与价值。疑难案件与简单案件中,利益衡量方法的运用有着不同的操作规则。结合相应的案例分析,疑难案件判决中利益衡量的操作规则归纳为资源效用最大化规则,即财产纠纷的疑难案件,应当选择有利于该争讼财产效用的最大发挥的判决结果；损失最小化规则,即在两种权利的冲突不能调和、损失不可避免的案件中,就应当寻求使整体损失最小的判决方案,即一方的收益与另一方的损失之差最大的方案；责任分配有效性规则,即在损失能够避免的疑难案件中,避免损失的条件有利的一方应承担更多的责任；边际效用最大化规则,即在财富权属最终难以明确的疑难案件中,判决结果应选择能使该项财富的边际效用更大的分配方案,边际效用最大化规则是一条补充性规则,只有在严格的条件下才能成立；正当激励规则,即在一个疑难案件将会对社会的公序良俗产生重大影响时,判决结果就必须为社会创设一种正当的激励。在简单案件中,利益衡量的应用空间是法律规则的空缺结构,表现形式主要是法官自由裁量权的运用,其目标是寻求利益保护的最优方案。要达到以上理想状态,需要法官在视角和操作方法方面作出恰当的策略选择,法官分析问题的视角是一个局外人的视角,坚持“绝对排斥自身利益”原则；在具体的操作过程中,要求法官采用“无为”的策略,即求法官完全服从相关规则的要求推导出的最终结果。第五章是利益衡量论尚存的难题及探讨。利益衡量的标准问题是利益衡量核心问题之一,也利益衡量的未解难题,无论是德国利益法学的衡量论、美国庞德通约式的利益观、日本的日本利益衡量论,还是到目前为止我国的有关研究,都没有找到行之有效并且得到普遍认同的具体标准,比较可行的思路是寻求针对个案的、体系化、实质合理与形式合法相统一并以最优司法判决结果为目标的衡量标准,但目前仍只是一种探索。如何防范法官的恣意是利益衡量研究面临的又一理论与实践难题,解决问题需要三个方面的努力：一是加强研究,力争建立能为理论界及实务界所认同的利益衡量理论；二是提高法官素质,培养其运用利益衡量方法的理论水平与实践能力；三是在司法体制方面建立监督机制。利益衡量的合法性问题也是一个理论与实践中都会遇到的问题,作为一种立足于超越法律的视角解决利益冲突的法律方法,利益衡量必须在合法性与合理性之间求得平衡,维护而不能根本上背离法治。总体而言,利益衡量作为一种法律方法虽然目前还面临许多困难,但由于其自身的优势以及与我国司法实践需要的吻合性,因而在我国有着重要的理论意义与实践价值和广阔的研究前景。更多还原

【Abstract】 Balancing of interests which is known as the "golden method" is key to a judge’s correct decision and is attached great importance. The application of it has become a common trend all over the world. From the perspective of all over the world, the study of the balancing of interests has formed matural theories and shown its significant academical and practical value. On the other hand, in this field there are still many theoretical problems which need further research to improve the legal method and make full use of it in practice.Chapter 1 is about a brief introduction of academical groups and viewpoints in the history. By doing this, we can grasp the macro-theoretical research in this field and know the achievements of existing research and the problems which need further study well. Balancing of Interests is a legal method which is proposed by Heck and develops from the interests of law in the early 20th century. Generally speaking, Heck took a compromise position in the interests of law, and he not only criticized the concept of law but also was opposed to free law. He focused on the stability of the law and the proper nature of individual case. He established the theory of balancing of interests and form a complete theoretical system of an inclusive concept of interest, benefit measurement applications, benefits and operation methods to measure.He has made a very important contribution, but the theory there are also some shortcomings and even Pound’s sociological jurisprudence reveals differen interests and carried out detailed classification of a variety of interests as well as the discussion about how to coordinate the various conflicting interests of the evaluation criteria is of great significance.The most outstanding contribution of Pound’s theory is the encyclopedia-style classification system of intersts which has a profound impact as reference.The balancing of interests is regarded as the the highest point of development of the mainstream method to the interpretation in Japan and the theoretical base of its interpretation of Japanese civilian law. It is the leagal methodology with Japanese characteristics and helpful for Japanese scholars to solve the leagal conflict between the law and actual society in Japan. In China, the study of balancing of interests was proposed by Mr. Liang Huixing in the 90’s of last century and has made great progress, but on the whole, the study is still in its early stage. The academic community has made significant achievements of the study as a whole, but it still faces the problems such as the creatia of balancing of interests of the measure and how to avoid the arbitrariess of the judge.Chapter 2 is about study of the basic theoretical issues, including the explaination of the basic concepts, the classification of interest and the inevitability and principles of balancing of interests. Analysis of the basic concepts of interests is the most basic work and the theoretical circles have different ideas of the interests. The basic idea is to explore the basic characteristics of interests, the constituent elements of interests. There are similarities and differences among the interests, legal interests, leagal rights and rights. Balancing of interests is the core point and it is different from value measurement in the measurement direction, awareness level, measurement methods. Balancing of interests and considerations of interests are similar in the concept and different in the emphasizing part. The interests can be defined as leagal interests and interests beyond leagal, the specific interests of the parties, group interests, institutional interests and social public interests; homogeneity of interests and the interests of the non-homogeneity.Balancing of interests is regarded as a legal method because it is helpful to improve the legal methodology and leagal practice. The principle of balancing of interests is the basic criteria, and the principle of legality is the constraints to judges’arbitrariness, which is basic requirement for the rule of law; the direct target of balancing of interests is to maximize the interests; the principle of legitimate incentives cases from the judges reveals a more deeper meaning; while the principle of judicial restraint reveals the needs to protect the law and the method of balancing of interests.Chapter 3 focuses on the operation of balancing of interests, including applications and measurable benefits, benefits and measurable standards and method of operation. The applications of interest is the promising question and involves the scope of application of sectoral laws, the frame of balancing of interests. As a legal method with universal significance, balancing of interest is not only applied to areas of civil law, but also applied to other areas of the various sectoral laws with different methods. Balancing of interests can be applied to the field of law and can not be used in the field outside the law. It is applicable to difficult cases and to simple cases as well, but the two have different aims and methods of measurement.The crietia of balancing of interests is the core issue. As an ideal standard mode, the crietia should be the combination of reasonable substance and lawful forms. There should be steps as following:interests identification, legal interpretation, interests selection and correction, legal grounds accompanying.Chapter 4 focuses on the empirical analysis and specific operation. The study of operational rules has great significance in the theory of balancing of interest, and only a relatively complete set of operating rules can make balancing of interest significant and valuable in terms of methodology. In the judicial process, the objectives of balancing of interest should be the legal and acceptable verdict that can achieve maximum benefits within the legal framework. The operational rules in the verdict of hard cases mainly include 1、rule of maximization of resource utility, that is, the hard cases in terms of property disputes should be a choice to maximize the effectiveness of the contentious property; 2、rule of minimization of losses, namely, the cases among which two kinds of conflict of rights can not be reconciled and the loss is inevitable should seek decision programs that can make the overall loss smallest, that is, the greatest program that has the greatest difference between the benefits and loss of the two parties 3, rules of validity of allocation of responsibilities, namely, the party which has favorable conditions to avoid the loss should shoulder more responsibility in the hard cases that the loss can be avoided; 4, rule of maximization of the marginal utility, that is, if hard cases in which the ultimate ownership of property is difficult to clear, the verdict should choose the distribution program that has greater marginal utility of property. Rule of maximization of the marginal utility, as a supplementary rule, is effective only under strict conditions; 5, rule of proper incentive, that is, the verdict in a hard case which has a major impact on public order and good morals of society should create proper incentives for the community. In easy cases, however, the scope of application in balancing interest is only vacant structures of the rule of law, mainly taking the form of discretionary power of judges, whose goal is to seek the optimal solution to protect the interest. To achieve the above ideal state, judges are required to make the right strategic choices in the perspectives and operational methods. Judges analyze the problem in an outsider perspective, and adhere to the principle of "absolute rejection of self-interest"; in the specific operation, judges are required to use "inaction" strategy, that is, they are completely subject to the final results derive from relevant requirements of the rules.Chapter 5 is about the remaining problems. One of the core issues is the criteria of balancing of interests which has not been solved yet. The German interests in jurisprudence, the United States Pound incommensurability type of interests, the Japanese interests measurement, and he relevant studies in China have not found an effective criteria which has been generally accepted. The more feasible idea is to seek case-specific, system-based, substance reasonable and legitimate form of unity and to the best judicial decisions, results-oriented metrics, but this is only a kind of exploration. How to prevent the judge’s arbitrary measure of interest is another study of theory and practice. Problem-solving requires three efforts:First, to strengthen research, and strive to build for theorists and practitioners agree that the interests of the measure theory; second is to improve the quality of judges, to develop their ability of the theoretical level and practice; third, to establish the monitoring mechanisms. The legality of balancing of interest is also a problem of theory and practice. Balancing of interests must strike a balance between the legality and legitimacy in the framework of law. Overall, balancing of interests is of great theoretical significance and practical value in our country because of because of its advantages and the match the needs of the judicial practice of China’s nature.更多还原