【作者】 崔规定；

【导师】 姚建宗；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2012， 硕士

【摘要】 中国语境下“能动司法”的理论分析能动司法作为一个司法理念由最高人民法院正式提出来,并进行了多方面的阐述与宣传。毫无疑问这种直接源自政治目的促动的,缺乏严格逻辑论证的司法政策或司法意识形态,一旦长期实行必将引人诟病。能动司法理念本身,没有一个明确的内涵,对其自身的有限性,人们还缺乏客观的明确的认识。以至于自能动司法提出以来便引发各种争论,但是总的来说人们总是倾向于从现实的司法需求来论证其合理性,而忽视了从法治角度来揭示能动司法本身的反法治的一面。作为我国最高司法机关提出的司法理念,我们要做到的就是必须对其正确内涵给予客观揭示。我们需要对其进行多方面的论证与反思,尤其不能忽视从法治角度,乃至司法规律角度进行反思,通过对能动司法在现实司法运作中存在的多种矛盾与问题进行分析与反思,洞察其之所以产生种种消极结果的原因。进而提出自己的观点。本文首先简要地通过对司法改革的过程进行分析来把握能动司法理念的历史缘起,力图呈现能动司法理念的客观原貌,并从政治意义、法律意义、比较意义三个角度对能动司法理念的内涵进行深入的剖析与界定,进而表明笔者在本文中主要是针对最高法院提出的司法政策或者政治意义上的能动司法理念进行反思与批判,然后对能动司法理念在现实司法实践中实际的盲目运行状况进行客观描述,揭示能动司法理念在司法实践中存在的多种矛盾与问题。通过对这六对矛盾的剖析揭示其对于我国的司法与法律,尤其对我国法治建设的严重冲击,乃至于对人们的法治意识,规则意识以及权利意识本身造成严重的冲击,这无疑应该引起法律学人的深刻的反思与警醒。接着笔者重点对能动司法所引致的与人们原初意愿违背的后果的原因进行反思,继而深入到对能动司法理念本身存在的问题,以及能动司法理念的运行的客观环境进行反思与批判,通过分析认为能动司法理念是因为政治思维的主导而使司法的本质属性发生了异化,而能动司法运行的客观环境如,司法权的附属于行政权的客观的弱势状况,法治建设的初级阶段,法律权威与规则意识的尚未真正树立,法官职业化不足的与能动司法理念不匹配,从而实际上在加剧能动司法的消极后果的产生。这必然将严重阻碍乃至破坏已经艰辛获得的法治成果,最终不利于法治国家所追求的根本利益的实现,因为法治才是最大的大局。因此,最后笔者通过对能动司法理念与我国的当下司法与法治境况进行反思与批判,进而主张对作为司法意识形态的能动司法理念本身进行去政治化的努力,将其转化为法律方法论意义的能动司法。并主张我国当下语境应该坚持司法克制主义下的法律方法论意义的能动司法姿态。并对司法过程中的不可避免的“能动性”进行合理规制。坚持司法体制改革,坚持司法改革的去政治化,坚持司法本身的独特性为法治国家建设,为我国转型时期的大局服务。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Theoretical Analysis of the "Active Judicature" in the China ContextAs a judicial notion," Active judicature "proposed by the Supreme People’s court official, and elaborated and publicized in a wide range. There is no doubt that the active judicature was promoted by the political purpose, lack of strict logical reasoning. Once implemented, will be subject to criticism. Active judicature itself, does not have a clear meaning. we don’t understand the limitations of active judicature. That have led to all kinds of controversy since the active judicature proposed, but generally people tend to justify the rationality of active judication from the perspective of the real-world demands of Justice, but neglect to justify from the perspective of the rule of law to reveal the active judicature against the rule of law itself. As a judicial notion proposed by the Supreme People’s court official, what we have to do is reveal its correct connotation.We need to make many kinds of argumentation and reflection, especially cannot neglect to make from the perspective of the rule of law, and even the perspective of judicial law, through the analysis and reflection of the various contradictions and problems caused by active judicature in judicial practice, we have insight into its various causes of negative results. To put forward their views.This paper begins with a brief to analyze the process of judicial reform, to grasp the history origin of active judicature, trying to show the objective original appearance of active judicature. we analyze and define the connotation of active judicature from three angles of political significance, legal significance, and comparison significance, then show that the author in the paper mainly reflect and criticize active judicature with judicial policy or political significance, then objectively describe the practice situation of active judicature in order to reveal a variety of contradictions and problems caused by active judicature. through the analysis of these three pairs of contradictions in the practice situation of active judicature, we reveal that it make a negative impact on our justice, the rule of law, the awareness of the rules, and the awareness of civil rights in china, which should give rise to our profound reflection and vigilance. Then we focus on reflecting the reasons of consequences caused by active judicature and then into active judicature as well as the objective running environment of active judicature, By analyzing the active judicature, we think that the active judicature dominated by the political thinking has led to the alienation of the essence of justice. The running objective environment of active judication, such as:the objective subsidiary disadvantaged position of the justice in the structure of power, the initial stage of the rule of law, weak legal authority and rules consciousness,the Low-level judge, in fact, which does not match with the active judicature and exacerbate the negative consequences of active judicature. This will seriously hamper and even undermine the construction of the rule of law and is not conducive to the realization of the fundamental interest of the rule of law, because of the rule of law is the largest overall.Therefore, through the reflection and criticism of active judicature, the current situation of Justice and the rule of law, we advocate making an effort to convert active judicature of political significance into active judicature of the legal methodological significance, we should adhere to the judicial activism of legal methodological significance under judicial self-restraint and regulate the inevitable "activism" in the judicial process. We should adhere to the reform of the judicial system, the depoliticization of the judicial reform, the unique nature of Justice itself to service the construction of rule of law and China’s overall situation during the transition period.更多还原