【作者】 王惠玲；

【导师】 刘艳芳；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 终审判决的权威性又称判决的终局性，即终审判决一旦作出，就具有确定力、拘束力和执行力，除非其存在明显的错误，才可作为例外给予再审救济。终审判决权威性的特点在于它是一种建立在制度基础上、来源于理性的权威，这一权威给人以形式上公平的感觉，同时还增加了司法在一定程度上的可预见性；终审判决权威为人认可的原因是形式的公平而非实质的正确，对于司法来说，在实质正确之外还存在着一个更高的价值，那就是司法的稳定性。 一、终审判决之所以具有权威性，既是出于民事诉讼制度的需要，也是由其自身的既判力及其是法律意志和国家意志的体现所决定的。首先民事诉讼目的是解决纠纷，为了能够使纠纷一次性得到解决，必须赋予判决以权威性。将民事诉讼目的定位于纠纷解决说的理由是：当事人的诉权总是针对某一个具体的纠纷而言的，“无争议便无诉权”，审判权的对象正是当事人提交的纠纷，所以以审判权和诉权为内容的民事诉讼就是为了解决纠纷；解决纠纷虽不是民事诉讼独有的功能，但在诸种解决民事纠纷的制度当中，民事诉讼具有强制性、终局性和高度的程序保障性；纠纷解决说可以支持法官的自由裁量权，补充法律存在的漏洞，在社会经济生活急剧变化而立法状况却相对滞后的现实条件下，一些新型的案件将会因为法无明文规定而无法为法院受理，当事人的游离于实体法之外的正当权益便无法得到救济，在法律以外发现、确认新的权利，以填充、修正法律的缺陷成为必要。 其次，判决的既判力作为其法律效力最本质和最集中的体现，外化为判决的权威性。既判力的本质是一种诉讼法上的效力，它来自于民事诉讼法对判决效力的明确赋予，而法律之所以会赋予判决这种效力，就在于判决是国家审判权行使的结果，也是当事人在程序保障下形成的结果。既判力的客观范围影响到对前诉和后诉是否同一的判断，而其范围的大小则取决于诉讼标的，采取以有争议的实体法律关系为诉讼标的的旧实体法学说，则既判力范围小，采取诉讼请求为诉讼标的的诉讼法学说，则既判力范围大。旧实体法学说有可能会形成互相矛盾的判决，不利于一个纠纷的一次解决，所以应采纳诉的声明说，既判力的客观范围应以判决主文中的判断为限，但是在有些情形下必须借助判决理由才能确定判决主文的具体内容，因此有必要在一定条件下赋予判决理由以“争点效”，即经过当事人在诉讼中认真争论过，法院亦为实质上的审理和判断的重要争点对后诉有拘束力。 再次，判决是法律意志的体现，判决的权威就是法律的权威。法律不仅追求正义，还致力于创造秩序，而这正满足了人们的基本需求。法律的权威除了依赖于国家强制力为后盾外，锻主要地还来自于人们内心深处的认同和信仰，让人从精神上信奉其为权威，从而唤起人们对崇高和正义的追求。法律对基本的和宪法的权利的规定使其获得了道德特征和道德权威，给予人们法律“正当”的信心，法律的真正权威来自于这样的事实，即对于所有人来说，法律确实代表了正确和公平。 最后，判决的权威还来自正当的程序保障。程序被赋予绝对的检验正义的意义，是因为程序本身具有公正的机能，能够为当事人提供足够的制度保障，以对等和开放性的结构塑造当事人的主体地位，这足以排除选择和适用法律过程中的不当偏向，形成保障法律准确适用的常规机制。实体公正通过诉讼程序的逻辑展开，在程序的合成中得以实现。 二、针对我国民事诉讼中终审不终的现象，提出相应的对策。从制度构建上来说，既需改革上诉制度，又需严格限制再审程序。一个理想的上诉制度，应当在尽可能简易程序而不致过分拖延的同时，发挥其纠正错误、统一法律认识的功能，而我国上诉制度设计的不合理之处在于两审终审制的审级过低，导致再审程序的频繁启动，极大地危害了终审判决的权威性。另外二审制度自身也存在规则不明确、程序不规范的问题，致使二审案件审理质量不高，影响到判决的权威性。为此笔者建议在正确定位上诉审性质的前提下，明确其审理规则，第一，应尊重一审法官的自由裁量权，只有在一审法官存在滥用自由裁量权，即判决的结果畸轻畸重时，二审才有必要予以改动。第二，控制发回重审案件的范围，将其限制在一审严重违反法定程序。在实行举证时限制度以后，对事实不清、证据不足的案件发回重审就显得依据不足。第三，确立上诉禁止不利益变更原则。上诉审实行续审制，而不是对案件的全面审理，所以上诉人在上诉法院所遭受的最坏结果为其上诉请求被驳回，上诉法院不得以任何理山作出比一审判决更不利于上诉人的判决。 实行三审终审制，保证法律适用的统一。正义要求对相同情形或极为相似的情形予以平等对待，也就是同等情况同样对待，类似案件类似处理，统一法律适用超越于个案的公正而对社会利益产生影响，实现的是更大范围的诉讼公正。在三审终审制下，第三:审只对案件进行法律审，目的就在于统一︸之/ ，︸法律适少目。对此应建立遵循先例原则，赋予最高人民法院的判决以强制拘束力，但先例判决不能突破现更多还原

【Abstract】 The authority of the final judgement also means the ending of a trial, that is to say, once the final judgement is made out, it has the certainty, sanction and should be enforced. It won’t be granted a remedy of a review program unless there is an obvious mistake. The authority of the final judgement bases on a certain system and its source is the authority of reason. This authority appears just in the formality, and enhance the forseeobility of judicatory on a certain degree. The authority of the final judgement is confirmed for its justice in the formlity rather than the truth in essenties. As to judicatory, the stability is higher in value than the truth in essential.I The authority of the final judgement is determined not only by the need of the civil action procedure, but also the fixed validity of itself and the purpose of the law and the state it contains. First, the object of the civil action procedure is to settle disputes. We must give the judgment with authority so as to reach the settlement one-off. The object of the civil action procedure is to settle disputes because the right of civil action bases on a specific dispute, "no dispute no right of action", and the object of the junsdiction is actually the dispute between the parities. So the civil action procedure with its contents of jurisdiction. Although settling disputes is not its private function, among the systems of disputes settleing, the civil action procedure has forcible power, finality, and is firmly guanranteed by procedures. The theory of disputes settling supports the judge’s discretion and complement the leaks of law. Currently, the social economic life is changing all the time, but the legislation falls behind. Some new type of cases won’t be accepted by court for there’s,no law defines there.The. rights.of the. parties can’t be remedied because they are beyond the substantive law. It is necesary to find then confirm new rights that are beyond current laws to fill the gap and rectify the defects.Secondly, the fixed validity of judgemcnt(FVJ) intensively and essentially embodys the judgement’s legal force and becomes the authority of the judgement in the formility. The essence of FVJ is a validity given by procedural law. It comes from the legal force given by the civil procedural law to the judgement. It is because that the judgement is the result of excersising of national jurisdictionand the guarantee of procedure that this legal force is given by law to the judgement. The objective scope of FVJ affects the judgement of whether the action privious and following are uniform. The scope is limited to the objects of action. It is narrow in the traditional substantive law theory in which the object is the substantive legal relationships in dispute, but wide in the theory in which the object is a claim. The traditional subsantive law theory may cause a self-contradictory judgement, which hinders the settlement of disputes. Therefore, the theory of claim should be adopted. The objective scope of FVJ should be limited to the actual content of the judgement. Sometimes , this content is determined with the help of reasoning. So it is necessary to give reasoning with a saction under a certain term. That means after the parties’ serious discussion in the action, the court also think that the sustantive trial and the actual dispute determined have sanction to actions afterward.Thirdly, judgements embody the legal purpose and the authority of law. The law not only pursuits justice but also tries to create orders, which just meets the basic needs of people. The authority of law is guaranteed by the nation’s forcible power. Furthermore, it comes from people’s self-identity and the belief deep in hear, and make them believe in mind, then they are evoked pursuit for sublimity and justice. The law defined the basic and constitusional rights, which add itself with morol character and authority, and make people believe that it is just. The real authority of law comes from the fact that to all the people, the law in deed stands for tru更多还原