司法判决的有效性研究

【作者】 聂长建；

【导师】 张斌峰；

【作者基本信息】 中南财经政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 本文是在立法定向的法学向司法定向的法学转向的学术研究背景下，在法院、法官和疑难案件成为社会关注焦点的法律生活背景下，通过对司法判决有效性的研究，为法官适用法律进行司法判决提供有益的借鉴。正如德沃金所言：法院是法律帝国的首都，法官是帝国的王侯，但却不是它的先知或预言家。而法院和法官主要是和司法判决联系在一起的，这就充分说明司法判决在法治社会的重要意义，研究司法判决对法学理论的重要意义。本文从事实有效性和规范有效性两个维度来探讨司法判决的有效性，意在把法律的安定性和正义性、确定性和正确性、可预测性和可接受性综合平衡考虑，形成对法律和司法判决的全面认识。本文的研究借鉴了国外哈特、德沃金、哈贝马斯、拉伦茨等为代表的各法学流派的理论和国内法条主义与泛道德主义、司法克制主义与司法能动主义的主张，注重对案例的实证分析，研究的内容较为广泛，对各种对立的观点没有先入之见，不厚此薄彼，力戒片面性。本文由导论、主体部分四章和结语构成。在导论部分，首先提出了本文所研究的问题：司法成为法学研究的重点，对司法判决的有效性研究具有时代意义；现代法律要求司法判决同时兼备确定性和正确性，这就是司法判决有效性的事实有效性和规范有效性两个维度；当前我国的司法判决面临着较为严重的“有效性”危机，这种状况也提出了对司法判决有效性理论研究的现实要求。接着，概括性地交代哈特、德沃金、哈贝马斯的司法判决有效性理论，展现本文的理论来源。然后提出本文的研究进路。最后，基于法学的特点和本文的研究旨趣，介绍了本文的主要研究方法：语用学分析法、反思平衡法和实证分析法。第一章介绍了司法判决有效性的基础理论知识，意在为进一步的研究作铺垫和准备。首先界定司法的概念，司法的本质在于裁判，裁判分为判决、裁定、决定、命令四种，判决是依据严格程序对当事人争议事项作出判断，直接涉及当事人的实体权利和义务，在这四种裁判形式中最具影响力，为使本文研究集中化，本文的主题明确地定为判决而非裁判。接着介绍“有效性”的概念，在英语中，“有效性”可以指它具有实际效力，也可以指它具有正当理由，从本文的理论旨趣来看，用“有效性”比“效力”更具有包容性，所以本文的题目是“司法判决的有效性研究”而非“司法判决的效力研究”。最后，较为全面地阐述哈特实证主义的司法判决有效性理论、德沃金新自然法的司法判决有效性理论、哈贝马斯商谈论的司法判决有效性理论，通过休谟问题分析司法判决为什么存在事实有效性和规范有效性两个维度及二者的关系。第二章研究司法判决的事实有效性，也就是司法判决的确定性。这种确定性表现在：法院是唯一行使审判权的机关；裁判的依据被确定为法律、法规，若法律规范冲突时，宪法至上，法律高于法规，行政法规高于地方性法规；法官适用司法三段论，以确定的法律规范赋予确定的案件事实以确定的后果，司法判决有“形”可见、有“迹”可循、有“量”可算、有“果”可测，判决结论具有确定性即事实有效性。本章首先研究司法三段论的大前提，探讨了大前提的来源、大前提与小前提的关系和大前提的有效性及其构成这三个方面。然后研究司法三段论的小前提，对作为小前提的案件事实如何定性准确，要根据案件事实的实质定性，并基于语境把握案件事实的实质。最后讨论判决结论的确定性问题，批评“预测论”对确定性的消解，肯定哈特的“内在观点”对确定性的维护，法官应当把法律的要求而非自己的意志赋予当事人行为的后果。第三章研究司法判决的规范有效性，也就是司法判决的正确性。规范有效性是无“形”可见、无“迹”可循、无“量”可算、无“果”可测，规范有效性不具有事实有效性的客观性，不是就形式而言，而是就实质而言。现代法律从根本上讲是对公民权利的保护，以其正当性、正确性而获得公民的尊重和遵守，规范有效性是司法判决的灵魂，对事实有效性具有统摄作用。本章从三个视角探讨司法判决的规范有效性问题，首先区分了司法三段论的适用模式：概念涵摄和类型归属，类型归属这种适用模式包含价值判断于其中，关注司法判决的正确性；接着根据哈贝马斯的商谈理论，探讨“说者”、“听者”的角色转换，唯有经过这种角色转换，司法判决才具有可接受性；最后运用德沃金的法律原则理论，讨论在法律规则被穷尽时，适用法律原则来确保司法判决的正确性，也从学理上分析适用法律原则失败的案例。第四章研究司法判决的方法有效性。本章分两个部分：一是探讨一种法律发现方法，分析了概念法学、法律实证主义、法律现实主义、整体性法律理论关于解决疑难案件的理论得失，从学术上探讨“隐藏的法律”是化解司法判决中确定性和正确性紧张关系的新路径，厘清“隐藏的法律”和自由裁量权、法律原则的区别。二是探讨一种法律推理方法，法律语用推理的特点是：对语境的依赖性，根据语境增删大前提，推理过程不具有普遍性，“主体间性”法范式，论证的思维方式；法律语用推理的价值在于：弥补形式推理对司法判决合理可接受性的忽视，强化司法判决的正确性维度。结语部分对全文进行总结并提出研究结论：司法判决的有效性重在平衡艺术和说理艺术。平衡艺术是在事实有效性和规范有效性两个维度之间的平衡，司法判决的事实有效性具有优先性，规范有效性具有统摄性，二者具有等同的重要地位，不能强调一方而牺牲另一方；对规范有效性的关注导致新的法律规则和司法判决事实有效性的重新确立，司法判决实现静态和动态的互动平衡。说理艺术在于，“理由优先于结论”是现代法治理念对司法判决的要求，说理艺术对维护司法判决的有效性至关重要，对判决说理不是“敬而远之”而是“勤而行之”。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis is in the academic research background that the legislation of lawturned to the judicial law, in the legal life backgrounds that the courts, judges andhard cases become the focus in the society, through the study of the validity ofjudicial decisions, to provide useful reference to judges to conduct judicial decisions.Just as Dworkin had once said:“the courts are the capital of law’s empire, and judgesare its princes, but not its seers and prophets.” While the courts and judges andjudicial decisions are mainly linked to one another, which fully shows that judicialdecisions is important to the rule of law, research judicial decisions is important to thelegal theory.In this thesis, from the two dimensions of the facto validity and normativevalidity, discuss the validity of judicial decisions. I intend to bring integratedequilibrium between justice and stability, certainty and accuracy, predictability andacceptability, to form the full understanding of judicial decisions. This study draws onforeign Hart, Dworkin, Habermas, Larenz as the representatives of various schools oflegal theory, national doctrine laws and expensive moralism, judicial conservatismand judicial activism, attach importance to the positive analysis about case. Thestudies are wide-ranging variety of opposing views without preconceived notions, orfavoritism, and avoid one-sidedness.This paper includes introduction, the main part of four chapters and epilogue.In the introductory section, first propose to the problem of this thesis: Judicialbecome a focus of the study of law, so the research of judicial determination validityhas the era meaning; modern judicial decisions required by law at the same time bothcertainty and correctness, and these are the two dimensions validity of norms andfacts in judicial decision; current judicial decisions in our country is facing a moreserious problem of “validity”, this situation also raised to theoretical research on thevalidity of judicial decisions by the practical requirements. Then, I give a generalaccount of Hart, Dworkin, Habermas theory of the validity of judicial decisions, toshow the theoretical source of this article. The next, I put forward the path of thisresearch. Finally, based on the characteristics of law and the purport of this research,describes the main research methods of this paper: Pragmatic analysis, reflectiveequilibrium method and positive analysis.The first chapter describes the basis theoretical knowledge of the judicialdecision validity, this intend to pave the way for further research and preparation.First define the concept of justice, justice is the essence of referee, referee is divided into four parts: decisions, ruling, judgments and orders. Decision is based on strictprocedures to give judge to the parties directly involved in the substantive rights andobligations, is the most influential in these four Referee form, for the concentration ofthis study, the subject of this paper is decision instead of referee. Then introduced the"validity" concept, in English, the “validity” can refer to both practical effect andvalid reason, from the purport of this article theoretical point of view, the “validity”is more inclusive, so this article is entitled “Study on the validity of judicialdecisions”. Finally, by the validity of the theory of judicial decisions, I give a morecomprehensive exposition of Hart’s positivism, Dworkin new natural law theory,Habermas legal discourse. I also according to Hume’s problem to analyze why thereare the two dimensions validity of fact and norms in the judicial decisions.The second chapter studies the facto validity of judicial decisions, also thecertainty of judicial decisions. Such certainty is reflected in: the court is the onlyorgan which has the authority of jurisdiction; referees have been identified as thebasis for laws and regulations, if the law norms conflict, the supremacy of theConstitution, laws above the regulations, administrative regulations above localregulations. Judge apply the judicial syllogism, give the certain legal norms to certainfacts and so has the certain consequences of judicial decisions, this have “form” canbe seen, the “track” to follow, the “quantity” can be counted, the “fruit” canbe measured, the conclusions has the certainty,that is the validity of the facts. Thischapter firstly study the premise of the judicial syllogism, discussed the source of thepremise, the relationship between the premise and the minor premise, the validity ofpremise and its constitution. Then study the judicial syllogism minor premise,according to the essence of case facts and context to give the nature to case facts.Finally to study the certainty of decisions conclusion, criticizing “prediction theory”which harm the certainty, to affirm Hart’s “internal perspective” which protect thecertainty, the judge should be required by law rather than their own will to give theconsequences to the parties.The third chapter studies normative validity of judicial decisions, that is, thecorrectness of judicial decisions. Normative validity has no seen“form”, no followed“tracks”,no counted“quantity”and no measured“fruit”. The normative validityhas not the objectivity as facto validity, it direct to essence rather than form. Modernlaw is fundamentally protection of the rights of citizens, it obtains respect andobservance of citizens by its legitimacy and correctness, normative validity is the souland govern facto validity. From the following three perspectives, this chapter will discuss the normative validity of judicial decisions. Firstly, I distinguish the applyingmodel of judicial syllogism: conception subsumtion and type classification, typeclassification contains value judgments and concern for the correctness of judicialdecisions. Then discuss how to transform the role of speaker and listener one another,according to Habermas discourse theory, only subject to such role reversal thatjudicial decisions have the acceptability. Finally by the use of Dworkin’s theory oflegal principles, to discuss when the regulation has been exhausted, to apply legalprinciples to ensure the correctness of judicial decisions, also to analyze the failure oflegal principles applying from academic analysis.The fourth chapter studies the methodological validity of judicial decisions. Thischapter include two parts: Firstly, study a method of legal discovery, to analyze thetheory of gains and losses that concept law, legal positivism, legal realism, overalllegal theory to solve the problem of hard case, from the academic to discuss that“hidden law” is the new path to resolve the tension between uncertainties and thecorrectness in judicial decisions, to clarify the distinction between“hidden law"”anddiscretion, the legal principle. The second part discuss a kind of legal reasoning, legalpragmatic reasoning has the following character: the context dependence; under thecontext to modify the major premise; reasoning process is not universal;“inter-subjectivity” legal type. The way of thinking is demonstrating, the value oflegal pragmatic reasoning is: to make up for shortcoming that formal reasoning ignorethe rational acceptability of judicial decisions, and strengthen the legitimacy ofjudicial decisions.Epilogue will summarizes the text and propose findings: the validity of judicialdecisions focuses on balancing art and the reasoning art. Balancing art is balance inthe two dimensions of the between facto validity and normative validity, facto validityhas a priority while normative validity has the governing, both has the sameimportant position, without emphasizing one at the expense of the other party.Concerning about the normative validity leads to new legal rules and reestablish thefacto validity of judicial decisions, which achieves balance between static anddynamic. Reasoning art lies in the following:“reason takes precedence over theconclusions”is the request of modern rule of law, reasoning arts is essential tomaintain the validity of judicial decisions, we have the attitude about reasoning arts asfollowing:“diligent to do something” rather than“Politely keep somebody at arm’s length”.更多还原