Faith in the Court: Religious Out‐Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

The question of whether judges’ personal characteristics and values bias their decision making has long been debated, yet far less attention has been given to how personal characteristics affect public perceptions of bias in their decision making. Even genuinely objective judges may be perceived as procedurally biased by the public. We hypothesize that membership in a religious out‐group will elicit stronger public perceptions of biased decision making. Using a survey experiment that varies a judge's religious orientation and ruling in a hypothetical Establishment Clause case, we find strong evidence that judges’ religious characteristics affect the perceived legitimacy of their decisions. Identifying a judge as an atheist (a religious out‐group) decreases trust in the court, while identifying the judge as a committed Christian has no bearing on legitimacy. These results are even stronger among respondents who report attending church more often. Thus, we argue that perceptions of bias are conditioned on judges’ in‐group/out‐group status.     

司法裁判供给中的利益衡量:一种诉的利益观

任何提交司法机构要求予以审判的民事纠纷都必须具有一种获得本案司法裁判的必要性 ,对于这种必要性 ,大陆法系民事诉讼理论冠之以“诉的利益”。诉的利益概念的出现与利益法学思潮对民事诉讼领域造成的影响密切相关 ,其本质是国家在其司法裁判供给问题上的一种判断。诉的利益的判断过程实际上就是一个利益衡量的过程 ,这种利益衡量又主要在两个层面上进行 :一是原告与其他纳税人之间 ,二是原告与被告之间。在诉的利益问题上所进行的利益衡量存在一定的尺度 ,它要求法官立足于社会需求作出符合基本正义的衡平。     

法定法官原则：我国管辖制度改革的新视角

我国司法实践中,常出现通过改变案件审理者而影响审判结果的现象,这与我国缺乏法定法官原则有关。法定法官原则要求法院按照预先设定的标准确定案件的管辖法院和审判法官,而不能在纠纷诉诸法院后自由裁量。我国管辖权制度改革也应当贯彻此原则,规范管辖权转移、明确级别管辖标准、禁止随意分配案件的审判法官。     

利己人性下的法官行为分析

利己性作为人性的一个重要方面,对法官行为的影响是直接而深远的。要真切的认识法官的行为,必须深刻的了解法官的利己人性,只有这样,才能为我们合理的法官制度建设提供科学的理论依据。     

Voices of minor children heard and unheard in judicial divorce proceedings in the Netherlands

Under Dutch divorce law, children in theory have ample opportunity to make their voices heard: the petition for divorce must state how the children have been involved in preparing a parenting plan; all children aged 12 or 16 (depending on the context) or older have the right to be heard by the judge, and the judge may additionally hear younger children; the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child; and the child has the right to seek informal access to the court (by letter or telephone, for example) which may lead to an ex officio decision that changes the arrangements agreed by the parents in a divorce settlement or an earlier judicial decision. In practice, however, there is no guarantee that children's voices will actually be heard in divorce proceedings. Notably in the case of separation after an informal relationship (other than marriage or registered partnership) the opportunities given to children to be heard are often a dead letter.     

事实认定中的法官自由裁量权

司法过程中的法官自由裁量权体现了司法能动性。在事实认定过程中,不论是证明责任的分配、证据能力的确定或是证明力的判断,都不可避免地带有法官自由裁量的成分,如何赋予法官在事实认定过程中一定的自由裁量空间以更好地发现真实又通过合理的检验机制以有效抑制法官自由裁量权的滥用。是我国立法与司法中面临的重要课题。     

The Reasonable Woman Standard: Effects on Sexual Harassment Court Decisions

Some federal courts have used a reasonable woman standard rather than the traditional reasonable man or reasonable person standard to determine whether hostile environment sexual harassment has occurred. The current research examined the impact of the reasonable woman standard on federal district court decisions, controlling for other factors found to affect sexual harassment court decisions. Results indicated that there was a weak relationship between whether a case followed a reasonable woman precedent-setting case and the likelihood that the court decision favored the plaintiff. The implications of our findings for individuals and organizations involved in sexual harassment claims are discussed.     

Judicial conformity versus dissidence: an economic analysis of judicial precedent

The individual decision made by a judge does not only reflect his personal preferences about a case but also the expected response of the judicial community to the decision. We propose an analysis of judicial attitudes towards precedent based on the adoption externalities associated with legal rules. The situation is modelled as a coordination problem within a sequential game of two periods in which judges play a bandwagon strategy.     

关于民事诉讼中司法鉴定的运用

从案件审理者的角度看,司法鉴定是其加以运用从而认定事实的一个手段,但现存的规范多是纯粹程序上的规定,对鉴定具体环节中法官的行为殊有约束,导致了法官在运用司法鉴定中行为的随意,表现为滥用司法鉴定、浪费司法资源、造成瑕疵鉴定结论、对当事人及鉴定人权利保障不充分、鉴定结论审查标准不一等问题,因此有必要从原则上和具体规范上对法官运用司法鉴定的这些诉讼行为引起的问题加以解决,司法鉴定制度也只有关注这些问题才可能更加完善。     

论利益衡量方法在行政诉讼原告资格认定中的运用

行政诉讼原告资格制度的目的在于建立一种筛选机制,其实质体现了法官在决定是否给予司法裁判时的利益衡量,因此利益衡量方法是界定原告资格的根本方法。原告资格的核心是法律上的利害关系,包括合法权益和因果关系两个主要构成要件,界定原告资格需要对这两者运用利益衡量方法进行分析。利益衡量标准与社会需求密切相关,个案中法官进行衡量时需要对社会主流价值取向、社会整体的道德情感以及公共政策等社会需求因素加以考虑。     

Judicial Decisionmaking and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division

Research on the U.S. Supreme Court suggests that judges' decisions are influenced by their policy preferences. Moreover, judges behave strategically to facilitate outcomes that conform as close as possible to those preferences. We seek to generalize this assertion to judicial actors in two very diverse social systems: Canada in the post-Charter years and apartheid-era South Africa. Specifically, we analyze the use of panel assignments by the chief justices in both countries. We find that chief justices do behave strategically. Chief justices in both countries do not assign judges to panels randomly but rather are influenced by the tenure and ideology of the sitting judges and the issues presented in the case.     

司法过程中的法律发现及其方法论析

司法过程中的法律发现有二层含义:其一指法官从现行法体系中找出那些能够适用于当下案件的法规范或解释性命题的活动;其二是指在没有明确法规范或解释性命题可以适用的情况下进行漏洞填补或自由造法的一系列活动。法律发现方法主要有法律识别、法律解释和漏洞填补几种。在适用法律中,法官关于法律的认识、法渊理论、诉讼参与人等因素都会影响法官的法律发现。     

Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes

In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus “splitting the difference,” judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provide potential explanations for this phenomenon. First, Galanter (1974) suggests that litigants with greater resources will achieve more favorable outcomes in the courts. Where two high‐resource, repeat‐player litigants meet in the appeals courts, these more sophisticated and successful parties may be able to persuade the court to render decisions with mixed outcomes that at least partially favor each party. Second, split outcomes may result from strategic interactions among the appeals court judges on the decisionmaking panel. Where majority opinion writers seek to accommodate other judges on the panel, split outcomes have the potential to serve as an inducement for more ideologically extreme judges to join the majority opinion. Finally, Shapiro and Stone Sweet ( Stone Sweet 2000; Shapiro & Stone Sweet 2002 ) propose that courts will sometimes split the difference in order to enhance their legitimacy (and ultimately enhance compliance by losing parties). For example, in highly salient cases, where noncompliance would more clearly threaten court legitimacy, judges may be more likely to split the difference in order to mollify even the losing party. We develop an empirical model of mixed outcomes to test these propositions using data available from the U. S. Courts of Appeals Database and find evidence supportive of all three theoretical perspectives.     

On the Frontlines: Making Decisions in Chinese Civil Environmental Lawsuits

This article looks at forty-two decisions in civil pollution cases in China as a window onto judges' political logic and the accompanying implications for environmental enforcement. The starting point is a typology of judicial decision making in one-party states based on two dimensions of decisions: the degree of legal formality (e.g., how closely judges adhere to the letter of the law) and individual autonomy (e.g., judges' power to make decisions in individual cases). Mapping pollution decisions onto this typology highlights shifting judicial strategy. While Chinese judges typically comply with instructions when the political pressure is dialed up, a combination of shifting incentives, uncertainty about the law, and political ambiguity can also allow de facto discretion in low-profile, run-of-the-mill cases. Everyday cases tend to cluster under the rubric of "rough justice" in which judges weigh competing political priorities and aim for a livable compromise that dents but upholds the status quo. This sample of cases also shows judges occasionally innovating at the margins by offering new legal interpretations or validating new types of claims. Although Chinese courts remain weak tools for environmental protection, limited innovation suggests that they can help nudge along local incremental social change.     

日本行政诉讼原告资格新论

在日本行政诉讼法中以"法律利益"作为撤销诉讼原告资格的标准,但由于"法律利益"概念的不确定性,在学说及判例中存在着法律上保护利益说与值得保护利益说两种解释方法的对立。为扩大原告资格的范围,并防止法官过度的自由裁量,2004年6月日本《行政事件诉讼法》修改时采用了两种学说的折衷方案,即为"法律利益"标准的判断设置了四项必须考虑的要素,由法官依据该四项考虑要素来判断是否具有"法律利益"。     

中国法官独立制度构建探讨

法官独立是司法独立的重要组成部分，是中国司法改革申一项不可回避的课题。本文先阐述法官独立的内涵，指出法官独立应从司法权独立，审判独立和法官身份独立三个方面加以理解，再分析影响中国法官独立的诸多因素，最后提出在中国构建法官独立制度的设想。     

The Government as Litigant: Further Tests of the Case Selection Model

We develop a model of the plaintiff's decision to file a lawsuitthat has implications for how differences between the federalgovernment and private litigants translate into differencesin trial rates and plaintiff win rates at trial. Our case selectionmodel generates a set of predictions for relative trial ratesand plaintiff win rates, depending on the type of case and whetherthe government is defendant or plaintiff. To test the model,we use data on about 474,000 cases filed in federal districtcourt between 1979 and 1994 in the areas of personal injuryand job discrimination, in which the federal government andprivate parties work under roughly similar legal rules. We findbroad support for the predictions of the model.     

保障法官素质的标准和方法:法官资格考核与培训

我国法官素质已经引起了社会各界广泛的关注。如何使我国法官成为法律职业群体中的精英 ,不仅是一个实践问题 ,而且是一个涉及到根本宪政体制的理论问题。从这个意义上讲 ,提议中的统一司法资格考试不仅会对提高法官素质产生积极影响 ,而且会对一些宪政制度的方面 ,特别是司法改革 ,产生潜移默化的影响。但考试制度的改革这只是保障法官素质的基本措施之一。从统一司法资格考试开始 ,各种考核法官的方法都应当跟上 ,必要和经常性的法官培训制度应当逐步健全 ,严格和公开的法官任命制度也必须建立。     

Chilling Journalism: Can Newsgathering be Harassment or Stalking?

Newsgathering often requires journalists to ask uncomfortable questions or make multiple attempts to talk to unwilling sources. Some journalists have been accused of harassment, even when the plain language of state laws would not classify their actions as criminal conduct. In the rare instances that journalists actually were charged with harassment or subject to protective orders for stalking, district attorneys or judges typically did not allow them to be punished. This study, however, found nine statutes that might be applied to punish newsgathering activities that are neither hounding nor harassing. It also identifies language from statutes that clearly could not be applied to punish newsgathering communications by journalists. The article recommends that prosecutors and judges continue to prevent the application of criminal harassment and stalking laws to newsgathering activities.     

论诉讼保全中的利益权衡问题

保全请求在客观上考验着法庭的审判能力。在快速审理的压力下,法庭必须依据有限的事实迅速裁定。由于这种裁定是在权利义务关系尚未明确甚至诉讼尚未提出之前作出的,因此,容易忽略被申请人的利益,但完全不考虑被申请人的利益是违背法所追求的公平和正义原则的。保全命令,实质上是法庭在对申请人、被申请人和公共利益等各方利益进行权衡之后做出的价值判断。