卡多佐实用主义法律思想下的法官造法——读《司法过程的性质》

卡多佐是英语世界有史以来最著名、最伟大的法官之一,也是美国现实主义法学最杰出的代表人物之一,由于卡多佐的长期普通司法实践,在其任职期间,美国＂静悄悄地＂完成了普通法的革命。《司法过程的性质》是卡多佐于1921年在耶鲁大学一系列演讲的集录。他在演讲中详细阐述了法官如何对一个案件进行判决的全过程。这本书是实用主义司法哲学的简明读本。本文以该书为分析对象,试图做以下尝试：首先分析卡多佐的理论产生的时代背景与哲学基础;其次阐述本书的核心司法过程及对法官的职能定位;最后提出几点疑问。     

浅谈卡多佐的司法方法论及社会学方法之应用

卡多佐是美国最具影响力、最伟大的法学家之一,本文通过分析卡多佐实用主义法学思想的形成以及他的司法方法论,进而探讨卡多佐社会学方法下衡平地追求社会福利、注重司法的社会效果和他对法官造法的态度以及社会学方法之于社会转型时期中国司法的现实意义。     

以司法回应时代:通过司法的社会治理——以卡多佐司法实用主义哲学为导引

国家治理体系和治理能力的现代化构建对司法提出了更高的要求。一方面,司法需要落实国家法秩序,实现国家法律的各种安排与预测。另一方面,司法需要回应社会,实现司法的社会治理。而要透过司法的社会治理离不开卡多佐司法实用主义哲学。并且要对中国当下的司法能量发挥、社会转型、全面推进依法治国、司法权威、司法公信力等因素予以考量。在此基础上才能构建具有多样司法特质、与政治良性互动、塑造时代价值、自身良性发展的中国司法理想图景。     

卡多佐的社会功利观——解读《司法过程的性质》

贯穿卡多佐《司法过程的性质》一书的核心问题是法官在司法过程中究竟如何作出判决的问题.基于此问题,卡多佐提出了哲学、历史、习惯和社会学这四种方法.重点对卡多佐的社会学方法,尤其是其中的"社会福利"进行分析,进而得出卡多佐背后更深层之社会功利观的支配性作用的结论,并对其社会功利观提出的原因--对形式主义的反对进行了重点论述,最后对其社会功利观提出了一点质疑.     

法官造法:司法过程的最高境界

法官造法是英美法系司法的最高境界,是与大陆法系区别开来的基本特征.美国联邦最高法院大法官卡多佐所撰<司法过程的性质>--作为美国司法哲学的代表之作,对法官造法的动因、界限、根据和方法等做出了简明而又不乏深邃的阐释,该书也成为解读英美法系法官造法理论精髓的窗口.     

关注社会现实:法律发展不可或缺的主题——解读卡多佐的社会学法学思想

卡多佐的社会学法学思想有其特定的社会背景和生活阅历,他的演讲、著作以及司法意见无不阐发着一个核心的观点,那就是法律发展的真正源泉在于社会现实,因此,他倡导司法必须适应社会现实,该思想在美国的司法理论界产生了很大的反响,成为美国社会评价司法效果的主要依据,他本人也因此而成为社会学法学的代表人物。卡多佐的社会学法学思想也给我国的立法与司法工作带来了某些启发。     

卡多佐:"法官造法"的范围、过程与方法

卡多佐的《司法过程的性质》一书,是他作为纽约州立法院和美国联邦最高法院法官,在长期的司法实践中形成的司法智慧的集中体现。在这部被誉为经典的著作中,卡多佐解析了法官作为法律发现者和创造者的角色差异,精细地分析了法官在司法过程中所起到的作用,总结了法官实施法律创新活动的范围以及法官做出裁判的四种司法方法,这些精辟的思想直接的影响了英美法系的司法改革,并对世界其他国家的司法实践具有广泛的借鉴意义。     

活着的法律宣谕者--《司法过程的性质》与卡多佐的司法艺术

本文以《司法过程的性质》为基本素材 ,经由文本解读和语境分析 ,阐释卡多佐的法律思想。经由理述卡多佐对于三类案件与法官的三项职责的分梳 ,关于立法旨意及其发现和填补的思考 ,特别是卡氏关于司法过程的四种“力量”与四种方法的论述 ,展示卡氏将历史、事实与现实人生融为一体 ,于司法过程的现实考量和合理性追寻中恰予裁判的实用主义法律智慧和悲悯心性。     

司法衡平艺术与司法能动主义

司法的最直接目的在于定纷止争。法官既不能迷信规则,也不应轻视规则。司法能动主义是一种开放性司法哲学,热衷于打破成规、法外能动和制衡。司法能动主义之所以盛行于美国,有其特定政治法律文化背景。我国情形则大为不同,司法能动主义须慎行。我们应该发展合乎国情的中式司法衡平艺术,倡导能动司法。     

司法哲学基石范畴:司法能动性之法哲理追问

司法哲学是对司法学的哲学化研究,旨在解决司法的根本问题:司法是“什么”?和司法是“如何”?司法能动性作为科学的世界观和方法论,在追问其本身所包含的精神的理性、方法的灵活性、过程的创造性、目的的回应性等法哲理时,科学地解答了司法的根本问题,并使司法获得了正当性的理由,由此成为司法哲学的基石范畴。对司法哲学基石范畴的论证,亦证成了司法哲学的科学地位。     

程序公正的价值——兼议实体公正与程序公正冲突的解决

实现公正是法哲学的核心问题。在我国推进法治建设的今天,尤其是目前正处在转型时期,各种利益纠缠在一起,在这样一个价值观剧烈冲突、客观标准剧烈变动,对于实体是否公正不好判断的情况下,程序上的公正就尤为重要了。实体公正与程序公正发生冲突时,应有正确的价值选择以期实现司法公正,实现我国社会主义法治。     

Exploring competency development: it’s the helping part

Restorative justice is an operating philosophy that, while used in other countries for many years, began being implemented in the United States in the early and mid 1990s. This paper takes a look at one part of the restorative justice philosophy, attempts to instill conceptual clarity, and examines one state’s process of implementing competency development programs and the effects that state has seen. In addition, five domains of competency development are explored as well as practical means of attaining the goals of each domain. The paper concludes with specific ways of measuring the outcomes of competency development, along with the progress that one commonwealth’s juvenile justice system has made.     

最密切联系原则的成因分析

最密切联系原则是20世纪中叶美国“冲突法革命”最卓越的成果,其一经产生便引起各国的瞩目,成为判断一个国家国际私法立法是否现代化的标准之一.该原则适应了国际社会迅速发展的形势需要,满足了国际社会对法律适用的公正性与合理性的追求,在国际私法发展史上具有里程碑意义.然而,任何理论的产生都并非是横空出世,最密切联系原则的形成与确立,既有其自身在现代国际关系中适应法律价值观从形式正义向实质正义转变的原因,也有政治、经济的巨大变革及实用主义哲学的推动因素.     

Rethinking the restorative–retributive dichotomy: is reconciliation possible?

While the use of restorative justice within Western criminal justice systems continues to grow, its philosophical foundations remain uncertain. This inconclusiveness impacts directly upon the theoretical discussion of restorative justice and its relationship with existing paradigms of punishment, precipitating debate regarding its ability to integrate within justice systems governed by retributive paradigms. Specifically, this ambiguity of definition renders debate regarding the extent to which restorative justice philosophy exists as an alternative punishment or an alternative to punishment, and its existence as complementary or axiomatic to retributive justice unresolved. The philosophy of restorative justice, identifying its central features and addressing those previous attempts of contrasting restorative justice with the prevailing paradigm of retribution is explored here. However, it is suggested that aspirations of reconciling restorative justice philosophy with the retributive paradigm will be ultimately unsuccessful, due to the persistent latent ambiguity regarding the central foundation upon which restorative justice philosophy is built. Such concerns are also present when seeking to affirm the continued opposition of retributive and restorative justice.     

Justice and economic decision making: A model of akrasia

Economics has provided the most rigorous model of decision making. Unfortunately, its severe rationality assumptions rule out psychological conflict. Modifying the standard model to allow for conflicting preferences creates scope for hesitation, doubt, regret, and akrasia. Akrasia, which is doing wrong knowingly, figures prominently in discussions of morality and justice in classical philosophy. The development of a formal model of akrasia along the lines taken in this essay holds the promise of combining the mathematical rigor of economics, the analytical power of philosophy, and the empirical methods of psychology in the study of justice.     

Book Review: Considering Social Justice: A Review of David Miller's Principles of Social Justice

Miller's volume is a useful, thorough, and innovating overview of the subject of social justice. It inspires three lines of critical response. The first involves the symbiotic role of philosophy and empirical inquiry in the analysis of justice. The second involves the qualities of opportunity that ought to underlie justice. Finally, there are a few lessons regarding the status of justice in the overall evaluation of society that can be learned from the case of the United States, which has an anomalously bad record with respect to distributive justice. The centrality of politics is one of the implications of the analysis.     

Lessons from Philosophy? Interdisciplinary Justice Research and Two Classes of Justice Judgments

More and more scholars of social justice have been calling for a closer collaboration between empirical and normative disciplines. Psychological and sociological research, as well as philosophical theories can, so they claim, learn from one another and work should be based on results obtained in the other fields of research. Some political philosophers do not share this view. They argue that, since most empirical research does not capture people's moral views on justice, its results cannot be of any value to their theories. Based on this critique I suggest in the first part of this paper that empirical research should distinguish between two classes of justice judgments: First, justice judgments in a narrow sense, which are made under conditions of impartiality and grounded in moral principles, and second, justice attitudes, which differ from other types of social attitudes only in their attitude objects. In the second part I present a quasi-experimental study that aimed at testing the two different classes of justice judgments empirically. The results show that justice judgments in the narrow sense can be obtained even under conditions in which complex experimental manipulations cannot be employed. In the third part of this paper I hypothesize that justice judgments which are based on the two formal criteria provided by political philosophy (impartiality and reference to moral principles) may serve as important intervening variables when trying to explain the impact of justice beliefs on different patterns of human behavior.     

法理即法律原理之解说

自清末民初以来,将法理解说为法律原理就成为法学界的通例,但其界定方式则有四种:一是径直以法律原理定位法理;二是将法律原理、法律原则并列来定位法理;三是将法理视为由法律原理推导出的法律一般原则;四是认为法理是指法律原则,但包括法律原理在内。法理和法律原理的存在是一种客观的必然:世上的万事万物都应有其存在和运行的原理,法律自然也不例外;法律作为人类的伟大创造,自身即蕴含着追求正义等法律价值的法理;法律的价值观念虽因时代、地区的不同而会有所差异,但其中的基础法理却不受时空影响;对法律的分析和研究舍法理之外别无他途。立足于已有的研究成果,可将法理界定为"在综合各种法律现象的基础上,由学者所抽象并为社会所认同的有关法律基础、法律根据、法律判准、法律渊源的基础性、普遍性原理"。同时,法理与自然规律、社会价值、内存于法典和单行法律中的法律原则以及事理、情理等存在明显的差异,不可混淆。     

“程序公正感受”研究及其启示

从 #" 世纪 ’" 年代开始,西方学者对程序公正的研究从伦理哲学分析转向社会心理学分析,试图揭示程序公正的心理规律。研究发现：程序公正的要素并没有绝对标准,具有一定的情境敏感性;不过,程序公正在促进人们接受法律、法律决定和从事积极行为等方面具有比结果公正更为重要的地位,这种现象甚至具有跨越文化、种族、性别的普遍性。为了对此进行解释,西方学者提出了发言权理论、团体价值理论、人际关系理论和公正启发理论等模式,各自都具有一定的解释力。不过,程序公正也有可能成为社会权威转移真实矛盾“欺骗”社会成员的统治策略。对于转型期的我国,程序公正感受研究带给我们的不是其具体的结论,而是告诉我们,研究公正问题时,应当抛开宏大话语,努力探寻中国人心目中的公正观。