孤独的法官与法官的孤独——法官的自主性研究

法官需要孤独,孤独不是寂寞,而是一种凝结了真善美的高贵品质。法官的孤独并不是与这个世界的分离,相反法官的孤独是关注这个世界发展的命运基础上的孤独。正是因为法官把握和感受到了这个世界的整体命运,所以法官的孤独才可能对这个世界产生一种推动的力量。法官的孤独是一种具有高度自主性的美好品德。     

选定法官与法定法官——由我国台湾地区选定法官制度谈祖国大陆民事程序改革

我国台湾地区于2003年6月5日公布了《民事诉讼合意选定法官审判暂行条例》,这在世界范围内是一项创新性制度,该制度反映出了对当事人程序主体地位的保障,充分尊重了当事人对程序的选择权。我国的司法审判方式改革已经进行了十余年,在我国《民事诉讼法》修改之际,通过借鉴我国台湾地区的司法制度改革,我国民事诉讼法的修改应提升公众对司法的信赖度、对裁判的信服度和接纳度,充分体现对人权的保障,在司法改革中坚持合宪性要求。     

论法官的良心

法官自由心证是司法裁判的内在要求。自由心证并不意味着法官可以任意擅断。法官除应当依法裁判外,还应当依照良心的命令从事。良心具有伦理学与心理学上的科学依据,对于规范法官的心证,保证裁判活动的公正性具有重要作用。法官应当具有依照法律与良心独立裁判案件的强烈自觉意识。为了防止外力对法官良心的干扰,同时防止良心自身陷入主观唯心主义,应当在司法体制和诉讼程序上建立、健全和完善法官独立制度。     

法律和法官革命

面对新世纪 ,我们的法律和法官 ,都将面临巨大的变革。作为法官 ,所能做的最重要的莫过于培养现代法律之理念 ,理解其精神 ,感知其呼吸     

法官与法律的完善和实施 --以民事审判监督为例的观念、价值和技术分析

由于法律规定和法律技术的粗疏 ,我国的民事审判监督和民事诉讼活动之间存在着前提性、结构性的断裂和缺失 ,致使检察机关的民事抗诉权启动艰难。检察机关的民事抗诉权来源于公民的权利 ,是公民权利的转化、实现和保障形式 ,它的顺利启动和行使有十分重要的意义。破解程序困境的思路是 ,以契约精神为理念 ,将检察机关的民事抗诉权的实现看作是全部国家机关对公民和社会的义务。在各种相关机关中 ,由人民法院就检察机关的民事抗诉权向当事人进行宣告 ,借以建立起民事审判监督和民事诉讼活动的链接 ,使民事抗诉权顺利启动 ,成本最低、效率最高是最能维护和体现正义、有利于维护司法尊严和权威的方法。通过技术创新促进法律的完善和实现 ,也将是法院和法官对中国法治的独特贡献。     

好法官的两种形象

不同社会对于好法官的认识和塑造方式不完全相同。中国人心目中的好法官,主要是青天的形象,中国社会对于好法官的形象塑造,总体上没有超越"神话—超人—英雄化"这一传统路数。而西方人心目中的好法官则是职业法官形象,西方社会对于好法官的形象塑造,走的是"世俗—常人—规范化"的塑造路径。好法官形象塑造受制于不同的社会制度、法治观念和政治目的。法治社会无青天,在法治建设中,我们既要淡化司法体制内青天好法官的形象塑造,又要强化法官群体的职业化建设,更应杜绝司法体制外的权力青天向司法发号施令、施加影响。     

Judges,Conflict, and the Past

Drawing upon interviews with senior judicial figures in Northern Ireland, South Africa and elsewhere, this article considers the role of the judiciary in a political conflict. Using the socio‐legal literature on judicial performance and audience as well as transitional justice scholarship, the article argues that judges in Northern Ireland ‘performed’ to a number of ‘imagined’ audiences including Parliament, ‘the public', and their judicial peers – all of which shaped their view of the judicial role. In light of ongoing efforts to deal with the past in the jurisdiction, and the experiences of other transitional societies, the article argues that the judiciary can and should engage in a mature, reflexive and, where appropriate, self‐critical examination of the good and bad of their own institutional history during the conflict. It also argues that such a review of judicial performance requires an external audience in order to encourage the judiciary to see truth beyond the limits of legalism.     

论法官的知识

我国目前正在推进司法活动专门化的进程,受社会的变化、法官与学者的作用以及国家策略等因素的影响,法官的知识也必将发生结构性的变迁。现代社会中法官的知识对法官及社会都会产生重要影响。因此,在法官知识的转型过程中,在关注法律专业知识的同时,不应忽略法官的生活知识及生活理性。     

Judges as legislators

Among the regulatory measures intended to control the transboundary movement of hazardous waste is the European Community Regulation concerning the Supervision and Control of Shipments of Waste within, into and out of the European Community, 1993, and it is this Regulation, in particular, that this work intends to treat. In this context, the European Parliament's attempts to counteract the weight of economic argument in favour of the conflicting interests of human health and the environment will be examined. Despite international and European Community regulation, it is submitted that double standards in law and practice are continually applied to the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Emphasis will be placed on both the international and European dilemma of defining hazardous waste.     

我国法官的重组与分流研究

法官职业化和精英化是法治对现代司法体制的必然要求。我国现有法官人数过多,素质不高,不能满足这一条件。因此,应在重新界定我国四级法院性质和功能的基础上,按照现代审级制度的要求确定各级法院的法官员额和任职资格,并对现任法官进行重组与分流,以优化法院人员结构,构建法官少、辅助人员多的新型法院。     

Interpretation of Law and Judges Communities

The principle of omnia sunt interpretanda refers to the derivational conception and derivational theory of interpretation. The principle appears in disputes concerning the role of a judge in the process of interpretation, and this has produced an effect that Polish theory of law is currently getting closer to the conceptions presented in the American debate on activism and textualism. In the practice of jurisdiction, the principle of omnia sunt interpretanda is mostly invoked outside theoretical context. It becomes a manifestation of a new dimension of judicial independence, namely an independent authority over the meaning of legal text. In the following paper the legal cultures and legal theories involved in the dispute are being disclosed in order to put in question the possibility of achieving a clear result of interpretation against a background of a crisis of the relations between law and law-making state, which manifests itself in the peculiar process of legal institutions becoming autonomous in relation to state institutions. In this context, the aforementioned principle constitutes the manifestation of the way in which courts come up with a new definition of the role of the third (sui generic) power. The certain organizational requirements placed upon the courts (especially the SAC and provincial administrative courts) are being scrutinized in order to find out in which mode it is possible to at least reduce the degree of inconsistency of the results of interpretation. Here, the attempt to organize a community of judges for the activities of legal interpretation undertaken by them plays a crucial role.     

District Judges and Possession Proceedings

In this article, we draw on data obtained in interviews with District Judges about the factors which they say influence the exercise of their discretion in possession proceedings. Analysing the data set enabled us to create three ideal types of judicial decision—making which we have labelled 'liberal', 'patrician', and formalist'. We discuss the differences between each ideal type across five different variables: the District Judge role; approach; view of occupiers; the problem; behaviour of occupiers. Our data demonstrate a set of reasons to explain different approaches and outcomes between different District Judges (as well as the perhaps unlikely identification of a 'maverick' or 'idiosyncratic' style of judging). We conclude by suggesting on the basis of our data that, despite calls to structure or remove the discretion from District Judges, any such changes are unlikely to have much effect.     

法官素质与司法公正

司法公正不是一句简单的口号,它是一项系统工程,受到司法体制,法官素质、公民法律意识等多方面因素的制约,其中法官素质是影响司法公正的主体性因素.     

National Judges,Community Judges: Invitation to a Journey through the Looking‐glass—On the Need for Jurisdictions to Rethink the Inter‐systemic Relations beyond the Hierarchical Principle

The historical conflict between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the national constitutional courts regarding primacy is a misunderstanding. In going through the looking‐glass, we can understand that, on the contrary, the ECJ and the national constitutional courts adopt comparable solutions in their treatment of legal pluralism, and that they see the negation of pluralism as essential for the survival of their own legal orders. Therefore, these judges must be offered a new theoretical context to help them reconcile their role as supreme guardian with the taking into account of the pluralist context. Finally, practical proposals must be made to give judges the instruments and techniques that are capable of reflecting this plural structure.     

Judges,Litigants, and the Design of Courts

Two important perspectives on courts highlight fundamentally different elements of adjudication and yield distinct predictions about judicial outcomes. The Attitudinal Model of judicial voting posits judge ideology as a strong predictor of court outcomes. Alternatively, the Law and Economics perspective focuses on the settlement behavior of litigants and reasons that while judges may vote ideologically, litigants adapt to these ideological proclivities, nullifying the effect of judge ideology. This analysis focuses on reconciling expectations about the effects of judge ideology and litigant strategies by examining their contingent nature and the conditioning effects of institutional design. The analysis examines state supreme courts from 1995–1998 to identify empirical evidence supporting both perspectives. While some state supreme courts have discretionary dockets allowing judges greater opportunities to exercise their ideology, others lack discretionary docket control, making dockets and outcomes largely litigant driven. Support for each perspective largely hinges on this fundamental feature of institutional design.