罪刑法定与刑法适用中的法官解释

法官适用刑法是将刑法规定运用于案件事实、获得判决的过程,因此,刑法规定和案件事实是法官在这一过程中需要解释和说明的内容。然而,不少学者否定刑法适用中法官解释的存在。究其原由,在于对法官解释本身的理解有所不同,本文将法官解释定位在刑法适用过程中法官对刑法规则与案件事实的理解与说明,并在此基础上通过对法官解释与法官造法的区别分析,进一步厘清了罪刑法定与法官解释的关系。     

司法过程中的法律发现

司法过程中的法律发现是法学方法论的重要组成部分，它研究的是法官面对个案理解、解释、适用法律的过程。在这一过程中，法官应表达对法律的忠诚并根据案件事实衡平个别正义。法官之所以在司法过程中发现法律，乃是因为法律适用就是法律解释，没有法官对法律和事实的理解，就不可能有法律适用。依照法治原则，发现法律首先应从法律正式法源中去寻找，只有当正式法源中没有明确标准或虽有标准但该标准与个案正义严重背离时，才在非正式法源中寻找可以接受的答案。     

浅议民事法律关系理论对法官处理案件的局限

法官在处理案件时，其思维模式一般表现为，从基本查明的案件事实出发，确定民事案件当事人之间属于何种民事法律关系，进而确定案件的性质，随后，按照所确定的民事法律关系，寻找所审案件应当适用的法律，从法律所规范的这种民事法律关系的内容出发，法官得心应手就推断出了当事人各方应承担的权利和义务，进而所审的民事案件从法律的层面也就得到了解决。     

法律解释及其基本特征

在法治社会中 ,如果没有法律解释理论 ,仍可能形成新的专制。法律解释应是法官按照法律的规范意旨 ,运用法律思维方式 ,在法律适用过程中 ,对与案件相关的法律和事实的意义所作的阐明。它有三个基本特征 :法律解释是站在法律的立场上 ,对法律的意义所作出的有效力的解释 ,具有合法性特征 :法律解释具有法律的部分与整体的互动、法律与事实的互动的循环性特征 ;法律解释因把一般的法律个别化而具有创造性特征     

注重体系解释 实现刑法正义

法解释是指"探求规范的法律意义";刑法解释当然是指探求刑法规范、规定的法律意义。狭义的刑法解释是指探求作为文本的成文刑法的法律意义;广义的刑法解释则可谓刑法的适用,使规范与事实进入对应关系,解释规范、剪裁事实并且目光不断地往返于规范与事实之间,从而形成结论。体系解释,一般是根据刑法条文在整个刑法中的地位,联系     

论涉外民事法律适用中的定性——兼评《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第8条

定性是国际私法理论研究和司法实践普遍关注的问题之一。我国《涉外民事关系法律适用法》虽然对定性作出了具体的规定,但由于各国学者对于定性的对象、范围以及定性冲突有着不同的认识,实践中很容易造成法官在涉外民事法律适用认识上的困难。从法学方法论意义讲,涉外民事裁判中定性的本质在于将案件事实与不同国家实体法进行比对的过程,其间贯穿着冲突规范连结点的解释以及相关国家法律对同一事实评价的利益衡量。就我国立法中有关定性问题的解释而言,法院地法应在国际私法语境下作广义理解。     

法律解释及其在法律适用中的作用

法律适用和法律解释的概念有广义与狭义之分。国外法理学者对法律适用过程的分析有助于对法律适用和法律解释二者关系的理解。探讨法律适用与法律解释的关系、明确法律解释的价值对有效弥合共性法律与个性案件之间的罅隙、保证法官正确适用法律、实现司法裁判法律效果与社会效果的双赢具有重要意义。     

范畴理论与刑法解释立场

根据认知语言学、家族相似性原理，刑法范畴不是特征范畴，而是以典型原型为核心事实所建立起来的原型范畴。所以，刑法范畴都有明确的核心和不明确的边缘，无法用共同的语义特征来描述内部所有成员。在进行刑法解释、考察差的样本是否归属于某刑法范畴时，必须将该样本和典型原型进行实质性的对比，根据其相似度确定其是否属于该范畴。在该过程中立法原意、刑法的字面意义均提供不了帮助，而只能留给法官行使自由裁量，由法官根据具体语境并结合自己的前见对文本进行客观解释、实质解释。     

刑法解释的立场是客观解释——基于会话含义理论的分析

司法者理解和解释法律的活动是其和法律文本进行对话的过程,语用学中的会话含义理论可以作为研究法律解释问题的分析工具。根据会话含义理论,立法者预料到并期待解释者会根据文本的语义结构、读者的心理图式、生活中的常规关系等解读出刑法文本的语用意义,司法者必然会根据语境因素对刑法文本的意义进行语用推理,解读出字面意义之外的隐含意义、形式意义之外的实质意义、语义意义之外的语用意义,并且在不同语境下解读出不同意义。刑法文本为语用推理划定了大致范围,语用推理实现了文本静态意义向动态意义的转化,因此刑法解释立场是并应该是客观解释。     

私法规范文本解释之价值判断

法律解释是解释主体基于价值判断选择解释对象和运用解释方法的结果.法律解释之价值判断围绕具体的案件事实以及与具体的案件事实直接相关的法律文本展开.在私法领域,对事实文本予以解释并赋予其法律上的意义,要比解释相应的私法规范的法律文本更有价值.因为价值判断的主观认识,法律解释的结论总是相对的.文义解释是法律解释的起点,在一系列的法律解释方法中居于绝对优先地位,尊重法律文本的文义,自身就是价值判断的产物.法律文本未经由文义解释,就不能作论理解释.论理解释对于澄清因为文义解释而产生的歧义具有意义,但其并不单纯为消除文义解释的“歧义”而被利用.论理解释的诸方法究竟应当在什么场合使用,并不取决于该方法的使用有无先后位序,而取决于法律文本解释者的价值判断,论理解释方法对于调节法律文本解释的文义偏差的作用也是相对的.     

Why Do the European Court of Justice Judges Need Legal Concepts?

The article considers the reasons why the European Court of Justice (ECJ) judges need legal concepts when they pronounce their judgments. It points out that the ECJ as a law‐interpreting and an ipso facto law‐making court needs legal concepts to communicate results of its interpretative and law‐making enterprise. The article also shows how in the context of Article 234 EC preliminary ruling procedure legal concepts become useful tools of portraying ECJ judgments as mere products of interpretation and not as the results of subsuming the facts of the case into a legal provision. It is by means of application of legal concepts, that the ECJ judges are able to justify that they are not overstepping the mandate they have been entrusted with. In the same time the use of legal concepts enables them to engage in dialogue with national judges, who seek guidance as to the content of EC law rules, and to maintain a strong doctrine of precedent. Most importantly, however, the use of concepts promotes coherence which, the article maintains, is the primary source of Community law's authority, and thus constitutes the foundational technique of persuading the relevant audience that Community law is indeed a legal system.     

行政审判中的规则阐明问题研究

规则阐明是司法活动的一项主要内容。法官在审理案件的过程中,解决一系列事实和法律问题,都遵循着一定的规则,发现和阐明这些规则,对提高案件质量、提升司法权威都具有十分积极的作用。行政审判有自身的特点,其纷繁的法律关系和复杂的行政管理活动,为行政法官进行规则阐明提供了广阔的空间,同时也提出了更高的要求。规则阐明是指法官对所要适用的规则进行解释,阐述其涵义,解释规则适用的情境、适用于本案的合理性,包括事实规则、法律规则、法理规则阐明。阐明基础有:行政法基本原则、行政行为构成、行政权与司法权关系、经验政策。阐明方法包括利益权衡、依法解释、区别与类推。中国应当构建现代司法规则阐明制度,完善裁判说理制度,设立规则阐明的激励机制,借鉴判例法制度合理因素,建立规则引用制度。     

外国法解释模式研究

外国法解释不同于外国法查明。借助解释模式这一概念，可将外国法解释的目标、主体、对象和途径等不同要素统合为有机整体，置于国际私法和法律解释理论的双重脉络中予以探究。在现有外国法解释模式中，解释目标一般为确定外国法在其所属国的意义，故裁判者须完全摒弃先见，作为忠实的外部观察者摹写外国法律共同体对外国法的客观理解。此模式在司法实践中的困境揭示出其在相当程度上偏离了法律解释的内在规律。应重新厘定外国法解释目标，结合外国法适用的“情境化”特点，以法律论证理论重构外国法解释模式。     

Law-making functions of the Chinese courts: Judicial activism in a country of rapid social changes

The judicial production of law and the legislative production of law make a striking distinction between the two legal traditions. Despite of these differences, judges in both legal traditions in adjudicating cases have a common task, which is the application of legal rules to the facts of cases pending for judgments. The tension between the certainty and the “discretion” is universal for any legal system and, to a certain extent, it poses a hard dilemma for the rhetoric of rule of law. In the transitional countries such as China where rapid social changes and transformations take place, the judiciary and judges can not escape from taking more active roles in interpreting or even law making process. It arouses much controversy, particularly in continental legal traditions, for the judiciary is deemed to perform a mechanical role in adjudicating cases. This article intends to analyze the needs for judicial law-making function in China and its reasons. It reveals that judicial interpretation constitutes an important source of law despite its ambiguous legislative position. The article argues that judicial activism is inevitable against the transitional nature of current Chinese society.     

Le Juriste en Présence de L’herméneutique Contemporaine

Philosophical hermeneutics developed by the German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer and founded on interpretation as explicit form of comprehension generated a debate on contemporary hermeneutics about texts written at different periods of time from those in which they must then be applied. This debate is necessarily very instructive for the jurist when he interprets texts and creates positive law to produce a determined effect on recipients. Comprehension as participation in truth involves questioning and an interpretation devoid of prejudices. Illustration of hermeneutics in law demonstrates that interpretation related to comprehension is strictly bound to the question of application bearing in mind that application does not only consist in concretizing comprehension, it constitutes his nucleus. It follows that hermeneutics oscillates between a theoretical and practical meaning. Regarding the concept of a presumption it is perceived as an instrumental necessity and a necessary corollary of interpretation in that it anticipates on the meaning found on the possibility. It is specified in a context of legal hermeneutics that it is necessary to distinguish the interpretation of the observer from the one of the player such the judge put in the performative position.     

法益衡量中的事实还原运用--刑法解释的视角

法益衡量在刑法解释中具有确保法律合法化的重要价值,法益衡量对个罪保护法益的甄别、权衡与比较,必须借助事实还原来完成。事实还原立足于对刑法规范赖以建构的立法事实是否在客观上具有真实性、在规范上具有价值性或在法秩序上具有必要性的判断,以为法益衡量提供判断标准。刑法解释立足于法益衡量把法律代入充满个性的案件事实中,以之来检视抽象的法律对具象的事实之适应程度,并发现法律面对案件事实时的适用或者不适用。事实还原不仅是法益衡量之客观论证的媒介,而且是法益衡量方法选择的基础,同时还是法益衡量限度确定的标准。如欲作出既合法又合理的解释结论,则需要解释者认真对待法益衡量中的事实还原,以判断法律规范赖以存在的保护法益是否存在、是否有价值、以刑法保护是否具有必要,从而把不具有保护法益的真实性、价值性或必要性的行为排除在犯罪圈之外。     

Conversational Implicatures and Legal Texts

Legal texts are often given interpretations that deviate from their literal meanings. While legal concerns often motivate these interpretations, others can be traced to linguistic phenomena. This paper argues that systematicities of language usage, captured by certain theories of conversational implicature, can sometimes explain why the meanings given to legal texts by judges differ from the literal meanings of the texts. Paul Grice's account of conversational implicature is controversial, and scholars have offered a variety of ways to conceptualize implicatures and Grice's maxims of conversation. Approaches that emphasize the systematic nature of implicatures can provide explanatory accounts of the gap between literal meaning and the meaning communicated in the text. For example, a theory of scalar implicature, a type of generalized conversational implicature, can account for the application of the interpretive principle known as ejusdem generis, which narrows the scope of “catch‐all” clauses located at the end of lists of items. Despite the availability of such theories, some scholars have argued that conversational implicatures are not applicable to legislation. The arguments, based primarily on the uniqueness of the legislative context and its noncooperative nature, though, do not establish the inapplicability of conversational implicatures to legislation.