The Argument of Judges in the View of Legal Methodology

法院应是人们讲理的场所,法官应该说理,通过说理以增强判决的说服力与可接受性.法官不说理导致判决的可接受性低,当前申诉、上访、执行难等现象就是明证.为此,研究法官说理方法成为加强法官说理必然途径.研究法律解释、法律推理、法律论证等法学方法有助于完善法官说理的方法,有助于从法官说理能力、说理权责、说理激励等方面构建法官说理机制.     

论辩修辞视角下司法判决可接受性之提高

法院是当今社会解决社会矛盾纠纷的主要机构,法院做出司法判决的可接受性成为反映司法正义的重要指标。从论辩修辞角度出发,总结论辩修辞影响司法判决可接受性的途径、我国司法判决可接受性低的现状及其后果,分析造成我国司法判决可接受性低的论辩修辞原因,最终从论辩修辞方面提出建立完善的司法判决说理制度、改进法官选任制度、加强法官素质培养、树立社会公众对论辩修辞的正确认识等改善司法判决可接受性的对策建议。     

论裁判文书说理的积极修辞及其限度

裁判文书中运用积极修辞技术进行说理以此达致说服听众的效果,目的在于得出更为合理和更具可接受性的判决。我国裁判文书说理以消极修辞为主,但并不排除积极修辞的运用,司法裁判的情理要求使积极修辞成为必要。最高人民法院指导性案例中对积极修辞技术的运用较少;而地方法院裁判文书中对积极修辞的运用进行了大胆尝试。我国可以根据自身的实际情况,借鉴英美法系法官裁判说理的有益方面,注重语言技术知识与司法实践活动相结合,从而增强裁判文书的说理性;同时鼓励法官在说理时引述指导性案例,将法学理论与司法实践紧密结合,促进法官修辞说理的常态化,从而提高判决的可接受性。虽然运用积极修辞技术可以增强裁判文书的情感论证,保持司法领域与社会公众的有效沟通,但是需要给裁判文书说理中的积极修辞设定合理性界限,即逻辑的形式理性限度和可接受的价值理性限度,以防过度修辞或者滥用修辞导致负面影响。     

法官的法理认同及裁判说理

司法裁判运用法理说理必不可少。法理说理既是法官自我认同的表现,也是当事人和公众认同裁判所必须的,更是司法裁判在法律框架秩序内回应民意的重要手段。法官运用法理说理,可将法理融于法律方法之中,对得出裁判规范的过程进行解释、考量和论证,使正义以看得见的方式得以实现。同时,法理说理应辅以修辞学方法,充分考虑当事人和公众的心灵、情绪和情感因素,以增强裁判的社会认同度和可接受性。     

从"无理"的判决到判决书"说理"--判决书说理制度的正当性分析

由于受到大陆法系传统的影响 ,我国判决说理并没有被制度化 ,甚至长时间囿于是否需要制度化的讨论中。笔者通过分析认为 ,在中国现有的司法语境中 ,判决说理具有急需正当化、制度化的内在需求。一是 ,判决说理是法官权力公开化的必然 ,同时也是一种法官自保的策略性选择 ;二是 ,判决说理是司法职能现代化的内在需求 ,力求通过判决说理达到当事人从内心“服判”的司法追求。笔者通过比较分析进一步指出了说理主体、说理对象等判决说理的前提性问题     

论司法判决的可接受性——基于听众理论的分析

提高司法判决的可接受性,依赖法官在判决时从独白转变为对话,佩雷尔曼、阿尔尼奥的听众理论能够提供新的研究视角。司法判决要说服听众,就必须寻找到听众认可的价值或规范作为论证起点。在司法活动中,因为现代社会价值具有多元性与不确定性等特征,所以只能以国家制定法作为听众认可的起点。在需要对法律进行阐释的领域,法官对法律的解释优先于听众对法律的理解。司法判决的结果是否具有可接受性,要看其是否符合合理性标准。合理与否需要在具体的语境与情境中探讨,为防止合理沦为主观擅断,司法判决可接受的合理性标准要受到后果主义和融贯性的双重审查。     

量刑说理初探

量刑说理是裁判说理制度的应有之义,它在制约法官量刑权和促进量刑理性化等方面具有十分重要的法律意义。西方各国普遍实行了量刑说理制度,并形成了"强制说理"与"提倡说理"两种模式。而我国由于种种原因导致了判决量刑说理严重不足,这极大地阻碍了我国刑事司法的健康发展。为此,我们必须作出相应改革,为法官量刑说理创造有利条件。     

量刑说理初探

量刑说理是裁判说理制度的应有之义，它在制约法官量刑权和促进量刑理性化等方面具有十分重要的法律意义。西方各国普遍实行了量刑说理制度，并形成了“强制说理”与“提倡说理”两种模式。而我国由于种种原因导致了判决量刑说理严重不足，这极大地阻碍了我国刑事司法的健康发展。为此，我们必须作出相应改革，为法官量刑说理创造有利条件。     

论民事诉讼文书样式实例评注研究的引领功用

结合当前民事裁判文书说理不充分的现实困境,以法律评注研究在中国民事司法实践中的应用为研究对象,通过分析民事诉讼裁判文书说理不充分的深层次原因,将司法案例研究和法律评注研究方法与强化民事裁判文书说理改革相结合,倡导司法案例研究和法律评注研究相结合的民事诉讼文书样式实例评注研究方法。提出通过民事诉讼文书样式实例评注研究范式的本土化路径与方法研究,探寻文书样式和裁判要旨对民事诉讼案件审判中的诉讼行为、诉讼程序、案件管理、法律解释、法律适用等的规范性指引作用,进一步拓宽强化民事裁判文书说理的文书制作、写作与创作思路,寻求提升民事裁判文书判决充分说理的司法职业技能培育方法。进而论证推行法官员额制改革、司法责任制改革和审判权力运行制度改革后,司法综合配套改革应当如何引领民事诉讼裁判文书说理机制改革的发展方向。     

可能生活的证成与接受——司法判决可接受性的规范研究

判决结论宣告了一种对双方当事人的未来将会产生重大影响的可能生活。其中，应得可能生活体现了公平、正义等法律价值，因而是具有可接受性的可能生活。合理法律论证的四个构成要件是法官为当事人建构应得可能生活的法律依据、事实依据、逻辑依据和制度保障。能否满足当事人需要以及当事人需要是否具有正当性，分别是当事人和法律职业共同体、社会公众判断司法判决是否具有可接受性的标准。批判性检验可以帮助人们发现和排除司法判决中存在的各种形式谬误或实质谬误，降低当事人获得正义对运气的依赖，从而最大限度地保证被强制执行的司法判决同样具有可接受性。     

论法官的选择——谈学习社会主义法治理念的体会

社会主义法治理念,是我国法官在处理个案时应遵循的指导性原理,这具体表现在辩证处理调解与判决、客观真实与法律真实、严格规则主义与司法能动主义、裁判文书的审美价值与说理价值等各种复杂关系的过程中。这需要强化和提升法官的司法素养、司法能力和司法伦理水平。     

民间法与裁判规范

裁判规范是法官在司法中援引或运用一定规则以直接适用于个案的规范。裁判规范分为两种：一种是法官援引一定规范所直接形成的裁判规范；另一种是法官运用一定规范而构造的裁判规范。民间法作为法律渊源，既可以被法官直接援引作为裁判规范，也可以被法官作为构造裁判规范的“原材料”加以运用。民间法作为法律渊源有一些制约性条件，需要法官识别民间法，也给法官增加了论证义务，以便使民间法作为裁判规范或者以民间法为据构造裁判规范时，获得当事人及其他社会主体的接受。     

Gender,race, bias and perspective: OR,how otherness colours your judgment

This discussion considers assumptions about judges and judging and suggests that despite what is sometimes perceived as increasing diversity on the bench and in the legal profession, outsider decision makers’ membership of the jurisprudential community is still marked by ‘otherness’. The argument draws upon my ongoing interest in the law's concern with the concepts of ‘objectivity’, ‘neutrality’ and ‘perspective’. I argue that the legal system is inherently suspicious of ‘otherness’ and most specifically so when ‘others’ occupy positions of ‘judgement’. The consequence is to render decisions made by ‘otherised’ judges liable to attack for bias in a way that decisions made by insiders simply are not. The argument is illustrated by a review of a number of challenges made on the ground of ‘bias’ or recusal motions to judges whose failure to match the white Anglo hetero-normative standard of ‘the judge’ is seen as a limit on their ability to be ‘impartial’. The examples used range across many jurisdictions, from Australia, Canada, the US and a challenge to the impartiality of a decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).     

Dyzenhaus on Positivism and Judicial Obligation

Abstract
The author criticizes the argument in Dyzenhaus (1991) that a study of South African judicial decisions establishes the superiority of Dworkinian anti-positivism over legal positivism. Among the claims criticized are: (1) Positivism and anti-positivism each imply a specific theory of judicial duty, and the decisions of South African judges are explained by their adherence to one or the other of these theories; (2) resistance to South African government policy was morally required of judges; (3) the only theory which supports this resistance (anti-positivism) is therefore the correct one; (4) the cases establish that judges do not have discretion in hard cases; (5) Dworkin's theory does not imply that South African judges are required to apply the wicked principles embedded in their legal system; (6) positivism involves a pragmatic contradiction.     

Sentencing Transparency in the Information Age

How unrestricted or restricted should judges be when deciding a sentence? To what extent should sentences be predetermined, or to what extent should judges be left with the right to decide a sentence in each individual case? Some legal systems, most notably in the United States, have chosen sentencing guidelines to control judicial discretion. However, another approach has been to use computer technology in the form of so‐called sentencing information systems (SIS). This article examines these developments and what possible influence they have had and could have in the Scandinavian, particularly in the Norwegian, context. Penal institutions today are adjusting to the demands of the information society. Does and could the fact that we are living in an increasingly technologically mediated world influence judicial decision‐making? The article argues that the use of technology is not simply a question of technological change, but is first and foremost a social and political phenomenon, related to the relations of trust in a society.     

有罪答辩与量刑减让

被告人的有罪答辩对其获得的量刑减让有着重要的作用和影响。在英美等国 ,有罪答辩是量刑减让的正当依据 ,但有罪答辩与量刑减让之间并不存在必然的因果关系 ,法官对被告人施以的量刑减让以及减让的程度 ,还需考虑犯罪的性质、被告人的基本情况等其他因素。同时 ,量刑减让制度对于被告人有罪答辩的作出又存在反作用。被告人有罪答辩的作出来自于律师、检察官和法官传递的量刑减让的信息 ,在英美等国 ,法官对量刑减让信息的披露是受到严格限制的。我国传统意义上的坦白属于被控人的一项法定义务 ,具有实体意义 ,不同于有罪答辩 ,故坦白从宽政策不具有正当性。与此同时 ,我国简易程序中对有罪答辩的量刑减让则具有正当性 ,但减让的实施较英美等国有较大的限制。     

An Acquittal for Epistemicism

Scott Soames argues that consideration of the practice of legal judgement gives us good reason to favor the partial-definition/context-sensitive theory of vagueness against epistemicism. Despite the fact that the value of power-delegation through vagueness is evidenced in practice, Soames says, epistemicism cannot account for it theoretically, while the partial-definition/context-sensitive theory is capable of it. In this paper, I examine the two possible arguments against epistemicism that can be extracted from Soames’s account: (1) an argument based on unknown obligations, and (2) an argument based on power-delegation through vagueness. The first argument tries to convince us that, as based on epistemicism, the law has already decided the borderline cases, so that judges have obligatory decisions even in such cases: therefore epistemicism is inconsistent with the discretion of judges in borderline cases. I show that even if we sympathize with Soames’s intuitions concerning the legal practice, the argument he offers is not conclusive since it is either invalid, unsound, or paradoxical. The second argument holds that only the gaps which the partial-definition/context-sensitive theory predicts give judges the possibility of lawmaking in borderline cases. However, by categorizing the vague laws as imperfect laws, the judges can claim the right of lawmaking without any need to refer to gaps in the law. By neutralizing these arguments, I argue that epistemicism is able to explain the phenomena just as well as the partial-definition/context-sensitive theory.     

The Role of Panels in Enhancing Legal Predictability

This article considers the justification for using panels of judges to make decisions in common law systems. The usual argument is that panels are more likely than lone judges to make correct judgments. This article suggests an additional justification: panels increase the law's predictability, so potential litigants can anticipate correctly which legal rules will apply in their cases. Three models, each with a different conception of the legal process, are employed to demonstrate the predictability-enhancing effect of panels. Comparison of the models suggests the effect is strongest when precedent has a substantial impact on how judges make decisions.     

Does Legal Semiotics Cannibalize Jurisprudence?

Does Duncan Kennedy successfully cannibalize jurisprudence? He attempts to do it by demonstrating the inexistence of rightness in legal argumentation. If there is no right legal argument, then there is no right answer in adjudication, adjudication is not a rational enterprise and legal doctrine cannot be said to be a science. It can be shown that skepticism is self-defeating. Duncan Kennedy can avoid self defeat only because he actually believes in a lot of legal arguments. His thesis that judges decide questions of policy without any methodology that distinguishes them from legislators does not hold. Judicial reasoning is subject to constraints that do not affect legislators. It must be based on the sources of law and is limited by rules of procedure. Even when the judges have ‘interstitial’ legislative powers they are, unlike the legislator, bound to fit the system and their decisions are considered in procedure from the perspective of the right answer doctrine. The only work that can convincingly refute the skeptic argument against legal science is the reconstruction of jurisprudence as a scientific enterprise. Such work is beyond the scope of any single paper. The article aims to give some inspirations for such a task.     

法律语言的模糊性及准确运用

根据传统的范畴理论,法律表达应符合准确性这一基本要求,故追求准确为立法语言和司法语言的目标之一。但是,由于对事物的界定模糊不清以及人类的认知能力有限,法律语言尤其是立法语言中常使用模糊词语,有助于增强语言表达的效率及保护当事人权利,但也会带来诸如过分扩大法官自由裁量权等不利后果。对于法律语言的模糊性,可借助内外部指导、司法判决以及相关语境而使之明确化,从而有效地限制法官的自由裁量权过分膨胀。