应急时期司法政策的现实运用及风险规控

在国家处于应急时期时,最高人民法院单独或联合出台司法政策已成为非常态社会治理的重要方式。应急时期的司法政策具有出台快速性、效力临时性、目的明确性、主体联动性和运行政治性特点,并通过“作为裁判依据”和“作为裁判背景”的方式化解社会矛盾、维护社会稳定。鉴于司法政策本身的定位不清,其对秩序的追求和紧急权行使与基本法治原则相抵牾,以及“成本—收益”理论阐释该时期政策与法律选择的非自主性,应急时期的司法政策在实现法治价值的同时也极易被不当运用,如直接将行政政策转化为司法政策,为达成维稳目标致使司法政策“运动式”运行,政策的“短期化”削弱司法公信力,以及笼统地将司法政策用作裁判依据等。针对可能风险,我们应基于法律与社会的“诉求—回应”关系,厘清特殊时期司法政策与公共政策的区别,结合教义学体系明确司法政策运用的具体要求,借助案例指引作用阐释司法政策蕴含的裁判规则,以及通过法律论证增强援引秩序价值说理的可接受性。

The Practical Application and Risk Control of Judicial Policy in Emergency Period

In the national emergency period,the Supreme People s Court alone or jointly issued judicial policies has become an important way of abnormal social governance.The judicial policy in emergency period has the characteristics of fast formulation,temporary force,specific purpose,subject linkage,and political operation.It also solves social conflicts and maintains social stability by means of“as the basis of judgment”and“as the background of judgment”.In view of the unclear orientation of judicial policy itself,the contradiction among the pursuit of order,the exercise of emergency power and the basic principle of rule of law,as well as the non-autonomy of the choice of policy and law explained by the“cost-benefit”theory,the judicial policy in the emergency period can easily be misused while realizing the value of the rule of law.For example,the administrative policy is directly transformed into judicial policy,the goal of maintaining stability leads to the“moving”operation of judicial policy,the“short-term”policy weakens the judicial credibility,and the judicial policy is generally used as the basis of adjudication.In view of the possible risks,we should clarify the difference between judicial policy and public policy in special period based on the“appeal-response”relationship between law and society;clarify the specific requirements of judicial policy application combined with the doctrinal system;explain the judicial rules contained in judicial policy with the help of case guidance;and enhance the acceptability of citing order value reasoning through legal argumentation.