最高人民法院裁判、司法解释的法律地位

本文结合审判实践详细分析了最高人民法院司法解释的各种类型及其相应的法律地位,并从对最高人民法院裁判的两种认识——“个案既判力说”和“解释义务说”出发,进一步提出了“习惯法说”,指出最高人民法院的裁判和司法解释中的“立法型”解释可以构成我国以裁判和司法解释为载体的习惯法,它们的普遍效力来源于习惯法并因具有习惯法的品格而成为法律的非正式渊源。基于此,本文主张最高人民法院“立法型”司法解释和值得刊登于公报上的裁判,应尽量以习惯法的构成要求为标准,具备“人们普遍认为它是正确的”品质。     

正确认识司法解释的法律地位

根据《人民法院组织法》第33条的规定:“最高人民法院对于在审判过程中如何具体应用法律、法令的问题,进行解释”,这是国家以法律形式唯一授予最高人民法院的一项特殊的、极其重要的法律解释权。多年来,最高人民法院作出的各类司法解释在指导全国法院准确有效地执行法律,不断地提高司法水平方面发挥了极其重要的作用。值得注     

最高人民法院司法解释在法律解释中的位阶关系

最高人民法院司法解释在法律解释中的位阶关系决定于法律解释权配置制度，即规定法律解释主体、权限、程序、方式和效力等问题的解释制度，形成我国特有的法律解释体制。司法解释权是法律解释权的一种，是法律解释权分配于司法机关形成的权力。不同主体作出的法律解释效力高低．与不同解释主体权力层级高低相关，也与解释主体在诉讼中的地位和相互关系有关．     

最高人民法院司法解释在法律解释中的位阶关系

最高人民法院司法解释在法律解释中的位阶关系决定于法律解释权配置制度,即规定法律解释主体、权限、程序、方式和效力等问题的解释制度,形成我国特有的法律解释体制.司法解释权是法律解释权的一种,是法律解释权分配于司法机关形成的权力.不同主体作出的法律解释效力高低,与不同解释主体权力层级高低相关,也与解释主体在诉讼中的地位和相互关系有关.     

最高人民法院关于裁判文书引用法律、法规等规范性法律文件的规定

为进一步规范裁判文书引用法律、法规等规范性法律文件的工作,提高裁判质量,确保司法统一,维护法律权威,根据《中华人民共和国立法法》等法律规定,制定本规定。     

最高人民法院公布委托评估、拍卖司法解释

9月21日，最高人民法院召开新闻发布会，向媒体通报《最高人民法院关于人民法院委托评估、拍卖工作的若干规定》（以下简称《规定》）的有关情况。该《规定》于2010年8月16日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1492次会议通过，2010年9月7日公布，自2012年1月1日起施行。     

最高人民法院司法解释定位的再思考

目前,我国的司法解释经常脱离个案,对法律规范进行规范而抽象的解释,带有明显的"立法化"倾向,在我国现行的立法体制下其合法性是受质疑的;但结合立法与司法实践,有必要赋予最高人民法院进行"规范性司法解释"的权限,使其成为法律解释的主要主体,同时对于此种法律解释的定位也应制定专门法律从各方面予以规范。     

最高人民法院发布财产刑执行问题司法解释

为完善财产刑的执行制度,规范财产刑的执行工作,充分发挥财产刑的功能作用,维护人民法院司法裁判权威,最高人民法院于2010年2月24日印发了《关于财产刑执行问题的若干规定》（以下简称《规定》）。该《规定》将自2010年6月1日起施行。     

法律判断形成的模式

Legal decisions are results of the use of law, which includes the application of law and the finding of law, but mainly referring to the latter. In the application of law, facts match norms, and thus legal decisions could be obtained directly through deduction thereof, which is called the deduction mode. However, in the finding of law, since facts are not symmetric to norms, before making judgment through deduction, facts and norms shall be equalized. That is to say, facts shall be generalized and then upgraded to the provisions, while norms shall be concrete and downwards to specific cases, conducting for spiral upwards, which is called equalization mode. Zheng Yongliu, professor at the Institute of Legal Philosophy of China University of Political Science and Law, also a visiting professor at University of Saarland in Germany (till 1996), and a guest professor at Jilin University (since 1998), whose research is focusing on legal philosophy, particularly on the legal methods as well as law and society. Prof. Zheng once published 4 books, i.e., The Orientation of Rural Law in Contemporary China (1991), The Farmers’ Legal Awareness and the Development of Village’s Law (1993), Das Wirtschaftsrecht Chinas (1997) and The Rule of Law: the British and German Origin, International Standards and Its Practices in China (2002). In his published articles, the follows are most dear to his heart: What is Legal Philosophy (1998), the Origin and Evolution of the “Rechtsstaat” in Germany (2000), the Legal Hermeneutics and Its Relationship with the Legal Interpretation (2002), Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (2004), Pluralistische Ordnungen im chinesischen Wirtschaftswandel (German, 2006).     

司法判决理由的法律解释的不足与完善建议

司法判决理由是司法权合理化最重要的指标,也是法官思维水平的最典型表现。作为证明司法结果正当性的关键因素,法官的法律解释构成了司法判决理由不可或缺的组成部分,理应在司法判决中得以充分展示。为了改变我国判决书中法律解释状况薄弱、判决理由不充分的局面,科学合理地写明法官对案件事实和适用法律的解释状况就势在必行。     

司法考试与法学教育互动关系研究

从诞生之日起，统一司法考试制度就注定了与法学教育的姻缘。同作为司法从业人员养成制度的培养制度，司法考试和法学教育之间的互动关系必须放在中国高等教育规模化的宏大语境之中进行考量，唯其如此，才能确立二者之间互动关系的正确纬度。     

Sociological interpretations of legal development

This paper seeks to outline some ways in which sociological inquiry has helped to interpret general processes of legal development. It comments on a few aspects of a vast subject. Furthermore, it was commissioned in a specific context of debate: as part of an agenda of discussion of the relative merits and potential of sociological and economic analyses of law. Hence, to provide a setting for what I try to argue about the character and value of sociological interpretations of legal change, it seems appropriate to preface those arguments with some general ideas about the nature of sociological inquiries in legal contexts and about perceived contrasts between the orientation of these inquiries and what I take to be certain orientations in economic analysis of law. Accordingly this paper is in two parts. The first offers a few prefatory remarks on the character of theoretically guided sociological inquiries about law (sociology of law). The second discusses various kinds of interpretation of legal development, which have been offered from the perspectives of sociology of law.     

惯例的法律适用——基于最高人民法院公报案例的考察

司法中适用惯例,首先需要正确认识惯例的法律属性。本质上,惯例是一种具有"社会规范意义"的事实而非法律。惯例虽然可以成为法官据以作出司法裁判的法源,但是,惯例是一种间接法源而非直接法源。所以,惯例必须经过法官的认可才能够转换为"习惯法",成为案件的判决依据。法官适用惯例首先需要识别、认定和审查惯例。惯例的适用范围限于民商事法律领域,在适用中,惯例只能扮演补充国家制定法的角色。不过,在具体案件中,惯例适用的规则有所不同。最高人民法院公报案例确认的惯例适用规则,对法官适用惯例具有指导意义。     

收回死刑复核权面临的难题及其破解

It is of great significance for the Supreme Court of China (SCC) to take back the power of having judicial review for death sentences. For that purpose, first, we have to amend the procedures for judicial review for death sentences, including precisely defining the responsibility of the SCC to review death sentences, determining appropriate modes of review, prescribing the time limit of review, allowing the participation of defense lawyers and prosecutors, etc. Second, we must also amend the appellate procedures for capital cases, including holding hearings, comprehensive trial of key cases, and adjusting the time limit for the second instance. Third, we must improve relative systems that can directly affect the trial quality of capital cases, including the improvement of evidentiary rules, the reform of judicial committees, and the forbiddance to change an original sentence into a death sentence. Long Zongzhi, professor, chairs the academic commission at Southwestern University of Politics and Law. Meanwhile, he takes the vice chair of the supervising committee of legal education in the Ministry of Education of China. He advanced the theory of dual structure of criminal litigation in early 1990s and put forward the theory of relative reasonableness in late 1990s, which exerted great influence in academic law. Moreover, he has published a great number of works on criminal litigation, judicial system, and evidence law.     

论美国联邦最高法院宪法解释的创造性

美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释具有创造性,其主要表现在司法审查权、三重审查标准、选择性吸收理论、推翻先例和创造新的公民权利等五个方面。原旨主义和非原旨主义都会达至具有创造性的宪法解释,原旨主义具有天然的民主合法性,有时美国联邦最高法院会以原旨主义来掩饰它们具有创造性的宪法解释。宪法解释的创造性是一把双刃剑,有积极性的一面也有消极性的一面。美国联邦最高法院的宪法解释曾经也将永远具有创造性,只有如此它才能为宪法提供与时俱进的新意义。     

Disequilibrium in the supply of legal scholars and the demand by the judicial profession and the correction of this unbalance through reforms in the legal education system in China

The basic function of legal education is to cultivate and create talented legal professionals who will be employed, either directly or indirectly, in judicial practice sectors. Thus, there is, between the legal education system and the judicial profession, a supply-demand relationship—the basic economic principle between the relationship of market supply and demand, driving the relationship between the legal education system and qualified legal professionals. However, this supply-demand relationship in China, between the legal education system and the judicial profession is currently in disequilibrium and in contradiction itself. Therefore, it is necessary to observe and apply the principles of a supply-demand relationship to the reorganization of the legal education system in China in an attempt to find the most efficient balance between legal education and the judicial profession.     

Latest evolution in the judicial intendance mechanism over arbitration in China

Based on past court practices, the Supreme Court of China promulgated the Interpretation of the Supreme Court concerning Some Issues on Application of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which is in line with the international trend of justice-arbitration relationship and reflects the pro-arbitration idea, as well as making a new step forward in the evolution of China’s judicial intendance over arbitration. However, confined by current legislation and due to inadequate judicial experiences, some problems still remain in the judicial intendance mechanism for further solution. Yu Xifu, Ph.D, is a judge dealing with most maritime and foreign-related commercial cases. His research is focused on international private law, especially international commercial arbitration. His works include a monograph, i.e. Judicial Intendance and Assistance in International Commercial Arbitration; And some articles, i.e. The relation between adjudication and arbitration, The definition and legal meaning of the place of arbitration, The choice-of-law of negotiable instrument, Finding foreign law-difficulties and way-out.     

指导性案例的法源意义与确认路径——以最高人民法院公布的私法性指导性案例为研究对象

《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》确立了我国案例指导制度,由于该规定相关内容的模糊性,产生了两个需要回答的问题,一是指导性案例与英美法系判例法是否存在相同的裁判逻辑与法律效力,进而指导性案例是否具有法源意义;二是指导性案例的功能是对法官自由裁量权的控制,还是应该重视从法解释学层面去理解。建议以民法解释学为视角对最高人民法院公布的私法性指导性案例进行梳理和剖析,明确私法性指导性案例具有确认和发现法规则的功能和价值。从"法与法律区别"的自然法观视角,认为私法性指导性案例所确认和发现的法规则在我国当代具有私法法源意义。最后,从解释论和立法论两个方面,提出私法性指导性案例确认和发现的法规则的法源地位确认路径和具体建议。