司法裁判中的隐性知识论纲

作为现代认识论的重要课题的隐性知识论的价值不仅在于揭示了隐性知识的存在,更在于论证了知识的本质是隐性的。司法隐性知识问题在当代英美法系司法实践中得以显现并在相关法学著述中多有表述。在我国大陆,司法隐性知识也广泛存在于案件裁判的事实建构与法律发现诸环节中,并在司法判案中有它特定的位置。司法前见、一般推理、事实解释、图式加工、事实剪裁、经验参与、结果导向、观念辐射等都是对司法隐性知识的艰难表述。连接隐性知识与既定法律规范依赖于法律修辞,裁判凭藉判决修辞而获得形式正当性并为公众更好地接受。现代诉讼程序规则是激励与规制司法隐性知识运用的制度环境,司法隐性知识的研究对当前我国大陆法治文化建设具有特别重要的启示意义。     

政治问题理论的衰落与重构

政治问题作为可推翻的"自然推定",属于可诉性理论的阻却事由要件。其理论发轫于联邦党人对宪法"特定条款"的阐述。为了应对将政治问题理论区分为经典形式与审慎形式所带来的司法操作性难题,布伦南大法官通过描述政治问题的六个特征,构建了政治问题的确认标准。然而,法院在适用政治问题确认标准的过程中所形成的政治问题理论的循环悖论,以及学界对政治问题理论存在合理性的质疑使得其经典形式出现变异、审慎形式日渐消亡。在激励相容理论基础上重构政治问题理论,可以尝试化解学界对政治问题免于司法审查理论基础的种种非议。     

司法确定力的形成逻辑

司法确定力是与法院的宪法地位密切相关的,宪法对法院的独立地位以及解决纠纷、救济权利和发展法律的功能定位,是司法确定力的权威渊源;司法确定力来自于司法的管辖权威,法院在法律规定的范围内、在自己的能力范围内受理案件,运用法律知识、司法理性和司法经验,按照司法规律对案件事实和法律适用问题进行权威判断,为司法确定力提供了前提;司法确定力源于司法的整合权威,法院在审理案件过程中,通过对立法时的民意与法律适用时的民意、普遍正义与个别正义、法律正义与社会正义的有机结合建构了司法的整合权威,为司法确定力提供坚实的基础;司法确定力依赖于裁判的执行权威,当事人自觉履行生效判决的文化意识和国家强制执行生效判决的权威能量为司法确定力提供坚强的保障。     

奸淫幼女构成犯罪应以明知为前提 --为一个司法解释辩护

在严格责任与罪过责任分立的基础上,奸淫幼女构成犯罪必须以明知为前提,这样才能在保护幼女和保护被告人的合法权益之间求得一种法治视野下的平衡.应当摈弃"应当知道"的传统提法,而把奸淫幼女的明知分为确切知道和推定知道两种.从最高法院关于奸淫幼女问题的司法解释出发,我国现行的刑事司法解释体制及其形式应该逐渐由抽象的司法解释过渡到个案性质的司法解释,再进一步过渡到判例制度.     

法律职业化与司法现代化关系的若干理论问题

法律职业化与司法现代化的共同理论语境是现代性理论 ,共同实践背景是法制现代化运动。法律职业化意味着一个经过法学理论熏陶和法律知识传授之法律职业家共同体的形成 ,这个职业家共同体共享法律价值并娴熟于法律技能。司法现代化作为法制现代化的一个重要组成部分 ,倡导并通过现代司法制度确认司法独立、程序正义、程序效率等基本价值准则。法律职业化与司法现代化之间的理论关联可以从法律与经济关系、司法独立与程序正义、司法制度资源供给与分享、法律作为科学学科和知识体系、司法效率实现等多种维度进行分析和把握。     

正当程序:滥用程序权的判断标准

在缺乏有关程序的法律依据时,行政机关对程序拥有裁量权。行政机关对程序的裁量违反正当程序原则的,构成滥用职权。正当程序原则的合法地位源自《行政诉讼法》所规定的行政行为不得滥用职权。法院审查行政行为是否存在滥用职权的判断标准之一,是正当程序原则。上述规则的确立,经历了学说借鉴、政策回应、司法实践和法律确认的发展过程。     

Judicial Reform and Rationalization: The Diffusion of Court Reform Policies Among the American States

Explaining the diffusion of judicial reform policies among the American states is an elusive task. Are such policies simply part of the larger policy process revealed in the comparative state policy literature? Or b court reform a policy arena unto itself, responding to factors uniquely legal or professional in nature? Our inquiry begins with Max Weber's sociology of law from which we adopt his concept of rationalization as a schema of policy development. According to Weber, the “rationalization” of legal institutions would accompany the advancement of capitalism in modernizing nations. Thus, we might expect specific judicial reform policies expressly aimed at rationalizing the structure and process of state court systems to be closely associated with each other and with commonly accepted indicators of economic development among the states. As part of our investigation, we relate court reforms to broader policy innovations among the states, drawing on earlier “diffusion of innovations” research. Our data indicate a strong connection between judicial reform and more general patterns of innovation diffusion among the states, but provide only modest support for Weber's assertions about the rationalization of legal systems under advancing capitalism. Three of the selected reforms cluster together and are largely explainable by indicators of economic development. Two other reforms do not fit this pattern, and their “behavior” requires additional discussion and research. Thus, the diffusion of judicial reform policy is partly accounted for by factors found in explanations of general policy innovations across states, but other, as yet unidentified, factors apparently influence certain aspects of judicial reform. The connection between Max Weber's legal sociology and policy development among the American states might at first blush seem remote or tenuous. However, this article attempts to use Weber's insights into modern legal systems to (1) examine a specific area of state policy making–judicial reform–and (2) establish a connection between policy development in the court reform area and the larger literature on general policy innovation in the American states. This inquiry is inspired by the lack of theoretical integration apparent in the literature on court reform, on the one hand, and the absence of empirical analyses connecting court reform data with “diffusion of innovation” policy studies, on the other.     

Confucian Constitutionalism? The Emergence of Constitutional Review in Korea and Taiwan

This paper documents the recent emergence of constitutional review of legislative and administrative action in Korea and Taiwan, two East Asian countries seen to be historically resistant to notions of judicial activism and constitutional constraint. It argues that the ability to draw from foreign legal traditions, especially those of the United States and Germany, empowered judges in these countries and therefore helped to alter the structure of public law away from executive-centered approaches of the past. This is consistent with viewing judicial review as essentially a foreign transplant. Nevertheless, the institution of judicial review has some compatibilities with Confucian legal tradition, a point that has implications for how we think about institutional transfers across borders. By constructing a locally legitimate account of what is undeniably a modern institution of foreign origin, the paper argues that constitutional constraint should not be viewed as an imposition of Western norms, but as a more complex process of adaptation and institutional transformation.     

中国宪法实施的双轨制

与许多西方国家的宪法实施模式不同,宪法审查并非中国宪法实施的主要方式。中国司法机关不能根据宪法直接审查立法的合宪性,而作为有权机关的全国人大常委会,也没有做出过宪法解释或宪法判断。这是中国宪法实施的真实状况,但不是中国宪法实施的全部。从比较法角度看,中国宪法更像一个政治纲领式的宣言,更多依靠政治化方式实施。伴随着法治化进程,中国的宪法实施逐渐由单一依靠政治化实施,过渡到政治化实施与法律化实施同步推进、相互影响的双轨制格局。宪法的政治化实施体现为执政党主导的政治动员模式,而宪法的法律化实施则是以积极性实施为主、消极性实施为辅的多元实施机制。在比较法的意义上,政治化实施和法律化实施的双轨制,可以为描述中国宪法实施提供一个理论框架。     

论高教行政案件中的判断余地之司法审查

法学对那些模糊而容易产生歧义的法律用语称为"不确定法律概念"。它们经常出现,并为适法者在具体个案中将其内涵加以明确。如果与他的专业知识联系起来,便可以将不确定法律概念分为涉及判断余地和不涉及判断余地两部分。前者应得到司法的尊重,后者应进行高密度的审查。在高教行政案件中也如此,另外,如果这类案件出现作答余地的问题,判断余地应该为其让路。     

行政规范法律地位的制度论证

本文从制度上简要分析了围绕行政规范法律地位所展开的争论以及司法界的态度 ,区分了法源和“依据” ,论证了判断行为规范是否属于法源的标准 ,认为法定解释性行政规范是法的具体表现形式 ,其他行政规范并不具有法源地位 ,非法源性行政规范可以作为具体行政行为和司法裁判的依据但应接受司法审查和合法性检验 ,且这种审查可在民事、行政和刑事诉讼中而不限于行政诉讼中进行 ,目的在于摆脱行政规范在目前既不被当作依据又不能名正言顺地接受司法审查的困境     

Towards a Theory of Institutionalized Judicial Exceptionalism

What happens when the exception becomes the norm, what happens when the law becomes a form for that which cannot have a legal form, that is, the political? The focus of this article is a form of power politics that is institutionalised and set up to work side by side with the existing legal system as a sort of normalized, co‐ordinated court procedure, initiated with the aim of subjecting specific groups (terrorists, criminals) to extended regulatory control and enforcement. These strategic bureaucratic mechanisms of exclusion appear as security enforced measures, which side by side with the existing ‘normal’ legal system govern a specific judicial‐political area. The normalised (or rooted, if one wishes) incorporation of extra‐judicial authority within the legal system will in the article be refered to as institutionalised judicial exceptionalism. The purpose of the article is to theorise and conceptualise the in many ways murky or indistinct phenomenon of institutionalised judicial exceptionalism.This task includes suggesting a model capable of assimilating within its theory the displacement in the relationship between the state, the law and the citizen that stems from the fact that the ever more securitized discourses on terrorism and crime increasingly take priority over the ordinarily non‐derogable principle of equality before the law.     

Modeling the Evolution of Legal Discretion.An Artificial Intelligence Approach

Abstract. Much legal research focuses on understanding how judicial decision‐makers exercise their discretion. In this paper we examine the notion of legal or judicial discretion, and weaker and stronger forms of discretion. At all times our goal is to build cognitive models of the exercise of discretion, with a view to building computer software to model and primarily support decision‐making. We observe that discretionary decision‐making can best be modeled using three independent axes: bounded and unbounded, defined and undefined, and binary and continuous. Examples of legal tasks are given from each of the eight ensuing octants and we conclude by saying what this model shows about current legal trends. We should stress that our taxonomy has been based on our observations of how discretionary legal decisions are made. No claim is made that our model is either complete (providing advice in every domain) or exact, but it does help knowledge engineers construct legal decision support systems in discretionary domains.     

司法过程与民主过程

李慧娟事件包括司法过程和民主过程两个方面。司法审查的正当性理论可分为高级法理论和民主理论两类。中国司法审查正当性的论证存在发达的行政集权、民主共和制不发达等一系列困难 ,在行政分权局面不可能很快来临的情况下 ,我国建立违宪审查制度应该考虑其他途径的可能性     

陕甘宁边区高等法院司法制度改革研究

1 943年前后 ,陕甘宁边区高等法院曾进行过一次以强调司法审判的规范化和人员的专业化为主要内容的司法改革。由于反对势力过于强大 ,整个社会缺乏法治精神与习惯 ,法律知识和法律人才积累不足以及时机选择等种种原因 ,改革以失败而告终。根据原始档案、日记等第一手资料对这次改革的背景、主要内容、过程及失败原因等进行的研究和分析 ,可以对我国当前正在进行中的司法改革提供有益的经验教训。     

法律原则适用与程序制度保障——以民事法为中心的分析

法律原则因为没有明确、具体的事实构成要件和法律效果而无法像法律规则那样为当事人提供行为准则,为法官提供裁判根据。适用法律原则处理个案纠纷就是法官以自己所“造”之法进行司法裁判,其适用困境的实质在于,以立法机关制定的(成文)法律规则为中心运行的司法制度(尤其是司法程序)难以为法官行使自由裁量权提供有效的正当性论证。在实体法、法律适用技术的范围内,以构建适用条件、适用规则,完善适用方法等方式来破解此困境,作用极为有限。重构司法程序制度,使当事人、社会能够以恰当的方式参与到具体的裁判过程以制约法官的裁量权,或许是解决此难题的可能途径。     

常识、常理在司法中的运用

正确理解常识和常理,对司法裁判具有重大意义。常识和常理属于人们的的经验性知识,具有前理性、非系统性、经验性、大众性乃至客观性等特征。在司法中,常识和常理是法官认识案情、解释法律、展开逻辑推理的前提和基础。法官可以运用常识、常理认定案件事实,检验和校正法律推理。常识和常理还是法官进行法律论证的资源之一。但是,不能过于夸大常识和常理在司法中的作用。     

司法鉴定基础理论研究

司法鉴定是指在诉讼过程中,由司法机关指派或当事人委托具有专门知识的人对诉讼中的专门性事实问题做出断定的一种活动。它具有法律性、科学性和主观性三个基本特征。人类认识能力的非至上性是司法鉴定的认识论基础;多元价值的冲突与平衡是司法鉴定的价值论基础;社会分工的精细是司法鉴定的社会学基础;科学技术的发展是司法鉴定的自然科学基础。司法鉴定既有保障案件真实发现的工具价值,又承载着实现公正和效率的程序价值。司法鉴定在延伸裁判者对专门事实的认识能力和补强其它证据的证明力上发挥着重要功能。司法鉴定的三个基本构成要素是:鉴定人、鉴定结论和鉴定程序,因此系统、科学、完善的司法鉴定制度应当围绕这三个方面进行构建。     

裁判上之类比推论辨析

裁判上类比推论的妥当性,取决于裁判者对类比点的选择,以及如何确定被比较个案的特征。与一般类比不同的是,裁判者必须考察法规范所隐含的价值判断,运用评价才能展开法律上的类推。因此,虽然类推适用具有逻辑推论的形式,但其实质是一种可辩驳的论辩性论证。类比推论的关节和难点,是规范事实和个案事实之间的"相似性"判断,这需要裁判者观照构成要件理论和类型理论,综合各种与类推相关的司法技术,在规范与事实、方法与结果之间寻求一种反思性平衡。     

法教义学观念的源流

从历史上看,教义学观念首先起源于古希腊医学,随后古希腊哲学和古罗马的"规则法学"继受了相关观点并予以创新。法教义学经中世纪注释法学与人文主义法学奠定雏形,并由理性自然法学说提供方法论基础。源流时期的法教义学观念保持了大体一致:在基本观念上,法教义被认为是用以表述法律的一般性规则或命题,具有权威性;在方法论上,法教义学被认为是公理演绎方法(几何学方法)构造出的概念-命题体系。这使得作为知识形态之法教义学有别于研究型思维、决疑术和论题学。澄清这一源流可以为当下的法教义学研究提供更为扎实的"历史的向度"。