释明权在法律适用中的运用

释明权是法官应尽的一项义务,是诉讼当事人享有的一项权利。我国目前法律规定中的释明权并不完善,特别对于法律适用释明权的规定在立法上仍是空白。法官对法律适用的释明义务,要求法官就法律适用与当事人进行讨论,向当事人公开可能作为裁判基础的法律观点,赋予当事人表明意见的机会。这对于保障民事诉讼目的得以实现、促进实质正义、提高司法效率都有着非常重要的作用和意义。     

刑事诉讼中防止突袭性裁判问题研究

突袭性裁判未让当事人充分利用程序法所提供的攻击和防御的机会,同时违反法院诉讼关照及释明义务,打破合理预期。禁止此种裁判,源于“诉讼主义”原理及由此产生的程序正当性要求,也是维系法的可预期性与裁判公信力的需要。刑事诉讼的特殊性,使禁止突袭性裁判面临一些特殊的情况和困难。德、日刑事诉讼法中关于“法律观点变更”及“起诉书的变更”的规定具有借鉴价值。我国刑事诉讼禁止突袭性裁判的历史可分为三个发展阶段。但目前在犯罪事实增量、量刑情节及法律适用、认罪认罚和二审案件,以及改变证据构造上,仍存在突袭裁判。防止突袭裁判,应当明确若干法律界限,在增强程序正当意识的基础上,加强诉讼释明,确认突袭性裁判违法性,完善相关立法和司法解释。     

谈释明在我国民事诉讼当事人变更中的适用

释明权是我国民事诉讼中一项新的法律制度,该制度对于司法公正与效率价值目标的实现有着重要意义。当事人的确定也是诉讼法上的一个重要课题,只有在明确了当事人的情况下,诉讼的进行才有其实际意义,法院对特定权利以及法律关系的裁判才能得到落实。但在诉讼开始阶段,与案件没有     

建立我国民事诉讼释明权制度的构想

释明权制度作为当事人主义诉讼模式的一种内在性制度,具有维护诉讼当事人实质平等对抗、防止证据突袭与裁判突袭、保障当事人实质性的程序参与、加快诉讼进程从而提高诉讼效益、平衡当事人实体利益与程序利益等多重的意义。本文拟就建构我国民事诉讼释明权制度提出具体设想。     

民事诉讼中的协同主义 ：理念及其制度构建

协同主义改变了古典辩论主义下法院的消极形象，强调法院在诉讼资料收集层面对当事人的协助，从而为当事人提供实质性程序保障。强化法院的释明义务是协同主义的本质要求。协同主义并未改变辩论主义在民事诉讼中的基础性地位。我国的诉讼文化与司法环境使得协同主义具有了正当性，以协同主义理念指导当事人与法院在民事诉讼中的作用分担并非仅仅是理想，更是基于现实的需要。     

民事诉讼费用的可诉性与诉的设置

民事诉讼费用作为人民法院运作经费的主要来源 ,直接影响到诉讼中当事人人权保障和法院的权威。诉讼费用构成的不确定性和裁判机制的非科学性 ,决定了当事人对法院单方面裁断的诉讼费用具有诉的利益。而国家对公民诉讼权保障的无条件性 ,要求法律建立专门的诉讼程序 ,为当事人不服人民法院对民事诉讼费用的裁判提供救济。     

论民事诉讼中的法官释明权

释明权是大陆法系当事人主义诉讼模式下的产物,是对完全当事人诉讼模式的固有缺陷进行的限制和修正,避免了过分强调当事人的作用所带来的诉讼迟延,实体不公等弊端。在我国民诉模式转变过程中,由于当事人诉讼能力欠缺,诉讼中如果没有法官的指引,易造成对突袭裁判的怀疑和对法院不信任,甚至会引起当事人的不断缠诉。相反,若法官行驶释明权,则案件很可能走向另一个结果,从而更好地实现司法公正。虽然目前我国最高法院的司法解释中有若干释明权的规定,但这离释明权制度本身的建构相差甚远,无论法学界和实务界对释明权的理解及做法都缺乏统一尺度,因此,本文试在我国民诉模式改革的过程中探讨如何建构完善的释明权制度。     

德国法律适用突袭问题之对策与启示

法院知法原则的生成历史正是当事人逐渐失去对诉讼中法律予以控制的过程。这条原则的本意旨在减轻当事人的负担,却反而增加了诉讼中法律适用突袭的风险。德国修民事诉讼法规定释明义务与法律观点指出义务以解决法律适用突袭裁判的问题。在这两种立法举措背后,潜藏的是德国民事诉讼法理念从辩论主义向协动主义的变迁过程。当下,我国正在实行审理协动化与集中化改革,法律讨论义务将能够促进法官与当事人就诉讼中的法律适用形成有效的垂直交流,促进审理的充实与高效。当然,没有律师的参与,就法律问题进行高效的交流也是＂乌托邦＂。作为配套改革,律师强制代理与法律援助制度不可或缺。     

论释明义务对民事诉讼理论的优化

释明义务是法院和当事人之间互相沟通交流的主要途径,是法院审判权和当事人诉权博弈的结果。基于保障当事人诉权而设立的释明义务,能够有效促进公正和效益的实现,成为沟通民事诉讼法和宪法的桥梁,使辩论主义优质化,使处分权主义充分化,使既判力正当化,堪称民事诉讼的大宪章。     

论民事诉讼中诉讼标的与诉讼请求之关系——兼论法官对诉讼请求变更及诉讼标的释明权之行使

在相当长的历史阶段,诉讼标的被理解与实体法上的请求权是同一个概念。后罗森贝克等创立诉讼标的新理论,在实体请求权发生竞合时,如果诉的事实和诉的声明合并构成一个诉讼标的的,不管实体法上存在多少个请求权,都不发生多个诉讼标的问题。施瓦布教授与伯特赫尔倡导的声明说更认为,在以同一给付为目的的请求时,即使存在着若干不同的事实理由,仍只有一个诉讼标的。因此,诉讼请求是指当事人在诉讼过程中根据诉讼标的向法院提出的具体的权益请求,诉讼标的是指当事人之间争议的、原告请求法院裁判的实体权利或者法律关系的主张或者要求(声明)。诉讼请求可以追加或变更,诉讼标的为法院释明义务之内。     

论违宪审查在东欧国家转型中的作用

东欧转型在法制方面的一项重要内容是普遍建立以宪法法院为审判机构的集中违宪审查制度。宪法法院通过对宪法文本中法治原则的阐释以实现国家转型的法治目标。宪法法院阐释的法治原则内容具体包括法的安定原则、分权原则、合比例原则、司法独立原则和基本权利司法救济保障原则等五项原则。     

Popular Constitutionalism's Hard When You're Not Very Popular: Why the ACLU Turned to Courts

Through a case study of the early American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), this article examines the empirical ramifications of constitutional scholars' recent exhortations to "take the Constitution away from the courts" in order to promote democratic deliberation about constitutional meaning. While it is now one of the most prominent examples of a litigation-based interest group, the ACLU began its existence demonstrating a commitment to constitutionalism outside the courts. Through coding a decade's worth of meeting minutes and examining archival sources, I demonstrate that the ACLU's mounting unpopularity rendered extrajudicial politics impossible, precipitating the ACLU's shift toward litigation. The ACLU's move toward litigation, despite its early devotion to political activism outside the courts, suggests that it is not always possible for political actors to make constitutional arguments without courts. Furthermore, the ACLU's use of courts to publicize and dramatize its constitutional arguments demonstrates that litigation may actually promote popular deliberation about constitutional meaning. These political realities both highlight and contradict two empirical assumptions underlying arguments about the normative desirability of restricting courts' involvement in constitutional politics. First, the state is not a neutral arena in which all political actors are equally free to pursue their constitutional visions through majoritarian processes. Second, courts may facilitate (rather than hinder) popular deliberation about constitutional questions.     

‘Playing the Judicial Card’: Litigation Strategies during the Process of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty

During the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, a number of constitutional jurisdictions were activated by political actors. In playing ‘the judicial card’, opponents of ratification decided to seek political goals through judicial means, and thus they were obliged to develop litigation strategies. This article explores such strategies and the responses that courts gave them. It shows that constitutional proceedings with regards to the Lisbon Treaty became a political battleground governed by legal logics, in which the interpretation of European clauses, the democratic deficit of the Union and the tensions underlying the European judicial dialogue were privileged objects of discussion between claimants and courts in which law and politics intertwined.     

行政诉权分层保障机制优化研究

基于当事人行政诉权行使理性化程度的不同,可将其区分为理性行使、精明行使、不当行使和恶意行使等四种状态,行政诉讼法实施应当进一步健全行政诉权分层保障机制。对理性行使行政诉权者应当给予有效保障,从科学把握立案登记和审查关系、法官履行释明诉讼类型选择义务、灵活运用行政案件协调化解机制等三个方面进行优化。对精明行使行政诉权者应当给予适度容忍,健全诉讼风险交流机制和诉讼繁简分流机制。对不当行使行政诉权者应当给予必要矫治,完善诚信诉讼的程序规则支撑和诉讼失权制度的精准适用。对恶意行使行政诉权者应当给予严厉制裁,探索差异化立案审查和诉讼失信人信用惩戒机制。行政诉权分层保障机制的优化,对于立基于全民守法的法治社会建设具有重要的促进作用。     

Collective Litigation and the Constitutional Challenges to Decriminalizing Homosexuality in Singapore

This article examines collective legal mobilization through the courts, or collective litigation, in a non‐liberal regime. It analyses the emergence and development of collective litigation to challenge the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code, the law that criminalizes same‐sex sexual conduct in Singapore. The analysis focuses on the relational dynamics of collective litigation and legal subjectivities of the social actors involved, highlighting how social positions and strategic interests shaped their interactions and decisions on litigation. While gay rights activists emphasized their movement's collective interests when choosing the appropriate case and lawyers, a movement outsider pursued individual interests on behalf of a client. Due to their divergent social positions and strategic interests, the two teams competed with each other as they initiated two separate constitutional challenges. Tension between the teams led to conflict with constituents of the gay rights movement and influenced their relational dynamics with other parties.     

论合宪性解释方法

虽然合宪性解释方法在概念上会存在些许差别,但其所遵循的合宪性推定逻辑是相通的,即都体现了司法权对立法权的谦抑。合宪性解释方法中所含括的单纯解释规则,如果不与冲突规则在学理上加以区分,则很容易对合宪性解释产生认识上的偏差。目前合宪性解释方法所模本的欧陆经验,从源流上来说,最早其实可溯及至早期美国合宪性推定的理论与实践,并与回避宪法方法一脉相承。通过合宪性推定可以发现,合宪性解释方法可以从宪法方法与法律方法两个层面展开。把握其内在理路及权力逻辑,方可使其具有本土可能性。     

互联网法院的程序法困境及出路

互联网法院借助互联网技术审理特定类型的涉互联网案件,以全流程在线办理为原则,改变了诉讼行为发生的时空条件.互联网法院在现阶段面临的程序法困境主要包括设立依据有违法定法官原则、管辖范围的界定不够妥当、在线庭审的规则创新冲击民事司法之基本原则、诉讼规则忽视对当事人处分权和平等权的保障等方面.从立法上明确互联网法院的试点法院...     

《香港基本法》解释的权限和程序问题探析

《香港基本法》是全国的宪法性法律,是香港特区的根本法。为了落实"一国两制"的精神,《香港基本法》的规定其解释权属于全国人大常委会,同时《香港基本法》规定全国人大常委会可以授予香港各级法院附条件的《香港基本法》解释权,由于二者的立场、视角、法律传统和利益存在着一定的分歧,因而在立法解释模式和司法解释模式之间存在一定的冲突与碰撞。《香港基本法》在解释主体、权限和程序设定方面存在一些问题,在实践中也引发了宪法危机,因此,应该针对存在的问题,逐步加以完善。     

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.     

当下中国宪法司法化的路径与方法

法院适用法律必须解释法律,而解释法律又必须进行合宪解释,合宪解释是目前我国宪法在司法中适用的最好方式,是现行体制下我国宪法司法化的最佳路径。各级人民法院在民事、刑事和行政诉讼中审理每一起案件适用法律时都应当考虑到宪法,进行合宪解释。每一位法官都是合宪解释的主体,都享有法律解释权和宪法解释权,但这并不否定最高人民法院的最高司法解释权以及全国人大常委会对法律和宪法的最终解释权。法院通过合宪解释方式间接适用宪法,不必将宪法作为裁判依据而引用,但应当在裁判说理部分引用宪法条款。法院在合宪解释过程中发现法律明显违宪时,应当中止诉讼,逐级上报,由最高人民法院报送全国人大常委会处理。