论司法的合法性与法律商谈

发布时间：2018-03-10 10:01

本文选题：合法性　切入点：法律商谈　出处：《上海师范大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：通过对我国当代的政治、社会、司法现状的分析与归纳,本文确立了司法合法性这一论题,并以一个批判性的视角展开论述。通过梳理合法性的概念史可以发现:与政治合法性相对应,当代中国的司法合法性不应偏向于实证化标准或者形而上学化中的任何一方,而应是一种基于话语伦理学的重构的合法性。由此,司法的合法化需要一种以法律论证为核心的法律的运用性商谈理论作为核心方法。在法律的适用过程中,司法的合法性与裁判的合理性紧密结合:一方面,合法性基于裁判的自洽性与合理的可接受性而得以实现;另一方面,合理性本身又承担了合法化的政治负载。在法律论辩的过程中,论辩各方以交互主义的视角交换理由,针对争议问题充分表达意见,降低了司法领域的异议风险,契合了司法合法性的诘问结构,并且通过对合理同意的追求,在一定程度上恢复了作为司法基本逻辑的“三方结构”。以法律论证为核心的法律商谈在所有论据达至融贯时便告终结。不过,由于理想商谈的要求过高,在时空上趋于无限的延展,现实中的法律商谈被置于建制化的法律程序之内,受到各种限制,从而具备了现实性。正是基于法律商谈的理想型,法律商谈的实践可能性遭到商谈成本方面的质疑,但是,由于法律商谈自始嵌置在法律建制之中,所以商谈成本的大部分都被诉讼成本所吸收,除了加重法官的论证义务之外,在外观上没有增加过多成本。法律商谈对司法合法化最重要的形式体现是判决书的论证与说理。以合法性的视角进行考察可以发现,充分论证裁判并不仅仅出于对司法的社会效果的追求,更是一种由依法裁判的原则推演出的法律义务。并且,这种论证义务不仅具有说理的外观,更直接指向论证的内容,使法官在疑难案件中的自由裁量受到拘束,被迫以法律诠释者的视角追求裁判的唯一正解。法官实现论证义务集中体现于判决书的说理,而判决书改革是司法改革中最没有争议并且最可行的一项。在我国司法改革的过程中,无论是职业化进路还是民主化进路都追求使司法独立于权力的宰制从而实现司法的基本社会功能。但是,策略性的考量不应当与义务论性质的合法性诉求相矛盾,也不能与实现司法裁判正当化的核心步骤,即法律论证相矛盾。在此基础上,法律商谈理论提供了一个新的司法合法化的视角,并且为处理司法与民意的难题提供了一种解决方案。
[Abstract]:Based on the contemporary Chinese political, social, judicial status quo analysis and induction, this paper established the topic of judicial legitimacy, and with a critical perspective is discussed. The history of the concept of legitimacy can be found: the opposite of political legitimacy, contemporary judicial legitimacy should not be biased in favor of China the empirical standard or metaphysics of any party, but should be a kind of legitimacy based on the reconstruction of discourse ethics. Thus, judicial legitimacy requires a legal argument as the core of the legal application of negotiation theory as the core method. In the process of application of the law, the rationality of judicial legitimacy with the combination of legitimacy: on the one hand, based on the self consistent and rational acceptability and can be achieved; on the other hand, the rationality itself and bear the load of political legitimacy. In legal argumentation. In the process of argumentation, the parties to the exchange interaction perspective for dispute reason, to fully express their views, to reduce the risk of judicial challenge areas, fit the basic structure of the legitimacy and consent through the reasonable pursuit, to a certain extent restored as the basic logic of law "three party legal structure. To discuss the legal argumentation as the core will come to the end in all the arguments to the coherence. However, due to the requirements of ideal discourse is too high, tends to infinite in space and time extension, the reality of the legal discussion is placed within the institutionalization of the legal process, subject to various restrictions, which have a reality is the ideal. Based on the type of legal discourse, to discuss the possibility of legal practice has been questioned, but because of the cost of negotiations, legal negotiation from the beginning is embedded in the legal system, so the cost of negotiation was litigation Absorbed by the cost, in addition to increase the judges proof obligations in appearance did not increase too much cost. Legal discussions reflected on the legitimacy is the most important form of argumentation and reasoning judgment. In the perspective of legitimacy study can be found, fully demonstrated the referee does not only because of the social effect of justice pursuit. It is a principle to deduce the referee law and legal obligation. The obligation of argumentation, not only has the reasoning of the appearance, content to demonstrate more directly, the judge's discretion in difficult cases by binding, positive solutions are forced to legal interpretation from the perspective of the pursuit of the referee only. The judges argument obligation reflected in the verdict, the verdict and the reform is a judicial reform is not the most controversial and most feasible. In the process of judicial reform in China, whether it is way of occupation The basic function of social democracy or domination approach seeks to make judicial independence in power in order to achieve justice. However, strategic considerations should not the legitimacy and obligation of nature of the conflict, nor judicial procedure and implementation of the core of justification, namely the contradiction of legal argumentation. On this basis, the theory of law discussion provides a new perspective of the legitimacy, and provides a solution for the problem of judicial and public opinion.

【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D90;D916

【参考文献】