浅析美国的司法能动主义

发布时间：2018-03-11 17:54

本文选题：司法能动主义　切入点：司法审查　出处：《山东大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：本文旨在通过对美国司法能动主义系统地研究分析,希望能够对司法能动主义有个大致了解,明确其有别于中国特色的能动司法,能够对我国的司法改革提供参考意义。本文主要从定义、起源、发展和前途等四个方面勾画出了司法能动主义的大致轮廓,最大的特色在于综合运用了比较法、案例分析法,大致按照从理论到实践、从古到今的顺序对司法能动主义有个比较清晰的梳理,尤其是大量美国司法历程中能够体现司法能动主义的案例的详细引用,使本文的论述更加有据可依。本文分为导语和四个章节,主要内容和观点如下：导论部分简要介绍了司法能动主义作为法哲学的一个分支,其产生背景、研究意义以及与中国能动司法的区别,这些问题具有理论和实践的双重意义,已经引起了国内外学者研究的兴趣和司法实践的重视；第一章主要介绍了司法能动主义的概念和特征,迄今为止,司法能动主义并没有一个确定的概念,本文列举了美国本土和中国学者当中比较有代表性的几种定义,概括出司法能动主义的定义无非是为了追求公平正义,法官需要在严守规则和发挥主观能动性之间寻找平衡,而有关司法能动主义的特征则主要是从美国的宪政特点角度来介绍的,因为一种理论的产生发展壮大必定与滋养它的土壤息息相关；第二章首先介绍了司法能动主义的事实来源——1803年马伯里诉麦迪逊案,然后从三个方面阐述了司法能动主义的理论来源,法律实用主义主张法律应更多把眼光聚焦于解决现实问题,自由裁量权则为法官发挥主观能动性寻求理论依据,实质正义则从法治的终极目标这一角度为司法能动性的正当化提供支持,此外,本章还从司法能动主义与司法审查权的关系角度介绍了司法能动主义的发展源头,正是司法审查权的产生与扩张使司法能动主义从一种空洞的理论融入了具体的司法实践,并发挥着越来越重要的指导意义；第三章首先依据司法能动性作用的强弱将联邦最高法院分为四个时期,并列举了每个时期比较有代表性的案例来支持笔者的分类,然后引入了司法能动与司法克制的此消彼长的发展关系,作为司法能动的对立面,司法克制在美国司法史上也发挥着重要的作用；第四章简要论述了司法能动主义的发展方向以及在中国的借鉴吸收,正是司法能动主义可能存在着损害民主和权限扩张的缺陷,才需要寻求一种比较温和的司法能动主义的运用方式,既能最大限度地服务于司法过程,又能最大限度地避免司法能动可能引起的矛盾和争议,这正是司法能动主义者所孜孜追求的。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to make a systematic study and analysis of American judicial activism, hoping to have a general understanding of judicial activism, and to make clear that it is different from the active judicature with Chinese characteristics. This paper outlines the outline of judicial activism from four aspects: definition, origin, development and future. The main feature of this paper is the comprehensive use of comparative law, case analysis, etc. Roughly according to the order from theory to practice, from ancient to present, there is a relatively clear combing of judicial activism, especially the detailed citation of a large number of cases that can embody judicial activism in the judicial process of the United States. So that the discussion of this article more evidence to rely on. This paper is divided into introduction and four chapters. The main contents and viewpoints are as follows: introduction part briefly introduces judicial activism as a branch of legal philosophy, its background, research significance and the difference with Chinese active justice. These problems have the dual significance of theory and practice, and have aroused the interest of scholars at home and abroad and the attention of judicial practice. Chapter one mainly introduces the concept and characteristics of judicial activism, so far, Judicial activism does not have a definite concept. This paper enumerates several representative definitions among American and Chinese scholars, and generalizes that judicial activism is no more than the pursuit of fairness and justice. Judges need to find a balance between strict observance of rules and exertion of subjective initiative, and the characteristics of judicial activism are mainly introduced from the perspective of the constitutional characteristics of the United States. Because the emergence and development of a theory must be closely related to the soil that nourishes it. Chapter two first introduces the factual source of judicial activism-Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Then it expounds the theoretical source of judicial activism from three aspects, legal pragmatism advocates that the law should focus more on solving practical problems, and discretion seeks theoretical basis for judges to play their subjective initiative. Substantive justice supports the legitimacy of judicial activism from the perspective of the ultimate goal of the rule of law. In addition, this chapter introduces the source of the development of judicial activism from the perspective of the relationship between judicial activism and the right of judicial review. It is the emergence and expansion of the right of judicial review that makes judicial activism melt into concrete judicial practice from an empty theory and play a more and more important guiding significance. The third chapter divides the Federal Supreme Court into four periods according to the strength of judicial initiative, and enumerates the representative cases in each period to support the classification of the author. Then, the author introduces the relationship between judicial initiative and judicial restraint. As the opposite of judicial initiative, judicial restraint also plays an important role in the judicial history of the United States. Chapter 4th briefly discusses the development direction of judicial activism and its reference and absorption in China. It is precisely judicial activism that may damage democracy and expand its jurisdiction. In order to find a more moderate way of using judicial activism, it can not only serve the judicial process to the maximum extent, but also avoid the possible contradictions and disputes caused by judicial activism. This is exactly what judicial activism pursues assiduously.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;DD916

【参考文献】