美国司法积极主义哲学论

发布时间：2018-07-14 10:00

【摘要】：积极主义与消极主义司法哲学呈现相互更迭、此消彼长的态势，在一定程度上，这是为了适应司法审查制度的改变。司法积极主义是一种动态哲学，它包括这样几个核心特点：它以司法审查制度为方法论背景，并且伴随着司法审查由传统到现代的转型而进行自我调整，经历了保守和自由两大典型时期。这种司法哲学的实践主体是美国联邦法院法官，在个案中表现为推翻先例、扩大解释宪法甚至法官造法，其司法目标在于保障公民权利，实现实体上的公平正义。以洛克纳案为代表的司法积极主义时期，法律上主张契约自由、信奉法律形式主义理念；政治上推崇新教伦理下的个人自由主义精神，主张“有限政府”理论；在经济上奉行自由放任主义和社会达尔文主义，反对政府干预经济，进而形成了极端保守和僵化的司法哲学，阻碍了社会经济的发展,在罗斯福新政时期逐步走向衰亡。二十世纪五、六十年代，布朗诉教育委员会案开启了沃伦法院为代表的自由司法积极主义时期。二战为民权运动提供了机会，在法律现实主义和新自由主义思潮的影响下，公民权利意识和平等观念逐步增强。与此同时，大量民权运动爆发和民权法案的颁布造就了司法积极主义哲学的民主特点，即联邦法院积极干预政治问题；为弱势群体争取民主权利；以保障平等正义为价值追求，这使沃伦法院赢得了“人民的法院”美誉。在伦奎斯特法院后期，由于自由主义精神产生的社会问题增多、法院人员的更替、保守派登上政治舞台等多方面原因，司法积极主义逐步走向保守。在司法积极主义占据统治地位的两大典型时期，都伴随着反对者的争议与质疑。但是，，其正当性与合理性也是不可否认的。它有效地消解了判例制度保守性；可以克服原意主义固有的理论弊端；并且是新时期下迈向回应型法的需要。在梳理和分析美国司法积极主义的典型阶段和鲜明特点之后，文章采用比较法视角，将目光投向我国“能动司法”理念的提出与特点。进而指出两者在实践主体、实践前提、表现形式、价值追求四个方面均有不同。据此，我国司法理念应当借鉴美国司法哲学并自我完善。通过转换法学研究范式、约束政府行政权力、把握能动司法限度等措施来提升“能动司法”的生命力和持续性。
[Abstract]:The judicial philosophy of positivism and negativism changes with each other. To some extent, this is to adapt to the change of judicial review system. Judicial activism is a kind of dynamic philosophy, which includes several core characteristics: it takes the judicial review system as the methodological background and adjusts itself with the transition from traditional to modern judicial review. Experienced two typical periods of conservatism and freedom. The practice subject of this kind of judicial philosophy is the judge of the United States Federal Court. In the case, the judicial goal is to protect the civil rights and realize the fairness and justice in the entity by overturning the precedent and expanding the interpretation of the constitution and even the judge making the law. In the period of judicial activism represented by Lockna case, the author advocates freedom of contract and legal formalism in law, advocates individual liberalism spirit under Protestant ethics in politics, and advocates the theory of "limited government". Pursuing laissez-faire and social Darwinism in economy, opposing government intervention in economy, forming extremely conservative and rigid judicial philosophy, hindering the development of social economy, gradually decaying during Roosevelt's New deal. In the 1950 s and 1960 s, Brown v. Board of Education opened the era of liberal justice activism represented by the Warren Court. Under the influence of legal realism and neoliberalism, the consciousness of civil rights and the concept of equality were gradually strengthened. At the same time, the outbreak of a large number of civil rights movements and the promulgation of the Civil Rights Act created the democratic characteristics of the philosophy of judicial activism, namely, the active intervention of the Federal Court in political issues, the struggle for democratic rights for vulnerable groups, and the value pursuit of guaranteeing equality and justice. This earned Warren Court a reputation as the people's Court. In the later period of Rehnquist court, due to the increase of social problems caused by liberalism spirit, the replacement of court personnel, the conservatives on the political stage and so on, judicial activism gradually moved to conservatism. In the two typical periods in which judicial activism occupies a dominant position, both of them are accompanied by disputes and doubts from opponents. However, its legitimacy and rationality are undeniable. It effectively dispels the conservatism of the precedent system, overcomes the inherent theoretical drawbacks of the purposive doctrine, and is the need to move towards the responsive law in the new era. After combing and analyzing the typical stage and distinctive characteristics of American judicial activism, the article adopts the perspective of comparative law to put forward and feature the concept of "active justice" in our country. Furthermore, it points out that there are differences in four aspects: the subject of practice, the premise of practice, the form of expression and the pursuit of value. Accordingly, our country judicatory idea should draw lessons from American judicial philosophy and self-perfection. By changing the paradigm of legal research, restricting the administrative power of the government and grasping the limits of active judicature, the vitality and sustainability of "active judicature" can be promoted.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2

【相似文献】