美国联邦司法政治研究

发布时间：2018-03-22 00:05

本文选题：美国　切入点：联邦司法政治　出处：《南开大学》2013年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：美国在宪政民主的建构和发展过程中,始终面临宪政和民主间关系的调和问题,作为宪政结构重要组成部分的联邦司法系统成为美国宪政秩序的重要维护者。美国宪政民主发展的历程表明,联邦法院充当着宪法和法律的解释者、权力限制和权利的维护者以及社会与政治发展平衡者的角色。成为“宪政主义和民主”二者间的“扣链齿轮”,在维护美国政治体制和宪政民主方面发挥着重要的政治性作用。美国自建国以来,学者和政治家们提出了一系列有关联邦司法政治的观点,包括“最小危险部门”、“范围有限的‘巨大政治权力’拥有者”、实用主义“司法性立法”、趋同性决策者、“反多数难题”和“捕蝇纸法院”等。受诸种因素的影响,法官在审判过程中往往适用不同的解释标准,所谓“解释主义”和“非解释主义”的概括表达了司法审判中法官司法理念的不同,由此而衍生了司法克制主义和司法能动主义。然而,无论美国联邦法院和法官采用何种解释标准或原则,他们都被历史地赋予对宪法和法律的解释和守护权,尤其是司法审查权的运用,使联邦法院成为反对政治专横的强大壁垒,在美国政治系统中地位不断攀升。 20世纪五、六十年代以来,美国联邦法院摆脱以往的被动状态,在维护公民权利方面扮演了新的角色。保持正当法律程序、保护少数族裔权利、性别平等、保护隐私权和言论自由等一系列议题被置于联邦法院面前。保护公民权利在一定程度上表现为处理政府与个人之间的关系、以及对宪法权利法案和公民自由平等权利的解释和捍卫。通过对诉讼案件的审理,联邦法院为少数群体的利益诉求提供了表达渠道,体现了社会价值的走向。美国联邦司法系统在司法裁决和对法律加以解释的过程中经常会面临两难的选择,囿于司法体系天生的被动性和制度性限制、以及基于自身权威性的考量和美国社会利益的多元性,联邦法院在司法判案过程中通常会谨慎行事,实用主义哲学与普通法传统共同作用下,呈现出实用性特点。以“实用主义”的态度面对不同领域运用不同方法,采用“多数原则”对棘手问题作出判决。同时在一些具体问题上采用模糊化的处理方式,以应对所面临的反多数困境,在协调诸种紧张关系的同时平衡社会与政治发展,谨慎推动社会与政治的变革和前行。
[Abstract]:In the process of constructing and developing constitutional democracy, the United States has always faced the problem of reconciling the relationship between constitutionalism and democracy. The federal judicial system, an important part of the constitutional structure, has become an important defender of the constitutional order in the United States. The development of constitutional democracy in the United States shows that the federal courts act as interpreters of the Constitution and the law. The role of the defender of power restriction and rights and the balance of social and political development has become a "buckle gear" between "constitutionalism and democracy", which plays an important political role in safeguarding the political system and constitutional democracy in the United States. Since the founding of the United States, scholars and politicians have put forward a series of views on federal judicial politics. These include the "least dangerous sector", the "limited range of holders of 'great political power'", pragmatism "judicial legislation", convergent decision makers, "anti-majority problems" and "fly paper courts"... affected by a variety of factors, Judges often apply different standards of interpretation in the course of trial. The generalizations of so-called "hermeneutics" and "non-hermeneutics" express the different judicial concepts of judges in judicial trials. This gives rise to judicial restraint and judicial activism. However, regardless of the standards or principles of interpretation adopted by federal courts and judges in the United States, they have historically been given the power to interpret and defend the Constitution and the law, Especially the application of judicial review power makes the federal court become a powerful barrier against political arbitrariness, and its status in American political system is rising. Since the 1950s and 1960s, federal courts in the United States have cast off their previous passivity and played a new role in safeguarding civil rights, maintaining due process of law, protecting minority rights, and gender equality. A number of issues, including the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, have been brought before federal courts. The protection of civil rights is partly about dealing with the relationship between government and individuals. Through the trial of litigation cases, the Federal Court provides a channel of expression for the interests of minority groups and reflects the trend of social value. The federal judicial system in the United States often faces a dilemma in the process of judicial adjudication and interpretation of the law, which is limited by the inherent passive and institutional limitations of the judicial system. Based on their own authoritative considerations and the diversity of the interests of American society, federal courts usually act with caution in the course of judicial adjudication, under the joint action of pragmatism philosophy and common law tradition. With the attitude of "pragmatism", using different methods in different fields, adopting the "majority principle" to judge thorny problems. At the same time, it adopts a fuzzy way to deal with some specific problems. In order to deal with the anti-majority dilemma, balance the social and political development while coordinating all kinds of tense relations, and promote the transformation and advance of the society and politics cautiously.
【学位授予单位】：南开大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D971.2;DD916

【参考文献】