司法克制与司法能动的权衡

发布时间：2018-03-14 10:57

本文选题：司法克制　切入点：司法能动　出处：《河北大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：司法能动与司法克制是法学理论中两种不断斗争的司法哲学，两者都有其存在的合理性。探究司法克制与司法能动，不仅仅在于清楚地了解司法克制与能动，更重要的目的在于寻找两者的平衡点，吸收各自的优势，达到一种均衡，并让它为我国的法治建设服务。本文第一部分主要介绍了司法克制主义的概念和历史。通过比较的方法，在总结前人的概念的基础上笔者提出自己对于司法克制主义的定义。司法克制是指在司法过程中，法院和法官严格遵守法律规则和法律条文的含义，减少自己的喜好和个人信仰，尊重成文法律，限制自由裁量权的一种司法理念和司法姿态。本文第二部分主要介绍了司法能动主义的概念和历史。与第一部分相似，也是通过比较的方法，笔者也提出了自己对于能动司法的理解。能动司法，是人民法院为实现国家赋予其促进政治文明、维持社会稳定、促进经济发展等各项职能，运用科学的工作方法，主要包括政策考量、利益平衡、自由裁量等审理案件，创新工作思路，延伸审判职能等，最终将案件处理达到法律效果与社会效果的完美统一，使司法获得人们普遍认可，从而促进社会和谐稳定，实现国家持续稳定的科学发展。需要说明的是，中国的司法能动不同于美国等西方国家的司法能动，而有自己独特的内容。所以定义中也能够体现出来我国的特色。本文的第三部分是文章的重点。笔者首先比较了司法克制与司法能动的优势和不足，并试图构建出一系列的原则，以此原则来指导司法克制与司法能动的实践。笔者共提出了四条原则，分别是：在尊重司法克制的前提下追求司法能动；在保证程序正义的基础上追求实质正义；在维护司法权威基础上追求解决纠纷的多元化；在坚持法律效果的前提下追求司法的社会效果。第一条原则是概括性的原则，其余三条原则是对第一条原则的详细解释。本文的第四部分是将司法克制与能动应用于实践及其理论意义。在民事诉讼的过程中，要在司法克制的原则下，保证民事诉讼的基本程序合乎宪法、合乎其他上位法律，合乎情理，这是基本的前提。除此之外，要更多的采用司法能动。给予当事人双方充分、合理的取证、调查、辩护，让双方当事人尽自己最大努力维护自己的合法权益。在刑事诉讼中，应该尽量恪守司法克制的姿态，防止国家权力的滥用，防止各部门越权行事，，司法能动的范围应该保持在一定的范围内。最后总结了一下司法克制与能动理论对于我国的法治建设的意义。简单来说，坚持司法克制与能动权衡有利于司法不断适应纷繁复杂的社会现实；有利于矛盾纠纷的及时解决；有利于纠纷解决的彻底性。司法能动在我国方兴未艾，认真对待司法克制与司法能动的权衡是法学理论界和法律实务界都应该关注的问题。
[Abstract]:Judicial initiative and judicial restraint are two kinds of judicial philosophy of constant struggle in the theory of law, both of which have their own rationality. To explore judicial restraint and judicial action lies not only in clearly understanding judicial restraint and action, but also in understanding clearly judicial restraint and action. The more important purpose is to find the balance point of the two, absorb their respective advantages, reach a kind of equilibrium, and let it serve for the construction of our country's rule of law. The first part of this paper mainly introduces the concept and history of judicial restraint. By means of comparison, the author puts forward his own definition of judicial restraint on the basis of summing up the previous concepts. Judicial restraint refers to the judicial process. Courts and judges strictly abide by the meaning of legal rules and legal provisions, reduce their own preferences and personal beliefs, respect the written law, and limit the discretion of a judicial philosophy and judicial posture. The second part of this paper mainly introduces the concept and history of judicial activism. Similar to the first part, and through the method of comparison, the author also puts forward his own understanding of active justice. It is the people's court that, in order to realize the functions entrusted to it by the state to promote political civilization, maintain social stability and promote economic development, and so on, applies scientific working methods, mainly including policy considerations, balance of interests, discretion and so on, to try cases. Innovating the working way, extending the function of trial and so on, finally achieving the perfect unification of the legal effect and the social effect, making the judicature generally accepted by people, thus promoting the social harmony and stability. It should be pointed out that China's judicial initiative is different from that of western countries such as the United States and has its own unique content. So the definition can also reflect the characteristics of our country. The third part of this paper is the focus of the article. Firstly, the author compares the advantages and disadvantages of judicial restraint and judicial initiative, and tries to construct a series of principles. This principle guides the practice of judicial restraint and judicial action. The author puts forward four principles: pursuing judicial initiative on the premise of respecting judicial restraint, pursuing substantive justice on the basis of ensuring procedural justice, and promoting the development of judicial restraint. On the basis of maintaining judicial authority, the author pursues the pluralism of dispute resolution and the social effect of judicature under the premise of upholding the legal effect. The first principle is the general principle, and the other three principles are the detailed explanation of the first principle. The 4th part of this paper applies judicial restraint and initiative to practice and its theoretical significance. In the process of civil action, the basic procedure of civil action should be guaranteed to conform to the constitution and other superior laws under the principle of judicial restraint. It is reasonable, this is the basic premise. In addition, it is necessary to adopt more judicial activism. Both parties should be given sufficient and reasonable evidence, investigation, and defense. Let both parties do their utmost to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. In criminal proceedings, they should abide by the posture of judicial restraint as far as possible, prevent the abuse of state power, and prevent all departments from acting beyond their authority. The scope of judicial initiative should be kept within a certain range. Finally, it summarizes the significance of the theory of judicial restraint and initiative to the construction of the rule of law in our country. Insisting on the balance between judicial restraint and initiative is conducive to the judicial adaptation to the complicated social reality, to the timely resolution of contradictions and disputes, and to the thoroughness of dispute resolution. Judicial initiative is in the ascendant in our country. It is a problem that should be paid close attention to in the field of legal theory and practice, which is to treat the balance between judicial restraint and judicial action seriously.
【学位授予单位】：河北大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D926

【参考文献】