论判决的形式正义

发布时间：2018-03-20 14:19

本文选题：形式正义　切入点：正当判决　出处：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：司法裁判实践中,正义是法律的崇高理想和不懈追求的目标,人们期望正义统治着法律并通过它法律统治着社会生活,但是法律有正义与不正义之分,正义有形式正义和实质正义之分,而形式正义又有公民普遍遵守上的正义和法院判决中的正义,本文主要论述判决中的形式正义。文章先不预设现成的定义,而是力图从法的历史发展、法的本质以及法治向司法的转变来考察形式正义的理论渊源,并结合已有的研究基础,较全面地给出了判决形式正义的三层含义:①严格适用法律规则,这里的规则既有实体法规则又有程序法规则,所以第一层含义包括程序正义;②同样案件相同处理,法院将法律规则平等地、一贯地适用于不同的人、同样的案件,公众可以通过法律的明确规定预见个人行为的法律后果;③适用关于法律规则的规则,当法律没有明文规定或已有的规则严重违反正义从而不能适用时,要适用法律原则或权威性法律理念等对规则进行补救,即在法律的框架内作出裁判,而不能适用法外的标准。文章第一部分对形式正义的内涵进行了理论探究。从法的历史发展角度阐明,法律所维护的正义是普遍性、平等性和确定性的正义;司法所能够实现的正义是法律本身的正义,即“法治正义”。对国外形式正义的学说进行了部分梳理,主要分析了韦伯、佩雷尔曼和罗尔斯的理论;指出了国内形式正义问题的研究不足:一是内涵的不完备性,二是司法地位的争议性;最后给出了本文判决的形式正义的内涵。第二部分总结了形式正义的几项准则,即逻辑准则:从规则出发的演绎逻辑和对规则解释的一致性要求;程序准则:指出正当程序的具体要求和遵守这项准则的积极意义;可普遍化准则:相同案件相同处理;经验准则:经验法则对法官自由裁量权的限制。第三部分论述形式正义之于正当判决的意义。首先,分析了正当判决首先要实现形式正义的理论基础:一是采用“拉德布鲁赫公式”,即实证法具有优先地位,说明维护法律的确定性是法律思维的根基;二是正当判决必须遵守合法性原则;三是判决坚持形式正义使法具有可预期性。其次,指出判决的形式正义有不足,但因形式正义与法治一脉相承的关系,法治对其不足给予了宽容,尤其是审判中当形式正义与实质正义相冲突时,法治要求实质正义作出妥协。第四部分论述了形式正义在我国审判中如何实现的问题。首先,结合案例具体指出我国司法审判存在的违反形式正义的两种倾向:一是重“理”轻“法”;二是重实体轻程序。其次,提出了判决形式正义在我国审判中实现的三个建议(以保证其实现的可能性):“法官除了法律没有别的上司”;促进职业法律家的形成;加强对司法权的制约和监督。最后阐述判决形式正义的实现对建设社会主义法治国家的意义。
[Abstract]:In the practice of judicial adjudication, justice is the lofty ideal and unremitting goal of law. People expect justice to rule the law and rule social life through its law, but the law is divided into justice and injustice. Justice can be divided into formal justice and substantive justice, and formal justice is generally observed by citizens and justice in court judgment. This paper mainly discusses formal justice in judgment. Instead, it tries to examine the theoretical origin of formal justice from the historical development of law, the essence of law and the transition from the rule of law to justice, and combines the existing research basis. In a more comprehensive way, the three-layer meaning of judgment form justice: 1 is strictly applicable to the rules of law. The rules here include both substantive law rules and procedural law rules, so the first level of meaning includes procedural justice and the same treatment of cases. The Court applies the rule of law equally and consistently to different persons, and in the same case, the public can foresee the legal consequences of an individual's act through a clear provision of law. When the law does not explicitly stipulate or the existing rules seriously violate justice and can not be applied, we should apply the principle of law or authoritative legal idea to remedy the rules, that is, to make a decision within the framework of the law, but not to apply the extra-legal standard. In the first part of the article, the connotation of formal justice is theoretically explored. From the perspective of the historical development of law, the justice maintained by law is universal, equal and deterministic justice. The justice that can be realized by the judiciary is the justice of the law itself, that is, the justice of the rule of law. This part combs the theories of foreign formal justice, mainly analyzes the theories of Weber, Perelman and Rawls; The author points out the lack of research on formal justice in China: firstly, the incompleteness of connotation, secondly, the controversy of judicial status, and finally, the connotation of formal justice in this article. The second part summarizes several principles of formal justice, namely, logical criterion: deductive logic from rules and consistent requirements for interpretation of rules, procedural norms: pointing out the specific requirements of due process and the positive significance of adhering to this criterion; The rule of thumb: the rule of thumb limits the judge's discretion. The third part discusses the significance of formal justice to proper judgment. Firstly, it analyzes the theoretical basis of the realization of formal justice in proper judgment. It shows that maintaining the certainty of law is the foundation of legal thinking; second, the legitimate judgment must abide by the principle of legality; third, the judgment insists on formal justice to make the law predictable. Secondly, it points out that the formal justice of judgment is inadequate. However, due to the relationship between formal justice and the rule of law, the rule of law gives tolerance to its shortcomings, especially when formal justice and substantive justice conflict in the trial, the rule of law requires a compromise of substantive justice. Part 4th discusses how to realize formal justice in China. First of all, Combined with the case, the author points out two kinds of tendencies of violating formal justice in our country's judicial trial: one is to attach importance to "principle", the other is to attach importance to substance and procedure. This paper puts forward three suggestions on the realization of judgment form justice in the trial of our country (in order to ensure the possibility of its realization: "the judge has no other superior than the law"; Finally, it expounds the significance of the realization of judgment form justice to the construction of socialist country ruled by law.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D915.182;D916.2

【参考文献】