论司法场域中法官谨慎言行义务的边界

发布时间：2018-04-09 10:25

  本文选题：法官　切入点：谨慎言行义务　出处：《湘潭大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2017年05期

【摘要】：司法场域中法官谨慎言行义务边界的合理划定与司法公信力的维系密切相关。从国际性条约和主要法治国家的相关规定来看,司法场域中法官谨慎言行义务集合中的可具化元素包括对未决或者即将发生案件评论限制义务和禁止单方面交流义务。从理论上看,对未决或者即将发生案件评论限制义务边界由时间限度、范围限度、内容限制三要素划定,禁止单方面交流义务边界则由规制主体、客体和例外性规定三要素廓清。我国对未决或者即将发生案件评论限制义务的立法存在时间限制规定不明确、案件范围限制存在立法疏漏等不足,有必要将对未决或者即将发生案件评论的时间限度设定在案件判决产生既判力之前,同时将法官对自己正在审理案件加以评论的行为纳入法律规制的范畴。我国禁止单方面交流义务边界的划定存在单边性信息携带者法定范围过窄、非联络性单方面交流行为缺乏规制等不足,有必要使用拓宽单边性信息携带者的范围、规制非联络性单方面交流行为等方式予以纠正。
[Abstract]:The reasonable demarcation of the boundary between the discretion and duty of judges in the judicial field is closely related to the maintenance of judicial credibility.Theoretically speaking, the boundary of limitation obligation is delimited by time limit, scope limit and content limitation, while the boundary of unilateral communication obligation is regulated by the subject.The three elements of object and exception are clarified.China's legislation on pending or imminent cases' comment and limitation obligations is unclear in terms of time limits, cases' scope restrictions, legislative omissions, and so on.It is necessary to set the time limit of the pending or imminent case comment before the judgment of the case produces res judicata, and at the same time, the judge's comment on his own case should be brought into the scope of legal regulation.In our country, the demarcation of the boundary of unilateral communication obligation exists some shortcomings, such as the narrow legal range of unilateral information carriers, the lack of regulation of non-liaison unilateral communication acts, etc. It is necessary to broaden the scope of unilateral information carriers.The regulation of non-contact unilateral communication should be corrected.
【作者单位】： 赣南师范大学应用法学研究中心;
【分类号】：D926.2
，

本文编号：1726027