我国案例指导制度问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-21 15:56

本文选题：案例指导制度 + 指导性案例　；参考：《兰州大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：案例指导制度是随着司法不统一现象逐渐被社会关注而浮出水面的,“同案同判”是其通俗表达的法律诉求。案例指导制度的正式提法首次出现在2005年最高人民法院《人民法院第二个五年改革纲要》中,在这之前和以后的近十年间,全国各地司法机关已有多种形式的实践探索。2010年7月20日,最高人民检察院首先出台了关于案例指导工作的规定,内容涉及指导性案件的效力、范围、工作机构等,最高人民法院也于同年11月26日推出了案例指导方面的相关规定。已经初步构建的案例指导制度,旨在将司法实践中实际发挥作用的案例,通过上升为鲜明制度的方式,充分发挥指导性案例对统一法律适用的作用。案例由此从单纯的个案既判力和参考,发展为“指导”今后司法工作的地位,案例指导制度因而在立法和司法实践层面具有多重研究价值。由于这项改革是我国司法机关的一项制度性创新,指导性案例的效力定位成为解决案例指导制度全部问题无法回避的理论基础,是该项制度能否得以有力推动和有效发挥实际作用的关键。而要厘清这一问题,必须从中西方法律统一适用的历史发展背景中还原“判例”在不同法系、国家和传统文化下的本来面目,在回归普适性司法规律的前提下达成制度构建的共识。通过回顾与总结新中国“案例公布制度”和地方司法机关近十年自行发布案例的得失成败,在既有制度框架和现行司法体制的基础上合理确定指导性案例的效力显得尤为重要。笔者在研究分析国内学术界各种观点的基础上,认为将指导性案例效力定位为司法解释,同时与现有的司法解释形式加以分工和区别,有利于案例指导制度的具体落实和长远发展。笔者同时也强调指出,尽管案例指导制度具有明显的进步意义,但作为一项可能长远影响法律统一适用的制度,特别是尚在初期运行的制度,仍然需要在遴选标准、创制主体、选报与审核、公布与废止、文书格式等方面予以明确的规制,处理好该项制度与现有司法制度之间的关系,加快推动相关配套制度的落实,特别是要重视从根本上提高司法自治能力和开放过程,推动我国司法进程始终朝着社会正义的目标不断接近。
[Abstract]:Case guidance system has come to the surface along with the phenomenon of judicial disunity, and "co-adjudication" is its popular legal appeal. The formal formulation of the case guidance system first appeared in the second Five-Year Reform outline of the people's Court of the Supreme people's Court in 2005. There have been various forms of practice and exploration in judicial organs throughout the country. On July 20, 2010, the Supreme people's Procuratorate first issued provisions on case guidance work, covering the effectiveness, scope, work organization, etc., of instructive cases. The Supreme people's Court also introduced the relevant provisions on case guidance on November 26 of the same year. The case guidance system, which has been preliminarily constructed, aims to give full play to the role of guiding cases in the application of the unified law through the way of rising to a distinct system in order to give full play to the cases that actually play a role in judicial practice. Therefore, case guidance system has many research value in the legislative and judicial practice level because of its development from simple case res judicata and reference to the status of "guiding" judicial work in the future. As this reform is an institutional innovation of the judicial organs in our country, the orientation of the effectiveness of instructive cases becomes the theoretical basis for solving all the problems of the case guidance system. It is the key of whether the system can promote and effectively play a practical role. In order to clarify this problem, we must restore the "precedent" in different legal systems, countries and traditional cultures from the historical development background of the unified application of Chinese and Western laws. Under the premise of returning to the law of universal justice, the consensus of system construction is reached. By reviewing and summing up the success or failure of the "case announcement system" in New China and the success or failure of the local judicial organs in releasing cases by themselves in the past ten years, it is particularly important to reasonably determine the effectiveness of instructive cases on the basis of the existing institutional framework and the current judicial system. On the basis of studying and analyzing various viewpoints of domestic academic circles, the author thinks that the effectiveness of instructive cases should be defined as judicial interpretation, and at the same time, it will be divided and distinguished from the existing forms of judicial interpretation. It is conducive to the concrete implementation and long-term development of the case guidance system. At the same time, the author also emphasizes that, although the case guidance system has obvious progressive significance, as a system that may have a long-term impact on the unified application of the law, especially the system that is still in operation in the early stage, it still needs to be selected according to the criteria and create the main body. Select and audit, publish and abolish, document format and other aspects to be clearly regulated, deal with the relationship between the system and the existing judicial system, accelerate the implementation of the relevant supporting system, In particular, we should attach importance to the fundamental improvement of judicial autonomy and open process, and push the judicial process towards the goal of social justice.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926

【引证文献】