法官释明的界限及制度构建研究

发布时间：2018-06-30 11:17

本文选题：民事诉讼 + 法官释明　；参考：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：大陆法系和英美法系国家民事诉讼立法中,均有类似法官释明行为的规定,作为与当事人的处分权和辩论权相对应的制度。本文以释明的基本理论与实践情况展开,重点讨论法官释明的范围和边界,并进而探讨了体系化的释明制度规则,最终实现从理论研究到实践应用的跨越。全文分为四章,内容具体如下:第一章是全文研究的起点,即法官释明理论的基本介绍和实践情况。我国释明制度立法的缺失,是造成释明实践活动无序的制度原因,亦是建立体系化的释明制度的现实要求。释明的界限研究则是释明制度构建的重要内容。传统理论认为,在法官知法的原则下,释明的对象限于事实问题,本文基于赞成当事人参与法律问题的立场,针对于诉讼中所涉及的事实问题与法律问题,分别研究法官释明在时间上与空间上的对象,探求释明的界限,以及对应的保障措施。第二章与第三章是对第一章释明的界限问题所展开的具体讨论。法官为任何诉讼行为之最终目的皆在于事实之认定与法律之适用。在认定事实层面,法官释明的行为一般指向当事人主张事实和提供证据的行为,其界限是穷尽当事人诉讼资源和防止事实认定的突袭。在认定事实过程中,释明作为义务属性的保障措施是与心证公开制度相结合。在法律适用层面,释明指向司法三段论中小前提的认定,也即对于当事人主张的事实,能否为法律规范所对应和包容,意即涵摄。在适用法律过程中,基于法官释明的义务属性,法官应当防止突袭裁判之产生,由此提出法官负有开示法律观点和保障当事人辩论权的要求。第四章是本文由理论研究走向实践应用的探索,亦是全文的收笔部分。构建法官释明制度的具体规则,应当以改革我国现有的非约束性辩论原则,即在民事诉讼立法上确认约束性辩论原则为前提,以探求当事人参与诉讼的真意和恪守司法者中立为原则,结合立案、庭前准备、法庭审理和审理结束后等四个阶段涉及的事项为线索,以期形成体系化的制度。在此逻辑下,进一步提出不当释明的情形与当事人对应的救济途径,使法官释明制度更加完整。最后,本文提出,因不当释明所形成诉讼利益的不可逆,此时应当按照实体法规范去评价实体公正,因程序公正在此时已经失去了意义。而对于为不当释明的法官,则应当另行追究其责任,但不可将之与案件的责任或者结果再捆绑在一起考量和评价。
[Abstract]:In civil litigation legislation of civil law system and Anglo-American law system, there are provisions similar to that of explaining behavior by judges, which is a system corresponding to the right of disposition and the right of debate of the parties. Based on the basic theory and practice of interpretation, this paper focuses on the scope and boundary of judge's interpretation, and then discusses the rules of systematized interpretation system, and finally realizes the leapfrogging from theoretical research to practical application. The thesis is divided into four chapters. The first chapter is the starting point of the full text research, namely the basic introduction and practice of the judge explanation theory. The lack of legislation of interpretation system in China is the cause of disorder in interpretation practice and the realistic requirement of establishing systematic interpretation system. The study of the limits of interpretation is an important part of the construction of interpretation system. According to the traditional theory, under the principle of the judge knowing the law, the object of interpretation is limited to the fact problem. This paper, based on the standpoint of agreeing to the parties' participation in the legal issue, aims at the factual and legal problems involved in the lawsuit. This paper studies the objects of the judge's interpretation in time and space, the limits of interpretation, and the corresponding safeguards. The second chapter and the third chapter are the concrete discussion on the boundary problem of the first chapter. The ultimate purpose of any action is the determination of facts and the application of law. At the level of determining the facts, the behavior of the judge generally refers to the actions of the parties claiming the facts and providing evidence, the limit of which is to exhaust the litigants' litigation resources and to prevent the surprise of the facts. In the process of confirming the facts, the safeguard measures of explaining the nature of obligation are combined with the system of disclosure of evidence. At the level of legal application, the interpretation points to the determination of judicial syllogism's medium and small premises, that is, whether the facts advocated by the parties can be corresponding to and contained by the legal norms, which means that it is implied. In the process of applying the law, the judge should prevent the surprise judgment from coming into being on the basis of the duty attribute of the judge's explanation, and thus put forward the request that the judge should announce the legal viewpoint and protect the party's right of argument. The fourth chapter is the exploration of this paper from theoretical research to practical application. The concrete rules of constructing the system of interpretation of judges should be based on the reform of the existing non-binding principle of debate in our country, that is, the confirmation of the principle of binding debate in the legislation of civil procedure. Taking the principle of seeking the true intention of the litigant to participate in the lawsuit and abiding by the principle of judicial neutrality as the clue, combining the matters involved in the four stages of filing the case, the preparation before the court, the trial in court and the end of the trial, as clues, the author hopes to form a systematized system. In this logic, further put forward the situation of improper interpretation and the corresponding relief channels of the parties, so as to make the system of interpretation of judges more complete. Finally, this paper points out that the irreversibility of litigation interests due to improper interpretation should be evaluated according to substantive law norms, because procedural justice has lost its significance at this time. The judge who is not properly interpreted should be investigated for his responsibility, but it should not be tied up with the responsibility or result of the case.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D915

【相似文献】