再论指导性案例效力的性质与保证

发布时间：2019-02-16 14:11

【摘要】：《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》在一定程度上解决了中国指导性案例同时缺乏法律共同体共识与制度权威的尴尬境地。民法法系国家的司法先例也有说服力与约束力的问题;它们由理性与制度共同保证。与之类似,中国指导性案例效力的性质也具有制度支撑的说服力,但它与民法法系国家的司法先例有三点区别。这些区别与中国指导性案例建立与发展的三组矛盾直接相关。中国的指导性案例为时势所需是司法机关职责所在为我国法律制度所包涵。应当通过实现社会沟通与共识来保证指导性案例的效力;重点是坚持法治,在促进社会和谐中维护法律体系的统一与和谐,在建立和使用指导性案例时提供正当性证明并对指导性案例公开引证。
[Abstract]:The provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the guiding work of cases to a certain extent solve the embarrassing situation of China's guiding cases and the lack of consensus of the legal community and the authority of the system at the same time. The judicial precedents in civil law system countries also have the problems of persuasion and binding force; they are guaranteed by reason and system. Similarly, the nature of the effectiveness of China's instructive cases also has the persuasive power supported by the system, but it differs from the judicial precedents of civil law countries in three ways. These differences are directly related to the three sets of contradictions in the establishment and development of China's guiding cases. The guiding case of China is the responsibility of the judicial organs, which is contained in the legal system of our country. The effectiveness of guiding cases should be ensured through social communication and consensus; The emphasis is to adhere to the rule of law, to maintain the unity and harmony of the legal system in promoting social harmony, to provide justification and public citation to the guiding cases in the establishment and use of instructive cases.
【作者单位】：北京大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金项目“司法改革和权力科学配置与司法公正研究——中国司法先例制度研究”(05BFX005)
【分类号】：D926.2

【共引文献】