發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-02-24 23:16

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 司法解釋 正當(dāng)性 理論困境 完善路徑　出處：《西北師范大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：建國60余年來,最高人民法院的司法解釋為統(tǒng)一法律適用和共和國的法制建設(shè)做出了不可磨滅的歷史貢獻(xiàn);作為一個(gè)學(xué)習(xí)法律專業(yè)七年的學(xué)生,在不得不面對(duì)司法考試時(shí)才深感司法解釋的重要,不系統(tǒng)的梳理司法解釋并深刻領(lǐng)會(huì)司法解釋的制定意圖及適用條件,通過司法考試近乎于天方夜譚;判例法雖然在應(yīng)然和實(shí)然方面均具有合理內(nèi)核,但在我國不是正式的法律淵源,故在立法與法律局限性導(dǎo)致法律適用發(fā)生困難時(shí),最高人民法院和最高人民檢察院發(fā)布的規(guī)范性司法解釋猶如“救命稻草”;律師實(shí)務(wù)中以在浩瀚的法律文本中發(fā)現(xiàn)某一司法解釋為能事,因?yàn)樗�的代理或答辯意見將因?yàn)椤坝蟹�可依”而�?jiān)實(shí)的站穩(wěn)腳跟。 司法解釋的重要性幾乎與對(duì)它的質(zhì)疑性相伴而生,司法解釋內(nèi)部面臨著主體遭質(zhì)疑、程序不規(guī)范、形式任意化等一系列困境,司法解釋內(nèi)容的抽象性則集中導(dǎo)致了司法解釋侵越立法權(quán)的外觀與內(nèi)在。一面是如火如荼的適用火焰,一面是越權(quán)與混亂的深度海水,司法解釋就在這樣的發(fā)展與質(zhì)疑中堅(jiān)強(qiáng)的走過了三十年。司法解釋的內(nèi)涵到底是什么?其有沒有法律上的正當(dāng)性依據(jù)?如何應(yīng)對(duì)“司法立法”的全民批評(píng)?司法解釋的界限在哪里?面對(duì)如此困境何為出路?這些都成為我們必須直面給其一個(gè)合理交代的問題。 面對(duì)司法解釋的正當(dāng)性質(zhì)疑,對(duì)于司法解釋的出路問題,學(xué)者們從各個(gè)角度進(jìn)行了詳盡的分析與論證,但何為司法解釋的正當(dāng)性出路至今也無法達(dá)成一個(gè)共識(shí)。為此文章從論述司法解釋正當(dāng)性依據(jù)的各個(gè)角度展開分析,總體分為司法解釋面臨的困境與司法解釋的完善路徑兩大部分,通過閱讀與總結(jié),分司法解釋的困境為內(nèi)部困境和外部困境,相應(yīng)的在實(shí)踐改進(jìn)的論述中也從內(nèi)部完善和外部完善兩條道路出發(fā),在論述外部改進(jìn)路徑時(shí)結(jié)合我國當(dāng)前的司法實(shí)踐著重論述指導(dǎo)性案例制度的構(gòu)建與完善,同時(shí)從立法技術(shù)的改進(jìn)及法官素質(zhì)的提升層面對(duì)外部路徑進(jìn)行強(qiáng)化,整體目標(biāo)只有一個(gè),為司法解釋找一個(gè)正當(dāng)性的、合法合理的出路。
[Abstract]:For more than 60 years since the founding of the people's Republic, the judicial interpretation of the Supreme people's Court has made an indelible historical contribution to the unification of the application of the law and the construction of the legal system of the Republic. In the face of the judicial examination, I feel the importance of judicial interpretation, not systematically comb the judicial interpretation and deeply understand the formulation of the intention of judicial interpretation and the applicable conditions, passing the judicial examination is almost impossible; Although the case law has a reasonable core in both the ought and the reality, it is not a formal source of law in our country. Therefore, when the limitation of legislation and law leads to difficulties in the application of law, The normative judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate is like a "life-saving straw". Because his agent or defense will have a solid foothold because of the law. The importance of judicial interpretation is almost concomitant with the challenge to it. The internal judicial interpretation is confronted with a series of difficulties, such as the subject is questioned, the procedure is not standardized, the form is arbitrary, and so on. The abstractness of the content of judicial interpretation leads to the appearance and inner nature of judicial interpretation encroaching upon the legislative power. On the one hand, it is the applicable flame in full swing; on the other hand, it is the deep sea water of ultra vires and chaos. Judicial interpretation in such a development and challenge through 30 years strong. What is the connotation of judicial interpretation? Is there any legal justification? How to deal with the national criticism of "judicial legislation"? Where are the boundaries of judicial interpretation? In the face of such a difficult situation, what is the way out? These have become a problem that we must face up to and give them a reasonable account. In the face of the question of the legitimacy of judicial interpretation, scholars have made detailed analysis and argumentation from various angles on the way out of judicial interpretation. However, there is still no consensus on what is the way out for the legitimacy of judicial interpretation. Therefore, the article analyzes the legitimacy of judicial interpretation from various angles. It is divided into two parts: the dilemma of judicial interpretation and the perfect path of judicial interpretation. Through reading and summing up, the dilemma of judicial interpretation is divided into internal and external dilemmas. In the discussion of practice improvement, the author starts from the two ways of internal and external improvement, and discusses the construction and perfection of instructive case system in combination with the current judicial practice of our country when discussing the path of external improvement. At the same time from the legislative technical improvement and the quality of judges to strengthen the external path, the overall goal is only one, for judicial interpretation to find a legitimate, legal and reasonable way out.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馬旭東;;法制統(tǒng)一性視角下的司法解釋探析[J];青海師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

2 韓勇;論我國法官制度的改革(上)[J];山東審判;2001年01期

3 季長龍;;司法解釋體制概念與結(jié)構(gòu)的法理辨析[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年04期

4 楊玉豪;;立法技術(shù)和理念對(duì)立法質(zhì)量的影響[J];五邑大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年04期

5 陳春龍;中國司法解釋的地位與功能[J];中國法學(xué);2003年01期

6 黃松有;司法解釋權(quán):理論邏輯與制度建構(gòu)[J];中國法學(xué);2005年02期

7 陳弘毅;當(dāng)代西方法律解釋學(xué)初探[J];中國法學(xué);1997年03期

8 申華;立法技術(shù)研究的新臺(tái)階──《立法技術(shù)學(xué)》一書評(píng)析[J];政治與法律;1995年05期

9 汪全勝;;司法解釋正當(dāng)性的困境及出路[J];國家檢察官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

10 陳林林;許楊勇;;司法解釋立法化問題三論[J];浙江社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 劉太剛;[N];法制日報(bào);2004年

2 徐向華;[N];解放日報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 蔣嘯;判例法研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2004年

2 紀(jì)誠;最高人民法院司法解釋研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2006年

3 張能寶;最高人民法院司法解釋的目標(biāo)與方法研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 郁娟;司法解釋判例化考量[D];蘇州大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1532111