本文選題：司法能動(dòng)主義　切入點(diǎn)：司法審查　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文旨在通過(guò)對(duì)美國(guó)司法能動(dòng)主義系統(tǒng)地研究分析,希望能夠?qū)λ痉軇?dòng)主義有個(gè)大致了解,明確其有別于中國(guó)特色的能動(dòng)司法,能夠?qū)ξ覈?guó)的司法改革提供參考意義。本文主要從定義、起源、發(fā)展和前途等四個(gè)方面勾畫(huà)出了司法能動(dòng)主義的大致輪廓,最大的特色在于綜合運(yùn)用了比較法、案例分析法,大致按照從理論到實(shí)踐、從古到今的順序?qū)λ痉軇?dòng)主義有個(gè)比較清晰的梳理,尤其是大量美國(guó)司法歷程中能夠體現(xiàn)司法能動(dòng)主義的案例的詳細(xì)引用,使本文的論述更加有據(jù)可依。 本文分為導(dǎo)語(yǔ)和四個(gè)章節(jié),主要內(nèi)容和觀點(diǎn)如下：導(dǎo)論部分簡(jiǎn)要介紹了司法能動(dòng)主義作為法哲學(xué)的一個(gè)分支,其產(chǎn)生背景、研究意義以及與中國(guó)能動(dòng)司法的區(qū)別,這些問(wèn)題具有理論和實(shí)踐的雙重意義,已經(jīng)引起了國(guó)內(nèi)外學(xué)者研究的興趣和司法實(shí)踐的重視；第一章主要介紹了司法能動(dòng)主義的概念和特征,迄今為止,司法能動(dòng)主義并沒(méi)有一個(gè)確定的概念,本文列舉了美國(guó)本土和中國(guó)學(xué)者當(dāng)中比較有代表性的幾種定義,概括出司法能動(dòng)主義的定義無(wú)非是為了追求公平正義,法官需要在嚴(yán)守規(guī)則和發(fā)揮主觀能動(dòng)性之間尋找平衡,而有關(guān)司法能動(dòng)主義的特征則主要是從美國(guó)的憲政特點(diǎn)角度來(lái)介紹的,因?yàn)橐环N理論的產(chǎn)生發(fā)展壯大必定與滋養(yǎng)它的土壤息息相關(guān)；第二章首先介紹了司法能動(dòng)主義的事實(shí)來(lái)源——1803年馬伯里訴麥迪遜案,然后從三個(gè)方面闡述了司法能動(dòng)主義的理論來(lái)源,法律實(shí)用主義主張法律應(yīng)更多把眼光聚焦于解決現(xiàn)實(shí)問(wèn)題,自由裁量權(quán)則為法官發(fā)揮主觀能動(dòng)性尋求理論依據(jù),實(shí)質(zhì)正義則從法治的終極目標(biāo)這一角度為司法能動(dòng)性的正當(dāng)化提供支持,此外,本章還從司法能動(dòng)主義與司法審查權(quán)的關(guān)系角度介紹了司法能動(dòng)主義的發(fā)展源頭,正是司法審查權(quán)的產(chǎn)生與擴(kuò)張使司法能動(dòng)主義從一種空洞的理論融入了具體的司法實(shí)踐,并發(fā)揮著越來(lái)越重要的指導(dǎo)意義；第三章首先依據(jù)司法能動(dòng)性作用的強(qiáng)弱將聯(lián)邦最高法院分為四個(gè)時(shí)期,并列舉了每個(gè)時(shí)期比較有代表性的案例來(lái)支持筆者的分類,然后引入了司法能動(dòng)與司法克制的此消彼長(zhǎng)的發(fā)展關(guān)系,作為司法能動(dòng)的對(duì)立面,司法克制在美國(guó)司法史上也發(fā)揮著重要的作用；第四章簡(jiǎn)要論述了司法能動(dòng)主義的發(fā)展方向以及在中國(guó)的借鑒吸收,正是司法能動(dòng)主義可能存在著損害民主和權(quán)限擴(kuò)張的缺陷,才需要尋求一種比較溫和的司法能動(dòng)主義的運(yùn)用方式,既能最大限度地服務(wù)于司法過(guò)程,又能最大限度地避免司法能動(dòng)可能引起的矛盾和爭(zhēng)議,這正是司法能動(dòng)主義者所孜孜追求的。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to make a systematic study and analysis of American judicial activism, hoping to have a general understanding of judicial activism, and to make clear that it is different from the active judicature with Chinese characteristics. This paper outlines the outline of judicial activism from four aspects: definition, origin, development and future. The main feature of this paper is the comprehensive use of comparative law, case analysis, etc. Roughly according to the order from theory to practice, from ancient to present, there is a relatively clear combing of judicial activism, especially the detailed citation of a large number of cases that can embody judicial activism in the judicial process of the United States. So that the discussion of this article more evidence to rely on. This paper is divided into introduction and four chapters. The main contents and viewpoints are as follows: introduction part briefly introduces judicial activism as a branch of legal philosophy, its background, research significance and the difference with Chinese active justice. These problems have the dual significance of theory and practice, and have aroused the interest of scholars at home and abroad and the attention of judicial practice. Chapter one mainly introduces the concept and characteristics of judicial activism, so far, Judicial activism does not have a definite concept. This paper enumerates several representative definitions among American and Chinese scholars, and generalizes that judicial activism is no more than the pursuit of fairness and justice. Judges need to find a balance between strict observance of rules and exertion of subjective initiative, and the characteristics of judicial activism are mainly introduced from the perspective of the constitutional characteristics of the United States. Because the emergence and development of a theory must be closely related to the soil that nourishes it. Chapter two first introduces the factual source of judicial activism-Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Then it expounds the theoretical source of judicial activism from three aspects, legal pragmatism advocates that the law should focus more on solving practical problems, and discretion seeks theoretical basis for judges to play their subjective initiative. Substantive justice supports the legitimacy of judicial activism from the perspective of the ultimate goal of the rule of law. In addition, this chapter introduces the source of the development of judicial activism from the perspective of the relationship between judicial activism and the right of judicial review. It is the emergence and expansion of the right of judicial review that makes judicial activism melt into concrete judicial practice from an empty theory and play a more and more important guiding significance. The third chapter divides the Federal Supreme Court into four periods according to the strength of judicial initiative, and enumerates the representative cases in each period to support the classification of the author. Then, the author introduces the relationship between judicial initiative and judicial restraint. As the opposite of judicial initiative, judicial restraint also plays an important role in the judicial history of the United States. Chapter 4th briefly discusses the development direction of judicial activism and its reference and absorption in China. It is precisely judicial activism that may damage democracy and expand its jurisdiction. In order to find a more moderate way of using judicial activism, it can not only serve the judicial process to the maximum extent, but also avoid the possible contradictions and disputes caused by judicial activism. This is exactly what judicial activism pursues assiduously.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2;DD916

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐國(guó)棟;西方立法思想與立法史略(上)——以自由裁量與嚴(yán)格規(guī)則的消長(zhǎng)為線索[J];比較法研究;1992年01期

2 任東來(lái);改變美國(guó)憲政歷史的一個(gè)腳注[J];讀書(shū);2005年09期

3 李輝;;司法能動(dòng)主義與司法克制主義的比較分析[J];法律方法;2009年00期

4 龐凌;法院如何尋求司法能動(dòng)主義與克制主義的平衡[J];法律適用;2004年01期

5 譚融;試析美國(guó)的司法能動(dòng)主義[J];天津師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年06期

6 張榕;;司法克制下的司法能動(dòng)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2008年02期

7 陳朝陽(yáng);;司法哲學(xué)基石范疇:司法能動(dòng)性之法哲理追問(wèn)[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

8 范進(jìn)學(xué);馮靜;;司法能動(dòng)主義在中國(guó):司法哲學(xué)之可能走向[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

9 施嵩;;美國(guó)司法能動(dòng)主義評(píng)析[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

10 陳金釗;;法官司法緣何要奉行克制主義[J];揚(yáng)州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院法學(xué)所研究員、博士生導(dǎo)師 信春鷹;[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

2 北京市朝陽(yáng)區(qū)人民法院 吳彬;[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1599263