發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-22 00:05

  本文選題：美國(guó)　切入點(diǎn)：聯(lián)邦司法政治　出處：《南開大學(xué)》2013年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：美國(guó)在憲政民主的建構(gòu)和發(fā)展過(guò)程中,始終面臨憲政和民主間關(guān)系的調(diào)和問(wèn)題,作為憲政結(jié)構(gòu)重要組成部分的聯(lián)邦司法系統(tǒng)成為美國(guó)憲政秩序的重要維護(hù)者。美國(guó)憲政民主發(fā)展的歷程表明,聯(lián)邦法院充當(dāng)著憲法和法律的解釋者、權(quán)力限制和權(quán)利的維護(hù)者以及社會(huì)與政治發(fā)展平衡者的角色。成為“憲政主義和民主”二者間的“扣鏈齒輪”,在維護(hù)美國(guó)政治體制和憲政民主方面發(fā)揮著重要的政治性作用。 美國(guó)自建國(guó)以來(lái),學(xué)者和政治家們提出了一系列有關(guān)聯(lián)邦司法政治的觀點(diǎn),包括“最小危險(xiǎn)部門”、“范圍有限的‘巨大政治權(quán)力’擁有者”、實(shí)用主義“司法性立法”、趨同性決策者、“反多數(shù)難題”和“捕蠅紙法院”等。受諸種因素的影響,法官在審判過(guò)程中往往適用不同的解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn),所謂“解釋主義”和“非解釋主義”的概括表達(dá)了司法審判中法官司法理念的不同,由此而衍生了司法克制主義和司法能動(dòng)主義。然而,無(wú)論美國(guó)聯(lián)邦法院和法官采用何種解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或原則,他們都被歷史地賦予對(duì)憲法和法律的解釋和守護(hù)權(quán),尤其是司法審查權(quán)的運(yùn)用,使聯(lián)邦法院成為反對(duì)政治專橫的強(qiáng)大壁壘,在美國(guó)政治系統(tǒng)中地位不斷攀升。 20世紀(jì)五、六十年代以來(lái),美國(guó)聯(lián)邦法院擺脫以往的被動(dòng)狀態(tài),在維護(hù)公民權(quán)利方面扮演了新的角色。保持正當(dāng)法律程序、保護(hù)少數(shù)族裔權(quán)利、性別平等、保護(hù)隱私權(quán)和言論自由等一系列議題被置于聯(lián)邦法院面前。保護(hù)公民權(quán)利在一定程度上表現(xiàn)為處理政府與個(gè)人之間的關(guān)系、以及對(duì)憲法權(quán)利法案和公民自由平等權(quán)利的解釋和捍衛(wèi)。通過(guò)對(duì)訴訟案件的審理,聯(lián)邦法院為少數(shù)群體的利益訴求提供了表達(dá)渠道,體現(xiàn)了社會(huì)價(jià)值的走向。 美國(guó)聯(lián)邦司法系統(tǒng)在司法裁決和對(duì)法律加以解釋的過(guò)程中經(jīng)常會(huì)面臨兩難的選擇,囿于司法體系天生的被動(dòng)性和制度性限制、以及基于自身權(quán)威性的考量和美國(guó)社會(huì)利益的多元性,聯(lián)邦法院在司法判案過(guò)程中通常會(huì)謹(jǐn)慎行事,實(shí)用主義哲學(xué)與普通法傳統(tǒng)共同作用下,呈現(xiàn)出實(shí)用性特點(diǎn)。以“實(shí)用主義”的態(tài)度面對(duì)不同領(lǐng)域運(yùn)用不同方法,采用“多數(shù)原則”對(duì)棘手問(wèn)題作出判決。同時(shí)在一些具體問(wèn)題上采用模糊化的處理方式,以應(yīng)對(duì)所面臨的反多數(shù)困境,在協(xié)調(diào)諸種緊張關(guān)系的同時(shí)平衡社會(huì)與政治發(fā)展,謹(jǐn)慎推動(dòng)社會(huì)與政治的變革和前行。
[Abstract]:In the process of constructing and developing constitutional democracy, the United States has always faced the problem of reconciling the relationship between constitutionalism and democracy. The federal judicial system, an important part of the constitutional structure, has become an important defender of the constitutional order in the United States. The development of constitutional democracy in the United States shows that the federal courts act as interpreters of the Constitution and the law. The role of the defender of power restriction and rights and the balance of social and political development has become a "buckle gear" between "constitutionalism and democracy", which plays an important political role in safeguarding the political system and constitutional democracy in the United States. Since the founding of the United States, scholars and politicians have put forward a series of views on federal judicial politics. These include the "least dangerous sector", the "limited range of holders of 'great political power'", pragmatism "judicial legislation", convergent decision makers, "anti-majority problems" and "fly paper courts"... affected by a variety of factors, Judges often apply different standards of interpretation in the course of trial. The generalizations of so-called "hermeneutics" and "non-hermeneutics" express the different judicial concepts of judges in judicial trials. This gives rise to judicial restraint and judicial activism. However, regardless of the standards or principles of interpretation adopted by federal courts and judges in the United States, they have historically been given the power to interpret and defend the Constitution and the law, Especially the application of judicial review power makes the federal court become a powerful barrier against political arbitrariness, and its status in American political system is rising. Since the 1950s and 1960s, federal courts in the United States have cast off their previous passivity and played a new role in safeguarding civil rights, maintaining due process of law, protecting minority rights, and gender equality. A number of issues, including the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, have been brought before federal courts. The protection of civil rights is partly about dealing with the relationship between government and individuals. Through the trial of litigation cases, the Federal Court provides a channel of expression for the interests of minority groups and reflects the trend of social value. The federal judicial system in the United States often faces a dilemma in the process of judicial adjudication and interpretation of the law, which is limited by the inherent passive and institutional limitations of the judicial system. Based on their own authoritative considerations and the diversity of the interests of American society, federal courts usually act with caution in the course of judicial adjudication, under the joint action of pragmatism philosophy and common law tradition. With the attitude of "pragmatism", using different methods in different fields, adopting the "majority principle" to judge thorny problems. At the same time, it adopts a fuzzy way to deal with some specific problems. In order to deal with the anti-majority dilemma, balance the social and political development while coordinating all kinds of tense relations, and promote the transformation and advance of the society and politics cautiously.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南開大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2;DD916

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 許中緣;;論普通法系國(guó)家法典的編纂[J];比較法研究;2006年05期

2 李曉廣;;新制度主義政治學(xué)主要流派及其整合研究述評(píng)[J];大連理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年04期

3 朱德米;新制度主義政治學(xué)的興起[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年03期

4 鄭賢君;;憲法權(quán)利體系是怎樣發(fā)展的?——以美國(guó)法為范例的展開:司法創(chuàng)制權(quán)利的保護(hù)[J];法學(xué)家;2005年06期

5 史蒂芬Ｒ·奧頓,郭樹理;從馬伯里訴麥迪遜案到布什訴戈?duì)柊缚疵绹?guó)司法審查制度的兩百年[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2002年03期

6 李曉兵;從“普萊西案”到“布朗案”——論美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院與受教育權(quán)平等保護(hù)的實(shí)現(xiàn)[J];國(guó)家教育行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年06期

7 詹姆斯·馬奇;約翰·奧爾森;允和;;新制度主義詳述[J];國(guó)外理論動(dòng)態(tài);2010年07期

8 何俊志;結(jié)構(gòu)、歷史與行為——?dú)v史制度主義的分析范式[J];國(guó)外社會(huì)科學(xué);2002年05期

9 何俊志;新制度主義政治學(xué)的流派劃分與分析走向[J];國(guó)外社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年02期

10 朱德米;;理念與制度:新制度主義政治學(xué)的最新進(jìn)展[J];國(guó)外社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1646153