本文關(guān)鍵詞： 未完全理論化協(xié)議 司法最低限度 類推 案例指導(dǎo)制度　出處：《上海師范大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：本文通過探討孫斯坦“未完全理論化協(xié)議”的理論深意以啟迪中國現(xiàn)今之司法實(shí)踐。文章第一部分講述“未完全理論化協(xié)議”基本內(nèi)涵，與羅爾斯的“重疊共識”概念相比較，指出孫斯坦強(qiáng)調(diào)低層次的一致性在法律領(lǐng)域中的普遍適用性。第二部分是“未完全理論化協(xié)議”在法律領(lǐng)域的具體表現(xiàn)，包括司法最低限度主義、類推推理思維。在論述司法最低限度主義部分，孫斯坦強(qiáng)調(diào)法官審判在程序上遵循“窄”或“淺”裁判方式的同時(shí)，仍舊受最低限度實(shí)體內(nèi)容的限制。在此，孫斯坦總結(jié)出“核心價(jià)值”作為最低限的審判理念。在筆者看來，這正是孫斯坦正視“未完全理論化協(xié)議”的局限性，，保障最低限度審判有效運(yùn)行的理論努力。在討論“寬”和“深”裁判方式時(shí)，孫斯坦指出“傳統(tǒng)主義”、“赫拉克勒斯”式法官審判方式的不足，并以“一封哲學(xué)家之信”的事例反駁了德沃金的“整體論”。值得強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，他未否認(rèn)“寬”或“深”的審判方法，認(rèn)為一切討論應(yīng)依賴于具體的實(shí)踐情境。在具體個(gè)案中實(shí)現(xiàn)“未完全理論化協(xié)議”，需要類推的思維方法。人類認(rèn)識事物的類型化傾向決定了類推模式的整體性，普通法與成文法推理方法之間并沒有清晰的界限。就類推可能出現(xiàn)的錯(cuò)誤，孫斯坦亦提出了合理運(yùn)用的注意點(diǎn)。第三部分對整體理論進(jìn)行評價(jià)。未完全理論化協(xié)議解決的核心問題是價(jià)值多元與司法統(tǒng)一的緊張關(guān)系。意識到審判中完全的理論論成是不現(xiàn)實(shí)的，采取的是一種實(shí)用主義的進(jìn)路，雖都以結(jié)果為導(dǎo)向，但比之經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析更多對多元化的包容。在可以預(yù)設(shè)的法官裁判的三種情形中，最低限度的審判介于“理想”與“現(xiàn)實(shí)”之間，與德沃金理想化的整體性裁判以及法律現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的裁判方式有重要區(qū)別。針對“理論上升”的質(zhì)疑，筆者給出自己的理解。第四部分是應(yīng)用孫斯坦的理論以啟發(fā)中國現(xiàn)在。理論對實(shí)踐的作用往往是有限的，法學(xué)理論與司法實(shí)踐存在一定的距離。能動(dòng)司法是一種整體性的審判思維，本身具有局限性并可能使司法越加政治化，而最低限度的審判能夠使政治與司法保持一定的安全距離。第二點(diǎn)的啟示是案例指導(dǎo)制度。參照指導(dǎo)案例審判完成的是一種未完全理論化協(xié)議，依據(jù)個(gè)案類推的裁決方法達(dá)致公正——相似情形相似處理，實(shí)現(xiàn)一種關(guān)系的統(tǒng)一。類推推理本身具有局限性，有效地運(yùn)用需要關(guān)注個(gè)案的具體細(xì)節(jié)，依賴于對審判理由的充分說理。
[Abstract]:This paper discusses Sun Stein's theory of incomplete theorization Agreement to enlighten China's judicial practice nowadays. The first part of the article describes the basic connotation of incomplete theorized Agreement, which is compared with Rawls's concept of "overlapping consensus". It is pointed out that Sun Stein emphasizes the universal applicability of low-level consistency in the field of law. The second part is the concrete manifestation of incomplete theorization Agreement in the field of law, including judicial minimalism. Analogy reasoning thinking. In discussing the judicial minimalist part, Sun Stein emphasizes that judges' trials follow a "narrow" or "shallow" manner of adjudication, while still subject to the restrictions of the minimum substantive content. Sunstein summed up the "core value" as the lowest trial concept. In the author's view, this is the limitation of Sun Stan's face to "incomplete theorization agreement". Theoretical efforts to guarantee the effective functioning of the minimum trial. In discussing the "broadness" and "deep" adjudication methods, Sun Stein pointed out the shortcomings of the "traditionalism" and the "Hera Klees" style of judge's trial. And refutes Dworkin's "holism" with the example of a letter from a philosopher. It is worth emphasizing that he did not deny the "lenient" or "deep" method of judgment. It is believed that all discussions should depend on specific practical situations. To realize "incomplete theorization agreement" in a specific case requires a method of thinking by analogy. The stereotyped tendency of human cognition determines the integrity of analogy model. There is no clear line between common law and statutory reasoning. The third part evaluates the whole theory. The core problem solved by incomplete theorization agreement is the tense relationship between value pluralism and judicial unity. Theoretical theory is unrealistic. It takes a pragmatic approach, all of which are results-oriented, but more tolerant of diversity than economic analysis. In the three cases where judges can be preset, The minimum trial is between "ideal" and "reality", which is different from Dworkin's idealized holistic judgment and legal realism. The author gives his own understanding. Part 4th is the application of Sun Stan's theory to enlighten China now. The effect of theory on practice is often limited. There is a certain distance between the theory of law and the judicial practice. Active justice is a kind of holistic judicial thinking, which has its own limitations and may make the judicature more and more politicized. And the minimum trial can keep a certain distance between politics and justice. The second revelation is the case guidance system. Referring to the guidance case trial, the completion of the trial is a kind of incomplete theoretical agreement. According to the adjudication method of case analogy, we can achieve fair similar treatment of similar cases and realize the unity of a relationship. Analogy reasoning has its own limitations, so it can effectively use the specific details that need to be paid attention to. Rely on the full justification of the trial.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D916.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱良好;;考夫曼類推理論論略[J];北方法學(xué);2009年02期

2 常寶蓮;;訴訟論證中的實(shí)踐理性及其方法論要求[J];北方法學(xué);2011年03期

3 王永杰;;論孫斯坦與德沃金的司法理論之爭[J];北方論叢;2011年03期

4 李紅海;;普通法的司法技藝及其在我國的嘗試性運(yùn)用[J];法商研究;2007年05期

5 李仕春;;案例指導(dǎo)制度的另一條思路——司法能動(dòng)主義在中國的有限適用[J];法學(xué);2009年06期

6 張薇薇;;論審議民主的憲法設(shè)計(jì)[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

7 屈茂輝;張彪;;論類推適用的概念——以兩大法系類推適用之比較為基礎(chǔ)[J];河北法學(xué);2007年11期

8 范志勇;;論司法審判的實(shí)踐理性[J];河北學(xué)刊;2011年01期

9 周占生;;概念與類型法律思維比較研究——基于規(guī)范結(jié)構(gòu)的討論[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年02期

10 陳道英;;民主:扼住司法審查之喉?——評桑斯坦的《就事論事》[J];清華法治論衡;2010年01期

本文編號：1524007