本文選題：疑難案件　切入點(diǎn)：司法義務(wù)　出處：《清華法學(xué)》2017年03期

【摘要】：由于法律理論缺乏司法義務(wù)的概念,這導(dǎo)致我們的裁判實(shí)踐中存在一種普遍謬誤,即主張既有法律已無(wú)助于疑難案件的裁判,于此情形法官應(yīng)訴諸法律之外的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、道德等非法律性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行裁判。在絕對(duì)的司法義務(wù)、適度的司法義務(wù)以及絕對(duì)的道德義務(wù)中,適度的司法義務(wù)相對(duì)較為可取,它包含不得拒絕裁判、以依法裁判為原則以及為裁決提供論證三個(gè)層次的內(nèi)容,同時(shí)兼顧了裁判受規(guī)范拘束與實(shí)現(xiàn)個(gè)案正義。為推進(jìn)和落實(shí)這種司法義務(wù),需要重整傳統(tǒng)的法律淵源理論,尤其是要發(fā)掘原則以及法秩序等重要的元素。
[Abstract]:Due to the lack of the concept of judicial obligation in legal theory, there is a general fallacy in our practice of adjudication, that is, the judge should resort to the political, economic, and extralegal aspects of the law in such a case that the existing law is no longer helpful to the adjudication of a difficult case.Judge according to non-legal standards such as morality.Among the absolute judicial obligations, the moderate judicial obligations and the absolute moral obligations, the moderate judicial obligation is relatively preferable, which includes the principle of not refusing the adjudication, the principle of the adjudication according to the law and the three levels of argumentation for the adjudication.At the same time, the judge is bound by the norm and realizes the case justice.In order to promote and implement this kind of judicial obligation, it is necessary to reorganize the traditional theory of legal origin, especially to explore the important elements such as principle and legal order.
【作者單位】： 中國(guó)政法大學(xué)比較法學(xué)研究院;
【基金】：國(guó)家社科基金重大項(xiàng)目“構(gòu)建中國(guó)特色案例制度的綜合系統(tǒng)研究”(16ZDA068)的階段性研究成果
【分類號(hào)】：D926

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 劉育林;變更與追加被執(zhí)行人義務(wù)主體的類型和法律適用[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年07期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 戴春林;既判力的主體范圍在執(zhí)行中的擴(kuò)張[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年

，

本文編號(hào)：1717982