【摘要】：判決書(shū),在每一個(gè)民主法治國(guó)家都有著舉足輕重的地位。而判決理由是判決書(shū)的靈魂,一份理由充分邏輯嚴(yán)明的判決書(shū),不僅能夠妥善平息民事糾紛,促使當(dāng)事人快速履行自己的法律義務(wù),緩解社會(huì)矛盾,還能夠幫助一個(gè)國(guó)家實(shí)現(xiàn)法制宣傳教育的目的。我國(guó)自古以來(lái)便十分重視判決書(shū)的說(shuō)理。近年來(lái),通過(guò)新《民事訴訟法》、十八屆四中全會(huì)報(bào)告、2016年《人民法院五年改革綱要》以及《人民法院民事裁判文書(shū)制作規(guī)范》等重要的法律、政策文件,法官在判決書(shū)中說(shuō)理的義務(wù)已獲得了充分的重視。這為進(jìn)一步探究增強(qiáng)判決書(shū)說(shuō)理性的方法奠定了堅(jiān)實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)。文章的第一章通過(guò)比較研究的方法,尋找我國(guó)判決書(shū)結(jié)構(gòu)的改革方向。判決書(shū)的結(jié)構(gòu)是判決書(shū)的基本框架,確定了判決書(shū)的基本要素。被科學(xué)設(shè)置的判決書(shū)的結(jié)構(gòu)和內(nèi)容,能夠輔助法官理順論證思路,沿著正確的邏輯方向撰寫(xiě)判決理由。判決書(shū)結(jié)構(gòu)的改革,可以從案件繁簡(jiǎn)分流、判決主文位置的調(diào)整、本案事實(shí)與判決理由的分離三個(gè)方面入手,以增強(qiáng)判決書(shū)說(shuō)理的針對(duì)性和準(zhǔn)確性。文章的第二章和第三章主要論述如何具體地實(shí)現(xiàn)判決書(shū)的說(shuō)理。第二章介紹了形式邏輯的論證方法,結(jié)合我國(guó)判決書(shū)說(shuō)理的不足之處,探究如何在判決理由部分更好地實(shí)現(xiàn)判決書(shū)說(shuō)理。法官在撰寫(xiě)判決理由時(shí),需要注意闡述選擇法律規(guī)范的理由;在事實(shí)認(rèn)定時(shí),需要評(píng)價(jià)證據(jù),并增強(qiáng)要件事實(shí)與證據(jù)的聯(lián)系;進(jìn)行函攝之前,需要解構(gòu)法律,并將事實(shí)要件化,以縮小法律與事實(shí)之間的邏輯跨度,以此展現(xiàn)法律規(guī)范與案件事實(shí)的契合程度,使法律規(guī)范中的法律后果能夠有理有據(jù)地成為案件的判決結(jié)果。第三章介紹了非形式邏輯的論證方法。主要包括利益衡量、探效推理、立法目的考量和習(xí)慣民俗四種方法的具體分析思路,以及適用條件。通過(guò)形式邏輯論證為主,非形式邏輯論證為輔的論證方法,能夠同時(shí)保障判決理由的合法性和合理性。文章的第四部分論述了判決書(shū)說(shuō)理的保障措施。增強(qiáng)判決書(shū)的說(shuō)理性首先需要改革法官遴選和培訓(xùn)制度,構(gòu)建高質(zhì)量的法官隊(duì)伍,并通過(guò)為法官配備專(zhuān)門(mén)的法官助理和適當(dāng)減輕法官責(zé)任的方法保障法官的說(shuō)理工作。其次,確立法官心證公開(kāi)和釋明義務(wù),通過(guò)加強(qiáng)程序中的對(duì)話(huà)來(lái)增強(qiáng)當(dāng)事人對(duì)判決理由的理解能力。其三,建立更為完善的案例指導(dǎo)制度,給予各級(jí)法院的法官更具可操作性的判決理由寫(xiě)作指導(dǎo)。最后,通過(guò)審級(jí)制度改革劃清不同級(jí)別法院的功能,讓各級(jí)法官能夠在本審級(jí)范圍內(nèi)有側(cè)重地進(jìn)行說(shuō)理。
[Abstract]:Judgment, in every democratic country under the rule of law has a pivotal position. And the reason for judgment is the soul of the judgment. A well-reasoned and well-reasoned judgment can not only properly settle civil disputes, but also prompt the parties concerned to fulfil their legal obligations quickly and ease social contradictions. It can also help a country achieve the goal of legal publicity and education. Since ancient times, our country has attached great importance to the reasoning of the judgment. In recent years, important laws and policy documents have been adopted, such as the new Civil procedure Law, the report of the fourth Plenary session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, the 2016 outline of the Five-year Reform of the people's Court, and the guidelines for the production of Civil judgment documents of the people's Court. The judge's reasoned duty in the judgment has been taken seriously. This has laid a solid foundation for further exploring the method of enhancing the rationality of judgment theory. The first chapter is to find the reform direction of our country's judgement structure through the method of comparative study. The structure of the judgment is the basic frame of the judgment and determines the basic elements of the judgment. The structure and content of the judgment set by science can assist the judge to straighten out the reasoning ideas and write the reasons for the judgment along the correct logical direction. In order to enhance the pertinence and accuracy of judgment reasoning, the reform of judgment structure can be started from three aspects: the diversion of the case, the adjustment of the position of the judgment subject, the separation of the facts of the case and the reasons of the judgment, in order to enhance the pertinence and accuracy of the judgment reasoning. The second and third chapters mainly discuss how to realize the reasoning of judgment. The second chapter introduces the formal logic of the argumentation method, combined with the shortcomings of judgment reasoning in China, explore how to better achieve judgment reasoning in the judgment reason part. When writing the reasons for the judgment, the judge should pay attention to the reasons for choosing the legal norms; in determining the facts, he needs to evaluate the evidence and strengthen the link between the facts and the evidence; before taking a letter, he needs to deconstruct the law and turn the facts into elements. In order to reduce the logical span between law and fact, and to show the degree of conformity between legal norms and facts of case, the legal consequences in legal norms can be the result of judgment in a case with reasonable evidence. The third chapter introduces the argumentation method of non-formal logic. It mainly includes four kinds of methods, such as benefit measurement, effect reasoning, legislative purpose consideration and customary folklore, as well as the applicable conditions. The method of formal logic argumentation, supplemented by non-formal logic argumentation, can guarantee the legitimacy and rationality of the reason of judgment at the same time. The fourth part of the article discusses the safeguard measures of judgment reasoning. To enhance the rationality of judgment, it is necessary to reform the system of judge selection and training, to construct a high-quality team of judges, and to ensure the reasoning of judges by providing judges with specialized assistants and by reducing the responsibilities of judges. Secondly, we should establish the judge's obligation to disclose and explain evidence and strengthen the parties' ability to understand the reasons of judgment by strengthening the dialogue in the procedure. Third, to establish a more perfect case guidance system, to give judges at all levels of court more operational guidance on the writing of reasons for judgment. Finally, through the reform of the trial level system, the functions of the different levels of courts are clarified, so that the judges at all levels can be reasoned within the scope of the trial level.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鄧自力;判決理由的因果邏輯[J];中國(guó)律師;2000年06期

2 胡橋;判決理由的概念和功能[J];浙江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年06期

3 肖暉;;論公開(kāi)性是現(xiàn)代判決理由的本質(zhì)特征[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2001年02期

4 童兆洪,章恒筑;判決理由改革論[J];浙江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年02期

5 劉文峰,高瑞君;刑事判決理由的含義與起源[J];河北大學(xué)成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

6 劉文峰,程志軍;刑事判決理由的功能分析[J];沈陽(yáng)工程學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年04期

7 劉文峰;魏帥;;刑事判決理由功能的解讀[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)論壇;2005年08期

8 王貴東;;判決理由模式之比較[J];貴州社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年10期

9 胡橋;;中國(guó)判決理由的歷史分析[J];法律方法;2007年00期

10 肖暉;;對(duì)中國(guó)現(xiàn)階段判決理由若干問(wèn)題的思考[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年07期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前7條

1 解放軍西安政治學(xué)院副教授 傅達(dá)林;判決理由為什么重要[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

2 尹寧寧;成都中院要求再審法律文書(shū)完整表述請(qǐng)求 強(qiáng)化判決理由[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

3 張群陽(yáng) 張福慶;民事判決書(shū)應(yīng)詳寫(xiě)判決理由[N];人民法院報(bào);2000年

4 劉作翔;法理學(xué)的功能[N];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院院報(bào);2005年

5 王S;南湖 公開(kāi)33個(gè)辦案環(huán)節(jié)[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

6 周瑞春;“傳神寫(xiě)照”與裁判文書(shū)說(shuō)理[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

7 華東政法大學(xué)教授 楊興培;若在國(guó)外,李昌奎判決書(shū)該如何寫(xiě)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 李滇;當(dāng)代中國(guó)判決理由合理性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

2 肖暉;中國(guó)判決理由的傳統(tǒng)與現(xiàn)代轉(zhuǎn)型[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 曾雅;判決理由模式研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

2 陳鵬宇;判決理由中已決事項(xiàng)的效力研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

3 吳夢(mèng)綺;司法判決理由研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2017年

4 宋立群;論我國(guó)民事判決書(shū)的結(jié)構(gòu)和說(shuō)理方法改革[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2017年

5 孫婷婷;判決理由研究[D];西北師范大學(xué);2008年

6 劉會(huì)娟;判決理由的正當(dāng)性與“現(xiàn)行觀念”的博弈[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

7 宋嬌嬌;判決理由研究[D];太原科技大學(xué);2012年

8 劉文峰;刑事判決理由問(wèn)題研究[D];河北大學(xué);2006年

9 韓邦舜;判決理由的功能及其完善途徑[D];南京師范大學(xué);2007年

10 郭文娟;民事判決理由的效力研究[D];山西大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2163891