【作者】 张华；

【导师】 马得华；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 最高人民法院提供的裁判规则是司法裁判的重要基础。最高人民法院习惯于通过制定和发布司法解释、制定和发布司法解释性文件、遴选和发布指导性案例以及亲自审理个案的方式向司法提供裁判规则。既有的规则供给模式在逻辑上和实践中存在着一定的瑕疵或问题,影响或制约了裁判规则供给模式制度价值的发挥,由此招致学界不少批评。学界一般认为应当通过强化指导性案例和个案裁判的作用,淡化或抹除司法解释文件和司法解释性文件的作用的方法,从根本上提升最高人民法院裁判规则供给模式的运行效率和实践效果。虽然现有的裁判规则供给模式并不完美,学界的不少批评也不乏道理,但是最高法院的裁判规则供给模式仍然多年未变,最高法院似乎对学术批评不为所动。最高法院的裁判规则供给模式之所以多年未变,是因为现有的规则供给模式大致符合法院功能的要求,在总体上是合理的。研究表明,最高法院的裁判规则承载着多种功能,每一种功能都是最高法院必须要实现的功能。虽然这些功能可区分为司法性功能和非司法性功能、主要功能和次要功能等,某些功能看似无足轻重,但实际上这些功能都无法摒弃。功能多元带来的结果是最高法院的规则供给路径也是多元的。那些与司法权关系不大的裁判规则之所以能够继续存在是因为其承载着必须要完成的任务。一方面,对于统一法律适用功能而言,司法解释是至关重要的,舍此则司法活动恐难以为继。另一方面,对于公共政策参与功能而言,司法解释性文件是不可或缺的,舍此将会导致政策效果大打折扣。指导性案例、个案裁判在实现法院功能方面有其独特价值,司法解释、司法解释性文件在实现法院功能方面亦有其自身优势,不能否弃其中任何一种。当然,现有的裁判规则供给模式并未充分实现其承载的法院功能,模式与功能之间存在着有待补缺的间隙,法院功能的实现程度仍有待进一步提升,这是需要努力改变之处。为了实现模式选择与功能承担的最佳匹配,促进裁判规则的价值释放与法院功能的充分实现,必须要解决两个问题。其一是既有裁判规则之间的关系问题,也即不同供给方式如何分工以更好地实现供给模式与法院功能相匹配的问题;其二是指导性案例取得更多份额之后如何发挥作用以更好地实现其承载的功能的问题。对于第一个问题,指导性案例在法律适用中的低度参与限制了最高法院统一法律适用功能的发挥,应当提升指导性案例的地位,给指导性案例释放一定的制度空间。对于第二个问题,最高法院的所有个案裁判都上升为指导性案例,是一条可能的进路。最高法院的所有个案裁判都上升为指导性案例虽然存在着一定的阻力和风险,但总体来说仍是利大于弊的,因而应当都上升为指导性案例。本文将首先对最高人民法院的裁判规则供给模式进行梳理,廓清现有裁判规则供给模式饱受非议的主要原因。然后分析最高人民法院的裁判规则对其所承载功能的完成情况,也即裁判规则对其所承载的司法性功能和非司法性功能的完成情况。在分析功能完成情况的基础上,证成现有裁判规则供给模式的整体合理性,同时发现功能实现过程中的问题。最后,对学界的批评进行回应,探寻更加符合法院功能运行逻辑的裁判规则供给模式,找到对现有供给模式进行调适的具体方法,从而使得最高法院的功能与裁判规则的价值得到充分释放和实现。更多还原

【Abstract】 The rules provided by the Supreme People’s Court are the basis of judicial activities.The Supreme People’s Court is accustomed to providing judicial rules to the judiciary by formulating and issuing judicial interpretations,formulating and issuing documents of judicial interpretation,selecting and issuing guiding cases,and personally adjudicating cases.The existing mode of rule supply has some defects or problems in logic and practice,which affects or restricts the play of the system value of the mode of rule supply in judicial system.The academic community generally believes that the practical effect of the judicial rules of the Supreme People’s Court should be improved fundamentally by strengthening the role of guiding cases and case judgments,and weakening or eliminating the role of judicial interpretation documents and judicial interpretation documents.Although the current supply model of judicial rules is not perfect and the criticism from the academic community is not without reason,the supply model of judicial rules of the Supreme People’s Court has not changed for many years,and the Supreme People’s Court seems unmoved by the academic criticism.The reason why the supply pattern of judicial rules of the Supreme People’s Court has not changed for many years is that the existing supply pattern of rules roughly conforms to the requirements of the court’s function and is generally reasonable.The research shows that the judicial rule of the Supreme People’s Court carries multiple functions,and each function is a function that the Supreme People’s Court must fulfill.Although these functions can be distinguished into judicial function and non-judicial function,main function and secondary function,some functions seem insignificant,all of these functions can not be dismissed.As a result of the diversification of functions,the supply path of the Supreme People’s Court’s rules is also diversified.Judicial rules that have little to do with jurisdiction survive because of the tasks that must be done.On the one hand,the judicial interpretation is crucial to the unification of the applicable function of law.On the other hand,for the public policy participation function,judicial explanatory documents are indispensable,which will lead to the policy effect will be greatly reduced.Although guiding cases and case judgments have their unique value in realizing the function of the court,judicial interpretation and judicial interpretation documents also have their own advantages in realizing the function of the court.Of course,the existing supply mode of judicial rules does not fully realize the court function it carries,and there is a gap between the mode and the function to be filled,the realization degree of the court function still needs to be further improved.This is where efforts should be made to change.In order to realize the best match between pattern selection and function,to promote the value release of judicial rules and the full realization of court function,two problems must be solved.The first is the relationship between the existing judicial rules,that is,how to divide the labor among different supply methods to better realize the matching between the supply mode and the function of the court.The second is how to play the role of the guiding cases after getting more shares to better realize its bearing function.As for the first question,the low participation of guiding cases in the application of law limits the Supreme People’s Court’s function of unifying the application of law,and the status of guiding cases should be enhanced to release certain institutional space for guiding cases.On the second question,raising all Supreme People’s Court decisions as guidance cases is a possible way forward.All the decisions of the Supreme People’s Court should be raised as guiding cases.Although there are some obstacles and risks,the overall advantages outweigh the disadvantages,so they should be raised as guiding cases.This paper will first sort out the supply mode of judicial rules of the Supreme People’s Court and clarify the main reasons why the current supply mode of judicial rules has been criticized.Then this paper will analyze the judicial rules of the Supreme People’s Court to the realization of its carrying function,that is,the judicial rules to the carrying of the judicial function and non-judicial function of the realization of the situation.On the basis of analyzing the realization of functions,this paper proves the overall rationality of the existing supply mode of judicial rules,and finds the gap and problems between functions and modes.Finally,this paper will respond to the criticism from the academic community,explore the supply mode of judicial rules that is more consistent with the logic of the court’s function operation,and find the specific method to adjust the existing supply mode,so as to fully release and realize the function of the Supreme People’s Court and the value of judicial rules.更多还原