【作者】 李海波；

【导师】 张杨；

【作者基本信息】 沈阳工业大学 ， 法学理论， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 “习近平法治思想”指出,必须牢牢把握社会公平正义这一法治价值追求,努力让人民群众在每一项法律制度、每一个执法决定、每一宗司法案件中都感受到公平正义。在司法裁判过程中,法官具有维护社会公平正义的先天属性,这决定法官要掌握形式逻辑推理和实质追求正义的双项技能。众所周知,传统演绎三段论推理并不能全部解决社会发展过程中的利益冲突,造成裁判的显失正义。要想在司法裁判中真正实现司法公正,有必要借助利益衡量的方法。在“习近平法治思想”和百年未有大变局的时代背景下,选择司法过程中法官利益衡量研究作为论文研究课题具有重大理论和实践意义。文章采用了文献分析法、历史分析法、理论联系实际法等方法进行论文研究写作。其核心创新点在于深入阐述了法官适用利益衡量的原因、利益衡量出现的问题及原因分析及如何对法官利益衡量进行规制。从尽可能多的角度完善法官在司法裁判中利益衡量的理论,以切实保障人民群众追求司法公平正义的需求。首先,论文分别从以德国、美国、日本、中国为代表的国家阐释利益衡量的历史演进,界定利益衡量的概念,并概括出利益衡量理论的重要特征,同时阐释出利益衡量的本质。其次,论文进一步介绍司法裁判中法官适用利益衡量的原因。法官基于司法过程的性质和法官职责、以及法律自身的局限性和利益衡量具有独特的追求正义的作用三个因素使其选择该方法作为裁判案件的方法。与此同时,论文阐释了在司法裁判中法官适用利益衡量存在的问题以及原因分析。介绍法官在适用利益衡量不当会产生衡量缺位、恣意衡量、衡量错误、衡量瑕疵等问题,并进一步分析产生问题的原因。最后,论文是介绍司法裁判中法官适用利益衡量进行裁判的规制和评估。分别从明确利益结构层次和界限、推动竞争的司法知识市场、规范司法裁判三个方面对法官适用利益衡量进行规制,与此同时,利益衡量尚需从结论的法律论证、社会效果、当事人可接受程度进行评估。法官合理适用利益衡量的方法进行裁判能够克服逻辑推理可能带来的司法不公,但由于利益衡量自身特性决定需要对其进行规制,从而实现法官裁判案件的形式正义和实质正义的统一。更多还原

【Abstract】 Xi Jinping’s Thought on the Rule of Law points out that we must firmly grasp the value of social fairness and justice,and strive to make the people feel fairness and justice in every legal system,every law enforcement decision and every judicial case.In the process of judicial adjudication,judges have the innate attribute of maintaining social fairness and justice,which determines that judges should master the dual skills of formal logic reasoning and substantive justice pursuit.As we all know,traditional deductive syllogism reasoning can not solve all the conflicts of interests in the process of social development,resulting in obvious injustice of judges.In order to realize judicial justice in judicial adjudication,it is necessary to use the method of balancing interests.Under the background of "Xi Jinping’s Thought on the Rule of Law" and no great changes in a century,it is of great theoretical and practical significance to choose the research on balancing interests of judges as the research topic of this thesis.This thesis adopts the methods of literature analysis,historical analysis,theory with practice and so on.The core innovation lies in the in-depth explanation of the reasons for judges to measure interests,the problems and reasons of the measurement and how to regulate the measurement of interests of judges.The theory of balancing interests of judges in judicial adjudication should be perfected from as many angles as possible,in order to guarantee the people’s needs of pursuing judicial fairness and justice.Firstly,this thesis explains the historical evolution of the measure of interests of countries such as Germany,the United States,Japan and China,defines the concept of the measure of interests,summarizes the important features of the measure of interests,and explains the essence of the measure of interests.Secondly,this thesis further introduces the reasons for judges to apply the measure of interests.Based on the nature of judicial process,the judge’s duty,the limitation of law itself and the function of interest weighing,the judge’s interest weighing.Secondly,this thesis explains the problems for judges to apply the measure of interests,as well as the causes of the measure.Secondly,this thesis introduces the problems of improper measure of interests,such as absence of measure,arbitrary measure,error of measure and defect of measure,and further analyzes the reasons of the problems.Finally,this thesis introduces the regulations and the measure of interests of judges to apply the measure of interests.Secondly,it regulates the measure of interests from three aspects:defining the level and boundary of interest structure,promoting the competition of judicial knowledge market and standardizing the measure of interests.Meanwhile,the measure of interests needs to be evaluated from the legal demonstration of the conclusion,the social effect and the acceptability of the parties.Rational application of interest weighing in judicial decision can overcome the judicial injustice caused by logical reasoning,but it is necessary to regulate the interest weighing in order to realize the unification of formal justice and substantive justice.更多还原