中美司法方法的三大共通点
|
摘要
在全球法治现代化的过程中,正当程序是英美法系和大陆法系公认的法治要素之一,是中美法官处理纠纷的共同制度前提。中美都需要客观公正的程序使诉辩双方信赖司法裁判的过程,同时也需要能够贯彻形式法治的司法方法。在程序法治之下,中美法官所运用的司法方法有三大共同点:其一是遵循释义学解释,中美法官执业的第一要求均是首先理解法律文本的意义;其二是坚守形式理性,在结合案件事实适用法律时应确保推理过程不掺杂非理性的因素,中美法官均在可预测的诉讼程序之上借助全国统一的法律数据库和智能系统进一步确保实体法裁判尺度统一;其三是追求法律之真,现代科技的蓬勃发展使得现代法治国家更加重视物证基础上的法律真实。
In today's world,different backgrounds and social development of the country towards the rule of law in the process of modernization.The Principle of Due Process of Law is one of the universally accepted elements of Rule of Law for both anglo-american law system and continental law system.China and U.S. both are in need of fair procedures to promote the judicial faith of people.Ruling the country by law firstly means ruling the country by procedural law in some meaning.The level of the rule of law of a certain country lies in the just procedural law to great extent.Thus,both Chinese and U.S. justices need to take due process of law seriously and they share three things in common in order to carry out the principle:Firstly,literal interpretation method has an absolutely preference than other methods; Secondly, justices must act according to the demands of form rationality;Thirdly,the standard of proof in judicial procedure is legal truth.As the guardian of the rule of law, justices should respectfully understand the meaning of the substantive rules.Meanwhile, they should follow rational procedural rules to make sure citizens' rights are protected and realized in a way we can see.Finally,given the lessons of laying stress on confessions, both two countries are giving increasingly weight to evidence, especially scientific evidence.With the rapid development of science and technology, we can archive objective truth to a great extent.
In today's world,different backgrounds and social development of the country towards the rule of law in the process of modernization.The Principle of Due Process of Law is one of the universally accepted elements of Rule of Law for both anglo-american law system and continental law system.China and U.S. both are in need of fair procedures to promote the judicial faith of people.Ruling the country by law firstly means ruling the country by procedural law in some meaning.The level of the rule of law of a certain country lies in the just procedural law to great extent.Thus,both Chinese and U.S. justices need to take due process of law seriously and they share three things in common in order to carry out the principle:Firstly,literal interpretation method has an absolutely preference than other methods; Secondly, justices must act according to the demands of form rationality;Thirdly,the standard of proof in judicial procedure is legal truth.As the guardian of the rule of law, justices should respectfully understand the meaning of the substantive rules.Meanwhile, they should follow rational procedural rules to make sure citizens' rights are protected and realized in a way we can see.Finally,given the lessons of laying stress on confessions, both two countries are giving increasingly weight to evidence, especially scientific evidence.With the rapid development of science and technology, we can archive objective truth to a great extent.
引文
[1]苏力.法律人的思维[J].北大法律评论,2013(2):429-469.
[2]Roberto Mangabeira Unger.Law in Modern Society:Toward a Criticism of Social Theory[M].New York:The Free Press,1977:203-204.
[3]Malinski v.New York,324 U.S.401,414(1945).
[4]季卫东.大变局下的中国法治[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:85-86.
[5][德]海因·克茨著.比较法学与法教义学[J].夏昊晗,译.北航法律评论,2015(1):36.
[6]John Austin,The Province of Jurisprudence Determined[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,1995:73.
[7][美]安东宁·斯卡利亚著.联邦法院如何解释法律[M].蒋惠岭,黄斌,译,张泰苏,校.北京:中国法制出版社,2017:16-17.
[8]Chisom et al.v.Roemer,Governor of Louisiana,et al.,501 U.S.380,410-417(1991)(Scalia,J.,dissenting).
[9]Crandon et al.v.United States,494 U.S.152,168-184(1990)(Scalia,J.,concurring in judgment).
[10][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003:77.
[11]United States v.Butler,297 U.S.1(1936)(Stone,J.,dissenting).
[12]何柏生.法律文化的数学解释[M].北京:商务印书馆,2015:202-205.
[13]Koon v.United States,518 U.S.81(1996).
[14][美]加里·沃塞曼著.美国政治基础[M].陆震纶等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1994:149-151.
[15]何家弘.法苑杂谈[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2000:155-156.
[16]Gross,Samuel R.,Jacoby,Kristen,Matheson,Daniel J.,Montgomery,Nicholas.Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003[J].Journal of Criminal Law&Criminology,2005,(2):524.
[2]Roberto Mangabeira Unger.Law in Modern Society:Toward a Criticism of Social Theory[M].New York:The Free Press,1977:203-204.
[3]Malinski v.New York,324 U.S.401,414(1945).
[4]季卫东.大变局下的中国法治[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2013:85-86.
[5][德]海因·克茨著.比较法学与法教义学[J].夏昊晗,译.北航法律评论,2015(1):36.
[6]John Austin,The Province of Jurisprudence Determined[M].New York:Cambridge University Press,1995:73.
[7][美]安东宁·斯卡利亚著.联邦法院如何解释法律[M].蒋惠岭,黄斌,译,张泰苏,校.北京:中国法制出版社,2017:16-17.
[8]Chisom et al.v.Roemer,Governor of Louisiana,et al.,501 U.S.380,410-417(1991)(Scalia,J.,dissenting).
[9]Crandon et al.v.United States,494 U.S.152,168-184(1990)(Scalia,J.,concurring in judgment).
[10][德]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003:77.
[11]United States v.Butler,297 U.S.1(1936)(Stone,J.,dissenting).
[12]何柏生.法律文化的数学解释[M].北京:商务印书馆,2015:202-205.
[13]Koon v.United States,518 U.S.81(1996).
[14][美]加里·沃塞曼著.美国政治基础[M].陆震纶等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1994:149-151.
[15]何家弘.法苑杂谈[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2000:155-156.
[16]Gross,Samuel R.,Jacoby,Kristen,Matheson,Daniel J.,Montgomery,Nicholas.Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003[J].Journal of Criminal Law&Criminology,2005,(2):524.