摘要
“法官裁判说理可否援引学界非通说”是法律学说适用问题之核心,也是讨论法律学说援引方式之基础。尽管否定论者对允许法官适用非通说提出了三项质疑,但这些观点均是错失焦点的,难以证成“应当禁止法官适用非通说”这一主张。而允许法官援引非通说具有必要性与可行性,且这对于裁判正义、效率价值的实现以及对促进理论界与实务界之互动都具有重大意义,因而,应当允许法官在司法裁判中援引非通说。但与此同时,允许非通说之适用不代表法官即可随意适用非通说,而是应遵从通说优先适用、非通说慎用之原则,在通说缺位或发现通说确有错误的情况下,方可适用非通说,且法官适用非通说时应辅以详尽论证,以注明学说出处、学者姓名的方式援引非通说。
The question of“whether a judge can apply non general legal doctrines in judicial reasoning”is central to the application of legal doctrine.The answer to this question is also the basis for the discussion of how legal doctrines are invoked applied in judgment.Although there are three criticisms against allowing judges to apply non general doctrines,they are undoubtedly out of focus and can not support the proposition that judges should be prohibited from applying non general doctrines.It is necessary and feasible to allow judges to invoke non general doctrines,and this is of great significance to the realization of justice and efficiency in judicial decisions and to the promotion of interaction between theoretical and practical circles,so judges should be allowed to invoke non commons in judicial decisions.However,allowing the application of non general doctrines does not mean that judges can apply non generals at will.To begin with,judges have to comply with the principle of priority application of generals and careful use of non generals.What's more,they can only apply non generals when generals are absent or found to be wrong.Last but not least,when judges choose to cite legal doctrines,they need to indicate the scholar's name and the source of the doctrines with extensive argumentation.
作者
张鑫虎
Zhang Xinhu(School of Law,East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 200042,China)
出处
《中南财经政法大学研究生论丛》
2021年第6期123-132,共10页
Journal of the Postgraduates of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
关键词
裁判说理
法律学说
通说
显名式援引
Judicial Reasoning
Legal Doctrine
General Doctrines
Direct Citation
