关于我国司法审判中的法律推理研究

The Research on the Legal Reasoning of China Judicial Judgment

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

王坤

导师:

卢景德

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

法律推理;问题;完善途径

摘要:

近年来,国内外专家学者对于法律推理展开了广泛而深入的研究,根据法律推理内容的差异性,学者对法律推理有不同的认识。大多数学者认为法律推理的过程是形式逻辑推理与辨证推理的结合,既有形式合法性的外在诉求,又有实质合理性的内在追寻。本文通过对司法审判活动中法官运用的法律推理进行相关分析研究,以勾勒出法律推理的粗略面貌。 论文正文共分三部分。 第一部分是法律推理的概述,主要从法律推理的概念、分类、特征等方面进行了简单的梳理,指出了目前有关法律推理的研究状况。依据传统的观点,法律推理主要分为形式法律推理和实质法律推理。形式法律推理,是从法律推理的形式结构上加以认识,着重对法律推理大小前提的逻辑关系进行分析,暂时撇开了法律推理中前提和结论判断所反映的具体内容,它主要包含了演绎推理和归纳推理。而实质法律推理是在法律适用过程中,在对相关的法律的规定或案件的事实进行分析的基础上,结合一定的价值判断,对案件作出判决的推理过程,实质法律推理和形式法律推理的联系非常紧密,实质法律推理是对形式法律推理的有益补充,而形式法律推理是实质法律推理的前提,两者共存于司法实践当中,缺一不可。此外,文中还分析了实践中法律推理的主要方法,有助于更好地对其进行运用。法律推理作为一种思维模式和技术方法,有着与众不同的特征,它表现的是一种逻辑与经验相结合,以实现法治为目标,并且推理主体发挥主观能动性的过程。 第二部分主要对我国司法实践中的法律推理所存在的问题进行研究,指出了法律推理在审判中的应用存在着哪些瓶颈。由于受长期的历史传统和司法习惯的影响,实践中的法律推理存在着许多不足之处,如重法律知识轻推理能力、重言词证据轻逻辑推理、重法条援引轻理由阐述、重形式法律推理轻实质法律推理等。 第三部分通过审视我国司法实践中运用法律推理存在的诸多问题,从理论与实践的双重视野来探寻问题的解决路径。在理论视角下,本文首先分析了形式法律推理的局限性,然后重点强调了实质法律推理的价值,实质法律推理关注推理的内容,并把对推理前提的证成纳入到了其关怀之中,承认价值判断的存在,是对形式法律推理缺陷的弥补。在实践层面上,在对现今司法审判存在的问题进行分析的基础上,提出一些解决措施如:必须提高法官逻辑推理素质、加强最高法院判例对案件的参考性、明确裁判文书的推理过程、加强证据规则的改革、加强司法审判体制改革等。要解决我国法律推理的现实困境,必须从这些方面入手,循序渐进,不断增强法官运用法律推理的自觉性与技术性,为我国司法发展做出努力。

学科:

法学理论

提交日期

2018-01-11

引用参考

王坤. 关于我国司法审判中的法律推理研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2010.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 关于我国司法审判中的法律推理研究
  • dc.title
  • The Research on the Legal Reasoning of China Judicial Judgment
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 200703012100681
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 王坤
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2010
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 卢景德
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 法律推理;;问题;;完善途径
  • dc.subject
  • Legal reasoning;; Probloms;; Perfection
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 近年来,国内外专家学者对于法律推理展开了广泛而深入的研究,根据法律推理内容的差异性,学者对法律推理有不同的认识。大多数学者认为法律推理的过程是形式逻辑推理与辨证推理的结合,既有形式合法性的外在诉求,又有实质合理性的内在追寻。本文通过对司法审判活动中法官运用的法律推理进行相关分析研究,以勾勒出法律推理的粗略面貌。 论文正文共分三部分。 第一部分是法律推理的概述,主要从法律推理的概念、分类、特征等方面进行了简单的梳理,指出了目前有关法律推理的研究状况。依据传统的观点,法律推理主要分为形式法律推理和实质法律推理。形式法律推理,是从法律推理的形式结构上加以认识,着重对法律推理大小前提的逻辑关系进行分析,暂时撇开了法律推理中前提和结论判断所反映的具体内容,它主要包含了演绎推理和归纳推理。而实质法律推理是在法律适用过程中,在对相关的法律的规定或案件的事实进行分析的基础上,结合一定的价值判断,对案件作出判决的推理过程,实质法律推理和形式法律推理的联系非常紧密,实质法律推理是对形式法律推理的有益补充,而形式法律推理是实质法律推理的前提,两者共存于司法实践当中,缺一不可。此外,文中还分析了实践中法律推理的主要方法,有助于更好地对其进行运用。法律推理作为一种思维模式和技术方法,有着与众不同的特征,它表现的是一种逻辑与经验相结合,以实现法治为目标,并且推理主体发挥主观能动性的过程。 第二部分主要对我国司法实践中的法律推理所存在的问题进行研究,指出了法律推理在审判中的应用存在着哪些瓶颈。由于受长期的历史传统和司法习惯的影响,实践中的法律推理存在着许多不足之处,如重法律知识轻推理能力、重言词证据轻逻辑推理、重法条援引轻理由阐述、重形式法律推理轻实质法律推理等。 第三部分通过审视我国司法实践中运用法律推理存在的诸多问题,从理论与实践的双重视野来探寻问题的解决路径。在理论视角下,本文首先分析了形式法律推理的局限性,然后重点强调了实质法律推理的价值,实质法律推理关注推理的内容,并把对推理前提的证成纳入到了其关怀之中,承认价值判断的存在,是对形式法律推理缺陷的弥补。在实践层面上,在对现今司法审判存在的问题进行分析的基础上,提出一些解决措施如:必须提高法官逻辑推理素质、加强最高法院判例对案件的参考性、明确裁判文书的推理过程、加强证据规则的改革、加强司法审判体制改革等。要解决我国法律推理的现实困境,必须从这些方面入手,循序渐进,不断增强法官运用法律推理的自觉性与技术性,为我国司法发展做出努力。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In recent years, domestic and foreign experts and scholars for the legal reasoning carried out extensive and in-depth study. According to legal reasoning involved in the contents of the level of differences, some scholors have different understanding. But most of them think the process of legal reasoning is a combination of the form of logical reasoning and dialectical reasoning, in which there is the external demands about legitimacy of the form and also the substantive rationality inherent to pursue. In this paper, we will make the study of the judge in a judicial activities related to the use of the reasoning analysis, to outline a rough face of legal reasoning. Three parts are included in this paper . In the first part we outline the definition, categories and charactors of the legal reasoning ,also we simply introduce the the study of this topic now. The most common point of view based on the existing, legal reasoning can be divided into form and substance of legal reasoning. The formal legal reasoning , is the analytical study of the structure, focusing on the study of the logical relationship between the big and small premise, temporarily set aside the specific content of the premises of legal reasoning and conclusions. Forms of legal reasoning can include two kinds of deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. The substantive legal reasoning in the legal process of the application, in the relevant provisions of the law or the facts of the case on the basis of the analysis, combined with a certain degree of value judgments, to make judgments on the cases of the reasoning model. It makes a close relationship with the formal legal reasoning and a useful complement to it, both of which coexist in the judicial practice. The analysis of the methods about it can help us use it better. Legal reasoning as an independent mode of thinking and techniques, has distinctive characteristics. It is a process in which it is a combination of logic and experience to achieve the objectives of the rule of law and is the person of reasoning to take the initiative. In the second part we analyse the probloms exsisting in the practice of the legal reasoning . Due to the long history of traditions and habits influence the judiciary,the administration of justice in the legal reasoning of the relevant studies are still in a very immature stage. For the legal reasoning, there are many shortcomings in the practice of jurisdiction, such as the emphasis on legal knowledge, and contempt of the reasoning ability, the evidence of words but not logical reasoning ,the rules of law but not the reasons reasoning and the formal reasoning but not the substantive reasoning. In the last one by looking at the existence of many problems on the use of legal reasoning in our country's trial practice, this article from the theory and practice, double vision to explore problems in the path. In the theoretical perspective, firstly this paper analyses the limitations of the formal reasoning and the focus on strengths of the real value of the substantive legal reasoning. This form of legal reasoning orients in content, putting the rechtfertigung of the premise into its care and recognizing the existence of value judgments, it is to compensation of the defects of the formal legal reasoning. In practice, after the analysis of the problems of the justice , we make some suggestion , for example we need to improve the quality of logical reasoning of judges, strengthen the binding effect of the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the case, clear the course of the reasoning in the sentence ,strengthen the reform of the rules of evidence and strengthen the reform of the justice system. To resolve the reality of the plight of China's legal reasoning, the two-pronged approach must be gradual and orderly manner, and constantly enhance the consciousness of judges in applying legal reasoning and the technology, and make efforts in the development of the jurisdiction.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D90-051
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2010-03-01
回到顶部