社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的方法论反思
雷磊社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的方法论反思
Methodological Reflections on Core Socialist Valuesinto Judicial Decisions
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：雷磊
单位：
中文关键词：社会主义核心价值观;法律原则;裁判理由;裁判依据;具体化论证
英文关键词：core socialist values; legal principle; reasons for adjudication; grounds for adjudication; argumentative concretization
中文摘要：
从最高人民法院发布的典型案例来看，目前社会主义核心价值观的司法适用存在显现度不够、释法功能较弱、价值宣示色彩过浓、结合个案进行的“融入式”论证不足等问题，有必要对核心价值观融入司法裁判的方法论进行系统反思。核心价值观入法入宪后，已从纯粹的道德范畴或司法政策转变为当代中国法的效力渊源，成为法律体系和规范理论双重意义上的法律原则。核心价值观可通过三种途径融入司法裁判：作为裁判理由发挥说理功能、作为裁判依据发挥广义上的释法功能、在特定情况下作为价值冲突的解决基础。广义上的释法功能可通过法律解释、漏洞填补或法律修正三种方式实现。核心价值观融入司法裁判的前提在于，结合个案事实对核心价值观进行具体化论证。核心价值观的具体化论证以实践多段论为形式，且至少应当符合饱和性规则、连贯性规则和切合性规则。
英文摘要：
An analysis of the typical cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court shows that the current judicial application of core socialist values has the problems of insufficient visibility, weak interpretation function, a strong color of value declaration, and inadequate argumentative integration into individual cases. Therefore, it is necessary to make methodological reflections on the systematic integration of core socialist values into judicial decisions. After being incorporated into statutes and Chinese Constitution, core socialist values have transformed from a pure moral category or judicial policy into the source of validity of contemporary Chinese law and become a legal principle in both the legal system and normative theory. There are three ways for core socialist values to be integrated into judicial decisions, i.e., performing the function of persuasion as reasons for adjudication, performing the function of law explication in a broad sense as grounds for adjudication, and serving as a basis for resolving value conflicts on particular occasions. The function of law explication in a broad sense can be performed in three ways, i.e., legal interpretation, gap-filling and law reduction. The prerequisite for the integration of core socialist values into judicial decisions is to concretize the core values based on the facts of the case in argumentation. The argumentative concretization process should conform to the form of “multi-step practical syllogism” and at least comply with rules of saturation, consistency and suitability.
全文阅读： 点击下载
