司法裁判说理援引法律学说的功能主义反思

Functionalist Reflection on the Application of Legal Doctrine in Judicial Judgments

司法裁判如何援引法律学说进行说理,是一个需要在功能主义视角下被重新审视的问题。美国、德国和法国的情况分别代表了实质主义说理、法律职业共同体思维下的说理和形式主义说理三种说理风格中,司法裁判援引法律学说进行说理的不同功能进路。经验研究显示,我国司法裁判说理很少援引法律学说,且呈现出"不敢具体援引"等明显特征,其原因包含了外部和内部的各种制度性限制。在"司法为民"理念的指引下,我国法律学说的理想功能是,在重大、疑难案件发生时,承担起沟通司法系统与公众认知的系统中介的角色。这就要求我们改进制度设计,促进法学研究与司法实践之间的良性互动,探索出一条司法裁判说理援引法律学说的中国式道路。

How to apply legal doctrine in judicial reasoning?This is a problem that needs to be re-examined from a functionalist perspective.The situations in the United States,Germany and France respectively represent the different functional approaches for applying legal doctrine in three reasoning styles:substantialism,professionalism and formalism.Empirical study indicates that Chinese judicial judgments rarely cite legal doctrine,showing obvious characteristics such as"dare not to invoke specifically",for reasons of various external and internal institutional restrictions.Under the guidance of"justice for the people",the ideal role of legal doctrine in China is to constitute the intermediation between legal system and public cognition when the hard cases occur,which requires us to improve the institutional designs,in order to promote the positive interaction between legal research and judicial practice,and to explore a Chinese way of doctrine citation in judicial reasoning.