指导性案例主/被动援引规则之重构

Reconstructing the Active and Passive Citation Rules of Guiding Cases

法官援引指导性案例可分为主动援引和被动援引两种类型,但由于《〈最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定〉实施细则》中的主/被动援引规则不附条件和后果,且主动援引规则和被动援引规则之间缺乏必要的限制和关联,所以出现了援引规则被虚置的制度困境。为解除困境,需要对指导性案例的主/被动援引规则进行重构。通过对判例法制度中主/被动援引情况的考察可发现,在判例法制度下,鉴于先例的法律证据地位,以及先例与先例规则相互区分等多重因素的影响,律师负有先例调查的义务,而法官对先例的主动查询、援引则一般持相对克制的态度。于是,比照判例法的制度逻辑和经验,从当前中国法体系出发,首先确立指导性案例在我国的特殊法源定位,即作为说理依据的非正式法源,然后在考量所有可能的重构方案的基础上,将主/被动援引规则最终修正为规则R1′+R2+RC3+RC3′模式。

The citation of guiding cases could be divided into two types:the active citation and the passive citation. Due to the absence of application conditions and consequences of the active/passive citation rules in the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Case Guidance, and the lack of necessary restrictions and connections between the active citation rules and the passive citation rules, a institutional dilemma in which the citation rules are illusory has arisen. In order to solve the dilemma, it is necessary to reconstruct the active/passive citation rules of guiding cases. Through the investigation of the active/passive citation of the case law system, a conclusion is that lawyers undertake the responsibility to investigate precedents, while judges show a relatively restrained attitude towards the active inquiry and citation of precedents. It is a result of multiple factors: the function of the precedents as the evidence, and a distinction between precedents and precedent rules, etc. Making a reference to the institutional logic and the application experience of the case law system, and relying on the current Chinese legal system, it is better to establish the guiding cases’ special position as a source of law firstly, i.e., the informal source of the ground of reasoning. Secondly, on the basis of comparing different reconstruction schemes, it is better to construct the active/passive citation rules as the R1′+R2+RC3+RC3′mode.