通过法律论证的司法正义——两大法系之比较及其启示

Judicial Justice through Legal Reasoning:Comparison and Enlightenment of Two Legal Systems

法律论证是法治社会实现司法正义的最佳方式,它展示了司法正义的产生过程,让"正义"以看得见的方式得到实现。两大法系都将法律论证作为实现司法正义的共同手段,但在实现司法正义的具体方式上各有区别。就英美法系而言,司法的形式正义与实质正义分别是通过遵循先例和推翻、创设先例来实现的;而大陆法系则是通过服从制定法与克服制定法的局限来分别实现的。但不同的法系也存在相同的规范性内容,这也为我国的理性司法之路提供了宝贵的启示,即进一步完善立法,减少制定法局限,同时法官应在遵守法律论证规则的相关约束下,充分展开内部证成的步骤,积极主动地进行司法正义的论证。

Legal reasoning is the best way to achieve judicial justice for a society ruled by law, it shows how judicial justice produce, thus justice can be realized by the way seen by everyone. The two legal systems both regard legal reasoning as the same way to achieve judicial justice, but they are different in the specific method. In the common law system, the realization of formal justice is by the legal reasoning of stare decisis, while to achieve substantive justice by the legal reasoning of overrule precedent and create precedent. The civil law system achieves formal jus- tice mainly through the legal reasoning of obedience to the positive law, and through legal reasoning of overcoming the limitations of positive law to achieve substantial justice. While different legal systems have the same normative content, which also provide us valuable insights that we should improve legislation further, reduce the limitations of positive law. At the same time, judges should comply with the constraints of the rules of legal reasoning, fully con- ducting the internal certificate and actively carry out the legal reasoning of judicial justice.