司法判决有效性理论:从“三足鼎立”到“三位一体”

The validity of judicial judgment: from “A Situation of Tripartite Confrontation” to “Three In One”

对于司法判决的有效性问题,主要有三派理论:哈特的规则论将法律当做规则系统,强调司法判决的确定性;德沃金的原则论强调法律由规则和原则组成,寄托于超强的克拉赫勒斯式法官保证司法判决的正确性;哈贝马斯的商谈论则寄望于主体间的商谈程序保证司法判决的确定性和正确性。三派理论都片面地反映了司法判决的有效性,只有严密的规则体系、超强的法官能力和平等的商谈程序这三位一体才能保证司法判决的有效性。

There are three main theories for the validity of judicial judgment： Hart’s regulation regarded law as regulation system, emphazing the certainty of judicial judgment;Dworkin’s principle emphasized that the law should be made up of regulation and principle, entrusting the care of the judge like Hercules to guarantee of correctness of judicial judgment; Habermas’ discussion kept an eye on the discussion procedure between every subject to guarantee both certainty and correctness of judicial judgment. The three theories all reflect the validity of judicial judgment from only one side. We should roll rigorous regulation system, superstrong judge ability and equal discuss procedure into one, so as to guarantee the validity of judicial judgment.