指导性案例法源地位再反思

Rethinking on the Status of Legal Source concerning Guiding Case

学界对于最高法院指导性案例的法源地位以及"应当参照"的规定存在争议。为此,应首先来夯实法源的理论基础即法源双层构造论:就法源性质论而言,法律渊源是司法裁判中基于制度性权威并具有规范拘束力的裁判依据;就法源分量论而言,法源拘束力的大小同时受它在法源等级序列中的位置以及依据实质理由偏离它的难度的影响。因最高法院拥有法律解释的制度性功能、法律规范的复合型确证授权以及试行立法的制度性实践,指导性案例已成为司法裁判中基于附属的制度性权威并具有弱规范拘束力的裁判依据,具备"准法源"的地位。同时,指导性案例的分量低于制定法与司法解释,并受诸多现实和制度因素的影响。

There are disputes concerning the status of legal source of guiding cases issued by the Supreme Court and the meaning of the provision concerning ＂ shall refer to＂ in contemporary China. It is thus necessary to construct the theoretical basis of legal source, i. e. the double-deck constructionism. As to nature, the legal source is deciding ground with binding force based on institutional authority; as to component theory, the degree of binding force is influenced by how it ranks in the whole hierarchy of legal sources and how difficult man can deviate from it. Due to the Supreme Court＇ s institutional function of legal interpretation, guiding cases have become deciding grounds with weak normative binding force on the basis of subordinate institutional authority. They can be deemed as ＂ quasi-legal sources＂. At the meantime, the weight of a guiding case is less than a statute or a judicial interpretation, and the guiding cases, in fact, have been effected by various realistic and institutional factors.