最高人民法院会议纪要研究

Research on the meeting minutes of the Supreme People’s Court

会议纪要是最高人民法院印发的最主要的司法解释性质文件之一。最高人民法院的会议纪要具有规范性、引导性和协商性等特征,发挥着统一裁判标准、执行或创制公共政策以及填补法律漏洞等功能。最高人民法院之所以通过召开会议形成会议纪要,而不是通过司法解释来解决法律适用问题,乃是因为:可以运用会议纪要有效协调与其他国家机关的关系,通过会议形成会议纪要提升司法能力,以及运用会议纪要弥补司法解释制度的功能短缺。经验研究发现,会议纪要得到了各级法院的认可和遵守,但是适用会议纪要的方法和程序尚未形成共识。对此,可以从路径依赖、行政管理、硬性要求和风险防范等角度进行原因分析。从方法层面看,法官援引会议纪要需要通过法律方法进行释法说理;从程序进路来看,适用会议纪要需要严格按照正当法律程序展开,特别是要合理运用合法性审查权。经验研究和法理分析均表明,最高人民法院应当在司法改革中不断改进司法引导方式。

Meeting minutes are one of the major types of quasi-judicial-interpretation documents issued by the Supreme People’s Court. The minutes have binding force nationwide and are of great value in terms of unifying standards of adjudication, implementing or making public policies, and closing legal loopholes. The reasons why the Supreme Court applies the law through meeting minutes rather than judicial interpretation are as follows: such kind of guidance proves an effective way to address practical issues;in order to make the judicial process "down to earth", the Supreme Court should also attentively listen to the opinions of the lower level courts;in addition, meeting minutes are an effective means of coordination between the Court and the competent state organs. It was found in an empirical research that the Supreme Court’s meeting minutes have been recognized and adhered to by all lower courts, though there was no consensus regarding how to use them. The above can be analyzed from the perspectives of path dependence, public administration, hard-and-fast rule and risk prevention, etc. At the methodological level, a judge needs to present an argument by means of legal methodology when referring to the minutes;procedurally speaking, he shall follow the due process principleand resort to the right to legality review if appropriate. In an era of rule of law, the Supreme Court’s meeting minutes should no longer be deemed to be the basis for adjudication. Therefore, there is a constant need for the Supreme Court to improve its adjudication guidance in the context of judicial reform.