论指导性案例的效力类型——基于对“应当参照”误解的澄清

On the Types of Validity of Guiding Cases:Based on Clarifying the Misunderstanding of“Should Refer to”

在用语上,从“借鉴”到“应当参照”的变化折射出指导性案例的效力经历了走强的过程。“应当参照”在语义逻辑上并不存在矛盾,其中,“应当”意味着适用指导性案例对于法官来说是一种强制性义务,“参照”则意味着指导性案例的效力地位低于法律、法规等高位阶法源。在对误解做出澄清之际,为促使法官的自由裁量权走向明确化和规范化,需要对指导性案例的效力类型进行清晰的界定。在法律义务的框架下,对效力类型的谱系进行多元化的建构,即将法律义务之效力划分为严格的约束力、宽松的约束力、可被废止的约束力、可被推翻或修正的约束力等四种类型。以此反观指导性案例可以发现,其效力类型并非单一,而是涵盖了前三种。

In terms of the words,the change from“use for reference”to“should refer to”reflects that the validity of guiding cases has gone through a process of strengthening.The words“should refer to”have no contradiction in semantic logic.Among them,“should”means that applying guiding cases is a compulsory obligation for the judges,and“refer to”means that the validity-status of guiding cases is lower than the higher-order sources of law such as laws and regulations.In order to specify and standardize the discretion of judges,it is necessary to clearly define the types of validity of guiding cases.Under the framework of legal obligation,the validity of legal obligation is divided into four types:strict binding force,loose binding force,binding force that can be defeated,and binding force that can be overruled or modified.Through the analysis based on that division,the conclusion can be drawn that guiding cases don't have only one type of validity,but cover the first three.