论文部分内容阅读
1985-2007,《最高人民法院公报》以“司法解释”名义总计发布审判解释581件,现已有42件被废止,尚有效的有539件。在581份文件中,有90%的司法解释是由最高人民法院独家发布的。审判解释曾经使用的名称多达14种,不过2000年以后,主要使用的是“解释”、“批复”、“规定”三种。这表明,审判解释趋于规范。审判解释在实践中的功能主要在于:规范审判工作,弥补法律漏洞,造法,废止司法解释,创设法院体制等等。在解释方法上,审判解释先后使用了字面、限制、扩张、目的解释等方法,不过,我们很难从审判解释中归纳出一种可以用来指导法官解释法律的普适方法。审判解释存在的主要问题是:名称使用不规范,废止过程中存在前后名称不一、分类不一致、对原公布时间标示错误等。另外有的审判解释在此前没有公布,违反了法律公开性的要求。
From 1985 to 2007, the Supreme People’s Court Communique issued a total of 581 trial interpretations in the name of “judicial interpretation”, of which 42 have now been abolished and 539 are still valid. Of the 581 documents, 90% of judicial interpretations are exclusively published by the Supreme People’s Court. The trial explained that as many as 14 kinds of names were used, but after 2000, three kinds of “explanation”, “approval” and “regulation” were mainly used. This shows that trial interpretation tends to regulate. The function of trial explanation in practice mainly lies in: regulating the trial work, making up the loopholes in law, making law, abolishing the judicial interpretation, establishing the court system and so on. Judicial explanations have used literal, limit, expansion and purposeful explanations in terms of method of interpretation. However, it is very difficult for us to conclude from the trial’s explanation a universal method that can be used to guide the judge in interpreting the law. Judicial interpretation of the main problems are: the use of non-standard name, the abolition of the name before and after the existence of inconsistencies, the classification is inconsistent, the original announcement of the time wrongly labeled. In addition, some trial explanations have not been published before, violating the requirement of legal openness.