论文部分内容阅读
国际司法能动主义的概念是从国内法背景借用来的。司法克制主义意味着法官在司法过程中应严格信守法律规则,排斥政治、道德、政策,法官个人情感、偏见、价值观念等主观因素的影响;而能动主义则意味着司法应反映现实的变化和社会要求,敢于通过司法方法和技术,突破现有规则创造法律。概言之,克制主义维持现实,能动主义则面向未来。由此,国际形势和舆论的变动,法官们的司法观念同样规定着国际法院对两种司法政策的选择。在1970年代之前,国际法院基本奉行了司法克制主义的传统,自“钠米比亚案”之后,开始转向司法能动主义,而能动主义所招致的大国冷落及学术界的一些批评又使其开始注重二者的调和,国际法院最终走向能动主义与克制主义折衷的立场。未来国际法院的司法政策仍将会在国际社会的吁求中呈现一种变动不居的状态。
The concept of international judicial activism is borrowed from the background of domestic law. Judicial restraint means that judges should strictly abide by the rules of law in the judicial process and exclude the influence of subjective factors such as politics, morals, policies, judge’s personal feelings, prejudices and values; and the activism means that judicature should reflect changes in reality and Social requirements, dare to break through existing rules and create law through judicial methods and techniques. In short, restraint maintains the reality and activism faces the future. Therefore, the changes in the international situation and public opinion and the judiciary’s judiciary concept also stipulate the choice of the two judicial policies by the International Court of Justice. Before the 1970s, the International Court of Justice basically followed the tradition of judicial restraint. Since the case of “Nambia”, it began to turn to judicial activism. The neglect of the big powers that activism has caused and some criticisms from the academic circles have also made It began to focus on the reconciliation of the two, and eventually the International Court of Justice took the eclectic position of activism and repressionism. In the future, the judicial policies of the International Court of Justice will still present a state of change in the international community’s appeal.