自由裁量权论文：论法官自由裁量权的合理运作

自由裁量权论文：论法官自由裁量权的合理运作 【中文摘要】法官自由裁量权是指法官在审理案件的过程中,在法律规定或者法律规定不明确以及无规定的情况下,在公平、正义、合理的价值指引下,根据案件的具体情况进行法律适用,对案件的实体和程序问题所享有的酌情处理的权力。这种权力不是绝对的,而是相对自由的,只能是在法律原则和法律精神的范围之内行使,而且必须考虑到社会公众的合理期待、不成文法规则、社会习惯等因素。法官是行使审判权的主体,自由裁量权乃是审判权的核心部分。作为审判权的核心,自由裁量权不仅关系到当事人的财产、自由甚至生命,而且还在宏观上起到引导社会行为、调整社会关系的作用。关于自由裁量权的概念,国内学术界虽对其有着成熟的界定,但尚未形成统一的观点,在国外关于法官自由裁量权的概念也因其所持观点不同而各不相同。法官自由裁量权一直贯穿于西方法律发展的过程之中,英美法系国家法律多以判例为主,这为法官造法提供了巨大的空间,而大陆法系近现代意义上的自由裁量权源于自由心证原则的确立。法官自由裁量权的存在是有其合理性的,人类认知活动的局限性决定了法官裁量的事实是法律真实而非客观真实,法律概念的模糊性为法官解释法律提供了空间,立法的价值追求与局限性则需要法官在审理案件时对各种法益进行权衡以寻求最佳解决方案,法律规则的滞后性要求法官进行裁量时必须根据情势的需要以适应社会的不断发展。在看到法官自由裁量权合理存在的同时,我们也应认识到自由裁量权是一把双 刃剑。合理的运用自由裁量权可以解决法律因其本身特点和社会生活的不断发展而带来的诸多问题,但是法官自由裁量权的行使也暴露着其权力属性的弊端。自由裁量的空间可能被法官利用成为其任意裁量、滥用司法权的借口,甚至为司法腐败提供了温床,最终导致的是司法权威的丧失。随着我国司法改革的不断深入,法官自由裁量权在司法实践中逐渐走向正轨,但不可否认的是由于法院体制、内部程序以及各种外界因素的影响,我国法官自由裁量权在审判中的行使还存在着诸多问题,这主要包括外部环境对法官的干扰较大,法院内部工作行政化问题严重,审判长和独任制审判员行使裁量权随意性较大,法官的任职得不到保障等等。这些问题不仅影响了法官合理正确的行使自由裁量权,还在一定程度上延缓了中国法治的进程,因此必须改革和完善我国法官行使自由裁量权的各项制度：在宏观层面继续推进司法改革,保障与实现司法独立。世界大多数国家都将司法独立作为一个国家法治进步的标准,《司法独立世界宣言》等国际会议文件也详细阐述了司法独立,司法独立已经得到国际社会的普通承认,因此我们可以国际公约为参照,借鉴其他国家经验,实现法院和法官个人的独立；在中观层面上改革和完善现有相关制度,并借鉴经验构建相关制度,主要包括建立判例制度、判决说理制度,改革和完善审判委员会制度、法官任职保障制度,取消案件请示制度等等一系列的措施；法官素质是整个法官自由裁量权合理运作的关键所在,因此在微观层面上要求法官提高自身素质,主要包括完成培养法官的司法理念、提高法官的知识素养、人格素养和职业道德素养等目标。 【英文摘要】Judge’s discretion is that in the process of adjudicating cases, if the legal regulation is not clear enough or nonexistence, judges can apply the law under the value guidance of fairness, justice, and reasonable to deal with the case and its procedural issues according to the specific circumstances. This power is not absolute but relative free, and only can be applied in the legal principles and spirit of the law. Also the judge must take into account the factors such as public’s reasonable expectations, unwritten rules, and social habits and so on. The judge is the subject to exercise judicial power, and discretion is the core of judicial power. As the core of judicial power, the discretion not only influences of the litigant’s property, freedom and even lives, but also plays a role of guiding social behaviors and regulating social relations from the macro-social angle. Although the domestic academic community has matured to the discretion definition, but not yet got a unified point of view. In foreign countries the concept of judicial discretion is different because of their different views. The discretion of the judges has always been in the process of the development of Western laws. Anglo-American legal system countries take judicial precedent as the main principle, which provides the huge space for the judge. While the continental legal system the discretion power of modern sense roots in the establishment of the principle of free intention.The existence of judicial discretion is reasonable. The limitations of human cognitive activities determine that the discretion of judges is legal reality rather than the objective reality. The ambiguity of the legal concept provides the space of for judges to interpret the law. The value Pursuit and limitations of legislation require judge to weigh against the benefits of various methods to find the best solution in adjudicating cases. The lag of the law requires judges must adjudicate on the basis of the situation to adapt to the continuous development of the society. Besides the reasonable existence of discretion, we should also recognize that discretion is a double edged sword. Reasonable use of discretion can resolve many problems brought the legal characteristics and the development of social life. But the judicial discretion also has shortcomings of their power properties. The space of discretion may be used by judges as the arbitrary discretion, and an excuse for abuse of judicial power. It even provides a breeding ground for judicial corruption, leading to the loss of a judicial authority.With the deep-going development of China’s judicial reform, the judicial discretion is gradually on the right track in the judicial practice. But it is undeniable that there are still many problems in the exercise of the judicial discretion trial because of the court system, internal procedures, and other external factors. The problems include the large interference to judges from the external environment, serious court administration of the internal work, of the arbitrary use of the discretion by presiding judge and sole judge, lack of protection of judges’position. These issues not only affect the right exercise of reasonable discretion by judges, but also to some extent delay the legal process in China. So it is necessary to reform and improve our system of discretion exercise:continue to promote judicial reform on the macro level, protect and realize judicial independence. Most countries in the world see judicature independent as the standard of country progress. “The Universal Declaration of judicial independence” and other documents of international conferences expound the judicial independence. Judicial independence has been generally admitted by the international community, so we can achieve the independence of the courts and individual judges, referring to international conventions and the experience of other countries. We can reform and improve