法官与历史学家  

Judges and Historians

作　　者： 唐波涛 Piero calamandrei;Tang Bo-tao

机构地区：[1]不详 [2]罗马第一大学

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（法学版）》2020年第4期147-158,共12页Journal of Soochow University：Law Edition

基　　金：国家留学基金的资助。

摘　　要：法官与历史学家在诸多方面具有相似性,如两者均致力于还原过去所发生的事实,也都需要借助某些特定的证明方法。但与历史学家所不同的是,法官处于一个消极被动的位置上,他必须依据现行法律来展开评价工作,程序法也会对其裁判进行一定的限制。通过这一对比,不难发现,司法裁判其实是一个将法律应用于具体事实,并藉此来发现法律意志的过程。但在司法实践中,却存在着一种将判决视为法官个人意志体现的危险趋势。为矫此势,有必要重申判决作为一种技术性意见,法官在裁判过程中理解与尊重法律意志的重要性。Judges and historians are simile in many aspects.For example,both of them are dedicated to restoring past facts,and both need to resort to specific methods of proof.Differently from historians,the judge is in a passive position.He(must)make judgments based on substantive law,and to some extent also procedural law imposes certain restrictions on his judgment.Through this comparison,it is not difficult to find that judicial adjudication is actually a process of applying the law to specific facts and thus discovering the will of law.However,in reality,there is a dangerous tendency to regard the judgment as the personal will of the judge.In order to correct this malpractice,it is necessary to reinstate the judgment as a technical opinion,and the importance of understanding of the legal will in the judgment process.

关 键 词：法官 历史学家 相似性 司法裁判 

分 类 号：D911[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]