法官背离判例的法理及说理  

The Jurisprudence and Reasoning of Judge’s Deviation from Precedents

作　　者：孙海波[1] Sun Haibo(College of Comparative Law,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学比较法学研究院,北京100088

出　　处：《浙江社会科学》2022年第4期56-62,157,158,共9页Zhejiang Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目“共建共治共享社会治理法治化的程序保障机制研究”(20AFX003)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：已决案件因为凝结了法律适用的经验和智慧,蕴含了对某类法律问题的解决方案,从而因案成例。即便在将判例奉为正式法源的普通法系国家,遵循先例原则也并非是绝对一成不变的,在某些特定情况下法官仍然有权选择背离判例。背离判例具有重要的法理基础,它通常采取区分和推翻判例两种路径。无论以何种方式背离判例,法官都应为自己背离判例的决定进行说理。区分判例要求法官证明待决案件与判例之间不存在实质相似性,而推翻判例已经涉及法官造法,必须对其施加更为严格的限制。The settled cases condense the experience and wisdom of law application and contain solutions to certain legal problems,so they become precedents.Even in common law countries where precedents are regarded as official sources of law,the doctrine of stare decisis is not absolutely unchangeable.Under certain circumstances,judges still have the right to deviate from the precedent.Deviation from precedents has an important legal basis,and it usually takes two paths,distinguishing and overruling.In either case,the judge should give reasons and argue for his decision.Distinguishing requires judges to prove that there is no substantial similarity between pending cases and precedents,and overruling involves judge-made law,and stricter restrictions must be imposed on the latter.

关 键 词：背离判例 区分技术 判例推翻 说理义务 论证责任 

分 类 号：D926.2[政治法律—法学]