本文選題：實用主義　切入點：司法實用主義　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2013年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：實用主義作為美國土生土長的哲學(xué)流派，，其產(chǎn)生、發(fā)展和傳播都有著深厚的社會文化背景。雖然實用主義并不是美國唯一的思想流派，卻是最為美國人所接受的哲學(xué)思想,大多數(shù)的美國人都傾向于把實用主義當(dāng)做最適合他們、對他們生活最有影響的哲學(xué)思想。實用主義已滲透到美國社會的各個領(lǐng)域，對美國的法律理論和司法實踐也有著重要的影響。將實用主義的核心理念與思維方法運(yùn)用到司法的具體運(yùn)作工程中，在美國的司法領(lǐng)域有很多可圈可點之處，實用主義范式下的司法理念為司法裁判提供了一種注重實踐和經(jīng)驗的審判路徑，這在一定程度上緩解了法官嚴(yán)格適法的壓力。實用主義審判理念要求法官以判決可能導(dǎo)致的結(jié)果為依據(jù)而非絕對按照制定法規(guī)則作為裁判內(nèi)容做出的依據(jù)。這在很大程度上減少了判決的修辭，增強(qiáng)了判決的可接受性。本文以司法實用主義理念為研究基點，分別勾勒出美國司法實用主義和當(dāng)代中國司法實用主義的圖景，指出這兩者之間存在的關(guān)聯(lián)，以及這兩種司法實用主義之間的顯著的差異，及其產(chǎn)生這種差異的原因所在。在對與實用主義相似的一些理論進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)上，指出實用主義的特殊價值所在，然后著重分析當(dāng)代中國司法實用主義理念在具體司法裁判中存在的價值以及如何有效地發(fā)揮司法實用主義的功能，分析司法實用主義的中國特色，最后在文章中指出當(dāng)代中國司法實用主義存在的一些顯性的問題，對司法實用主義理念指導(dǎo)下的司法功能予以反思。本文認(rèn)為當(dāng)代中國的司法實用主義雖然與美國的司法實用主義有著諸多的聯(lián)系，比如二者在理論層面就存在有共同之處，但在具體的操作運(yùn)用中，當(dāng)代中國的司法實用主義更側(cè)重于社會效果尤其是政策的導(dǎo)向，這與美國以經(jīng)驗和過程為導(dǎo)向的司法實用主義有著顯著區(qū)別。因此，在研究當(dāng)代中國司法實用主義的過程中，應(yīng)該以當(dāng)代中國的司法環(huán)境和國情為依托，跳出美國司法實用主義的范疇來審視具有當(dāng)代中國特色的司法實用主義。
[Abstract]:Pragmatism, as a native school of philosophy in the United States, has a profound social and cultural background in its emergence, development and dissemination. Although pragmatism is not the only school of thought in the United States, it is the most accepted philosophy in the United States. Most Americans tend to think of pragmatism as the philosophy that suits them best and has the most impact on their lives. Pragmatism has permeated every field of American society. It also has an important impact on the legal theory and judicial practice of the United States. Applying the core ideas and thinking methods of pragmatism to the concrete operation of justice, there are many notable points in the judicial field of the United States. The judicial idea under the pragmatism paradigm provides a trial path that pays attention to practice and experience for judicial adjudication. This alleviates to some extent the pressure on judges to strictly apply the law. The pragmatism trial concept requires judges to base their decisions on the results that may result from the decision, rather than as the basis for the content of the decisions in absolute accordance with the rules of law. To a large extent, it reduces the rhetoric of judgments, This paper, based on the concept of judicial pragmatism, outlines the prospect of American judicial pragmatism and contemporary Chinese judicial pragmatism, and points out the relationship between them. And the significant difference between the two kinds of judicial pragmatism, and the reasons for the difference. Based on the analysis of some theories similar to pragmatism, the paper points out the special value of pragmatism. Then it analyzes the value of judicial pragmatism in contemporary China and how to give full play to the function of judicial pragmatism, and analyzes the Chinese characteristics of judicial pragmatism. Finally, this paper points out some obvious problems of judicial pragmatism in contemporary China. This article thinks that the judicial pragmatism of contemporary China has many connections with the judicial pragmatism of the United States, for example, there are some common points between them at the theoretical level. However, in the specific operation and application, the judicial pragmatism in contemporary China focuses more on the social effect, especially the policy guidance, which is different from the experience and process-oriented judicial pragmatism in the United States. In the process of studying judicial pragmatism in contemporary China, judicial pragmatism with contemporary Chinese characteristics should be examined in the light of the judicial environment and national conditions in contemporary China and beyond the scope of judicial pragmatism in the United States.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D926

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 姚建宗;;建設(shè)社會主義和諧社會與認(rèn)真對待人權(quán)[J];長春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年05期

2 俞小海;;法學(xué)研究中實用主義進(jìn)路之提倡——理查德·A·波斯納的理論及對中國的啟示[J];重慶文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2010年04期

3 馬新福,杜宴林,孫波;司法自由裁量權(quán)合理運(yùn)作的構(gòu)成要件[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);1999年01期

4 公丕祥;全球化背景下的中國司法改革[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年01期

5 楊知文;;司法裁決的后果主義論證[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2009年03期

6 張芝梅;法律中的邏輯與經(jīng)驗——對霍姆斯的一個命題的解讀[J];福建師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2004年01期

7 鄭成良,陳海光;論法官職業(yè)思維方式的養(yǎng)成[J];法律適用(國家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報);2002年12期

8 孔祥俊;論法律效果與社會效果的統(tǒng)一 一項基本司法政策的法理分析[J];法律適用;2005年01期

9 江必新;;社會主義司法基本價值初探[J];法律適用;2009年12期

10 祝銘山;;法官職業(yè)化與現(xiàn)代司法觀念[J];法學(xué)家;2003年03期

本文編號：1609158