本文選題：法官　切入點：謹慎言行義務　出處：《湘潭大學學報(哲學社會科學版)》2017年05期

【摘要】：司法場域中法官謹慎言行義務邊界的合理劃定與司法公信力的維系密切相關(guān)。從國際性條約和主要法治國家的相關(guān)規(guī)定來看,司法場域中法官謹慎言行義務集合中的可具化元素包括對未決或者即將發(fā)生案件評論限制義務和禁止單方面交流義務。從理論上看,對未決或者即將發(fā)生案件評論限制義務邊界由時間限度、范圍限度、內(nèi)容限制三要素劃定,禁止單方面交流義務邊界則由規(guī)制主體、客體和例外性規(guī)定三要素廓清。我國對未決或者即將發(fā)生案件評論限制義務的立法存在時間限制規(guī)定不明確、案件范圍限制存在立法疏漏等不足,有必要將對未決或者即將發(fā)生案件評論的時間限度設定在案件判決產(chǎn)生既判力之前,同時將法官對自己正在審理案件加以評論的行為納入法律規(guī)制的范疇。我國禁止單方面交流義務邊界的劃定存在單邊性信息攜帶者法定范圍過窄、非聯(lián)絡性單方面交流行為缺乏規(guī)制等不足,有必要使用拓寬單邊性信息攜帶者的范圍、規(guī)制非聯(lián)絡性單方面交流行為等方式予以糾正。
[Abstract]:The reasonable demarcation of the boundary between the discretion and duty of judges in the judicial field is closely related to the maintenance of judicial credibility.Theoretically speaking, the boundary of limitation obligation is delimited by time limit, scope limit and content limitation, while the boundary of unilateral communication obligation is regulated by the subject.The three elements of object and exception are clarified.China's legislation on pending or imminent cases' comment and limitation obligations is unclear in terms of time limits, cases' scope restrictions, legislative omissions, and so on.It is necessary to set the time limit of the pending or imminent case comment before the judgment of the case produces res judicata, and at the same time, the judge's comment on his own case should be brought into the scope of legal regulation.In our country, the demarcation of the boundary of unilateral communication obligation exists some shortcomings, such as the narrow legal range of unilateral information carriers, the lack of regulation of non-liaison unilateral communication acts, etc. It is necessary to broaden the scope of unilateral information carriers.The regulation of non-contact unilateral communication should be corrected.
【作者單位】： 贛南師范大學應用法學研究中心;
【分類號】：D926.2
，

本文編號：1726027