UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

法官釋法造法的案例思考

Identification

Clé publique

radar:r-aba09a21ed9fdb5da8faa67933baa609

Auteurs

null 許海波

Année déclarée

—

Langue déclarée

Undetermined

Type source

publication

Première détection

2026-11-13T15:33:49.452244+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-13T15:33:49.452244+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

<jats:p>According to Article 45 of the Legislation Law of China, the power of legal interpretation belongs to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The Supreme People's Court only formulates judicial interpretations for issues related to the application of laws, and regularly publishes guiding cases to conduct legal interpretation and legal development. During the process of adjudicating cases, judges need to conduct similar case searches and abide by the relevant regulations on consistency review of similar cases. However, in practice, there is a divergence among judges in handling cases. To achieve the unity of judicial and social effects and meet the justice demands of legal professionals, if there are legal loopholes, judges will inevitably make prudent decisions and, when necessary, carry out legal development or use some technical means to achieve the purpose of law-making in a disguised way. In domestic judicial practice, the problem of different judgments for similar cases is relatively prominent, and the reasons are multi-faceted. From the perspective of the justice of law, case adjudication is a comprehensive process. The value judgments of fairness, justice, equality, and balance pursued by the justice of law will inevitably influence the judgment of the presiding judge under the influence of specific factors. From different perspectives such as individual case factors, evidence presentation, and compliance with the duty of good faith, there are no absolutely identical cases. We should encourage judges to engage in legal development while avoiding them becoming mere legal automatons. At the same time, we should also pay attention to the systematic nature of legal interpretation and legal development to prevent the temporary purposes of administrative control from undermining the predictability and stability of the law.</jats:p>

Identifiants

DOI

10.63944/wkhdgx23

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

unknown

Types déclarés par les sources

publication

Éditeurs

International Academic Journal Press Co., Limited

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAIRE · Document 1

• Document · https://doi.org/10.63944/wkhdgx23

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.