| The judgment's objectivity is a disputable issue. Especially, after the realism legal science and the postmodern legal science have certain words power, modern rationalism values in judgment, for example, objectivity, universality and determinism, have encountered the unprecedented impact; many essential factors in judgment are deconstructed. The law has been questioned to be uncertain; legal interpretation has been thought that different people have different understandings; the judgment fact has become the comedian clown dresseed up by judges willfully; the judgment result has been dominated by judge's law feeling.When the western postmodern legal sciences are deconstructing the objectivity, Chinese law academic circles is also introducing these theories and raising the question to the judgment's objectivity, western legal theories may analyze Chinese legal matters. Moreover, the judicial judgment also has the universal rules truly, the Chinese judicature and the western judicature share many common words. Meanwhile, we must think about differences between China's and the west's judicature environment and the law condition. The question to judgment's objectivity in the west establishes on the foundation that the western rule of law is established completely; moreover, theories of deconstructing objectivity don't hold mainstream, more scholars are defending judgment's objectivity. In western developed constitutionality society, the question to the judgment's objectivity will not have too much impact on the rule of law, and will be advantageous to the rule of law. In the western judicature environment, it has the consummation legal system, high quality judges and high legalization society background, judgment's objectivity can obtain maintenance in certain extent, and the developed rule of law will not be given up. However, China is in the social transition period, the rule of law just starts, judicature is also carrying on the reform, and the judicial pattern is still during the exploration. After experiencing several thousands years rule by people, the Chinese people have chosen the rule of law finally. The judgment's objectivity exactly maintains the rule of law, and it is one kind of microscopic way to realize the rule of law. Therefore, under China's rule of law and the judicial background, guarding judgment's objectivity is necessary.This article does not pace back and forth about the theoretical struggle of objectivity in the west, also does not have ability to provide an authoritative answer for this reason. The author selects the social transformation background, and embarks from the Chinese judicature's realistic difficult position to study the judgment's objectivity. Posner once divided the legal objectivity into three kinds, namely two objectivities in history and the objectivity initiated by him. The objectivities in history refer to the ontology in the legal objectivity and the scientific legal objectivity, but he thought that these two objectivities are unable to realize. Therefore, he proposed the third objectivity, namely the legal objectivity in conversation, it stresses talks, but it does not reach the consensus essentially; the position limits judges' random diligently, and discovers forecast factors in judge's behaviors. The judgment's objectivity advocated by author in this paper is Posner's legal objectivity, judgment's objectivity is not personalization and random. China is in social transformation period, with the mixture of traditional, modern, and postmodern factors in this society. China's judicature faces complex social background; guarding judgment's objectivity needs to integrate many kinds of factors. Especially, under dual social background, the judicature appears more complex. Therefore, guarding judgment's objectivity must look after judicature's universal factors:the law and the fact. When the law and the fact are unable to meet the judicial needs, the judgment needs to seek for the answers in the society. Establishing dialogues between judicature and society can meet the realistic needs of judgment's objectivity; prevent judge's judgment behavior to be random. Therefore, this article points from the Chinese judicature's theory realm and the practical realm, points out the challenges to the judgment's objectivity; Then, in the later word author integrates the law, the fact and the social factors to maintain judgment's objectivity. The goal is to maintain the judicial judgment in legal, sequenced, institutionalized way, and avoid judges' random.Except the introductory remarks and the conclusion in this article, it is divided into four chapters. The introductory remarks summarize the paper's topic background and the significance and introduce the domestic and foreign related researches; expound basic standpoint of this article and main innovations of this research.The first chapter introduces proposition of judgment's objectivity, the crisis of objectivity and significance for rule of law. Although concept of objectivity is complex, according to article's writing and judicial vision's need, the author does not launch great narration to the objectivity, but explains main concepts of objectivity in judicial field of vision, and limits basic implication of judgment's objectivity which must elaborate in this article. The judgment's objectivity is the judicial judgment which must remove subjectivity willfully, seek for predictable facts in the judicial activity and prevent judge from making an arbitrary decision. In western field of law, the different legal science schools have several understandings about the objectivity. The law school of nature pursues the objectivity from natural law which beyond people's world; The law school of positivism turns to positivism law itself, although each representative has some arguments to the objectivity, the most insist on defending the objectivity from the legal structures; The law school of realism studies on judgment's basic elements, namely the law and the fact and so on, and raises the question to the objectivity; The law school of latter modernism law school views from the broad social angle, and destructs the objectivity. Discussing the thought of different schools to the objectivity, mainly has two goals:First, finding the universal questions of judgment's objectivity makes the attack and defense, these schools' theories are the resources for Chinese law academic circles; second, to discover the question's standpoint of objectivity, namely they are mainly standing in society's angle to destruct the objectivity, but the vindicators are mainly standing in the standard legal science to maintain objectivity. Therefore, the author may integrate social factors to guard the objectivity. The judgment's objectivity is to defend the rule of law; it practices essential value of law and maintains form value of law. Maintaining the judgment's objectivity is according with China's legal status. On China's judicial questions, the Chinese law academic circles not only widely utilizes the thought of western law school of realism and the law school of latter modernism, but also has the following theory viewpoint to impact on the judgment's objectivity. First, the judicial philosophy aspect is the judicial activism's arrival. Judicial activism originates from Chinese practical realm, but many scholars advocate this judicial philosophy. Judicial activism is originally to relax complex social contradictions in the social transition period, but it possibly surmounts the legal agent. This will damage the rule of law seriously. Second, in judicial methods, philosophy interpretation enters into legal interpretation. Philosophy interpretation has these ideas, for example, "before understands", "circulation of interpretation", "fusion of vision" it emphasizes the principle of reader's center and the interpretation ontology. It initiates the reader to embark from own historical structure, creates new interpretation, surmounts author, and renews text significance. The philosophy interpretation may let us obtain joyfulness in the consciousness, but it is unable to defend judgment's objectivity, and does not make for the rule of law. The law interpretation needs to return to traditional methodology track. Third, in the research vision, transformation of the legislative center to the judicial center, will possibly neglect the value of legal text, and will place more visions on judge's behavior. Neglect of text will become the crisis to the rule of law. The practical realm not only has been affected by Chinese law academic circles, but also has some actual destruction to judgment's objectivity. In the judgment system aspect, the regional protectionism destroys legal universal apply. In judgment process, legal norms and social facts have breaks; some special social facts are unable to be absorbed into the legal text. Moreover, in some significant and special cases, public opinions are processed improperly; it also will affect judgment's objectivity. About the judgment form, written judgments are ambiguous; it lacks standardized legal interpretation, fact deducing and proof. So judgment are often questionedIn the second chapter, pursuing the judgment's objectivity, the most important factor is the law; this is also essential requirement to the rule of law. About source of law, the law academic circles have many elaborations. Legal origin is response of the social background. Regardless of that originates from moral, the custom or society's material life condition, it must be able to solve the immediate social disputes, meet people's legal needs, maintain social stability, and enhance social overall welfares. Therefore, the law only reflects society's real situation appropriately, it can respond the realistic need of social fact effectively, and the judge may also absorb the facts into the legal norms, thus makes an objective judgment. But, human's forecast strength is always limited; the objectivity of law's source is always also limited. Making up this flaw unceasingly, it needs social factors as follows. The Louis Kaplow's legal accuracy discussion is a good resource. The accuracy of law can make the judgment to obtain the correct forecast in maximization. Therefore, in the legal text, rules and standards will decide limits of judge's behaviors. Establishing the datum of discretion appropriately may prevent the judgment to be random. The accuracy degree of legal text will decide judge's authority and legal determinism. More rules may limit judge's discretion power, but it may create the ossification; in order to maintain the legal stability, law needs to design the discretion datum. Moreover, discretion datum is to maintain law objectivity to a certain extent. The law always needs the languages to express. The languages have "the significance center" and "the open structure". In the legal language's clear region, judge may be suitable directly. In legal languages blurs region, judge needs to make clear. The following methods can maintain linguistic determination as far as possible. Firstly, the linguistic environment, including the text in linguistic environment and judicature's realistic linguistic environment, makes the languages concrete. Secondly, interpretation methods include text interpretation, logical interpretation, system interpretation, and historical interpretation, and so on. Judge uses the text interpretation method primarily; the next, the judge needs to use other methods according to case's special scenes. Thirdly, using standard languages guarantees the laws to have a definite significance. For instance, the legal languages must express levelly, rigorously and gravely. The sentence structures may sacrifice the readability suitably, but it must strengthen the compound structure and the beautification definition languages, and guarantee legal structures to be logic as far as possible. Legal languages use the punctuation mark reasonably in the legal text.In the third chapter, realizing the judgment's objectivity, the fact is also the necessary essential factor. The fact is the source of the dispute and the judicial judgment. The fact is a dynamic concept, in the judicial process, deducing the fact under the legal stipulation and the essential procedure rules can prevent the fact from being random. This article has not carried on the abstract elaboration from the angles of traditional research on the fact, because such elaboration does not accord with the fact's real shape in judicature. The final fact recognized by judge is a result of many factors used synthetically; this article discusses relations on the facts and the legal norms, the evidences and the litigants. According to dynamic development of the fact, the fact is divided into the object fact, the case fact and the judgment fact. Objectivity of the fact also needs to inspect the authentic standard of fact. Theoretically, it mainly includes objective authenticity, legal authenticity and AC consensus. These have the advantages respectively; the former research basically advocated substituting mutually. According to the judgment's objectivity, this article will carry on a new placement. Objective authenticity may become ideal which is pursued by people constantly, the modern science and technology method are introduced into the judgment; the objective authenticity standard will possibly have a further development. Embarking from the rule of law, the legal authenticity theory has more superiorities; it will become the main standard to recognize fact certainly. The AC consensus avoids the part of subject and object in tradition way, through two parties' argument and dialog of lawsuit, the mutual recognition is achieved. Actually, the legal authenticity standard and the AC consensus standard should have the field territory. Under the lawsuit pattern of authority principle, the judge constructs the fact. Therefore, the legal authenticity standard should have the value. Under the lawsuit pattern of resistance principle, the litigants form the fact; the AC consensus meets its requirement. Similarly, in lawsuit of public law, legal authenticity standard holds absolute authority; but in the lawsuit of private law, the AC consensus is advocated. In the Chinese judicature, the fact authenticity standard should contain the factors compounded above; the judgment fact in the written judgment should be the integration of all kinds of essential factors by judge and other lawsuits participates. The fact formation can be divided into the following three steps:fact occurrence; object fact stated to case fact by fuzzy fact paradigm of the parts; case fact constructed to judgment fact by accurate fact paradigm of the judge. The process of judgment fact's construction, is not from the fact to the case fact, from the case fact to the judgment fact naturally, but is many factors combined. The former process of fact recognized is bad on the law, the logic, and the program. According to the Chinese dual society's characteristic; we need to reform litigation mode, change extensive administration mechanism on fact recognized. Fact factor in judgment may move toward standardized, sequenced path. Finally, it will be advantageous to absorb facts into the legal norms and finish an objective judgment.In the fourth chapter, according to judicature's realistic difficult position, judgment need introduce some social factors. These factors are not the factors which every process of judgment needs. The overwhelming majority of judicial judgments come from legal norm and the individual case fact. But, in China's judicial environment, some social facts cannot be absorbed into the legal norms, some complex social facts are unable to find the answers in the standard legal science, the legal norms present the slit. At the same time, judicature's professionalism has also encountered embarrassed situation; in low legalization society, it is a difficult problem to deal with relationship between judicature's professionalism and the democratization. Depending on judicial activism or following the public opinions blindly is possible to destroy the frail rule of law. Building socialism country under the rule of law has already obtained the constitution's approval, it is Chinese people's ideal. In the judicial judgment, facing a case, judge first deed is the vision traveling between the legal norms and the fact, and possibly seeks for "the only right key" in the legal norms. This is one kind of manner to respect rule of law, and is also one kind of restraint judicial standpoint. Only the judge is unable to provide the solution to the case from legal norm immediately, and then the judge may seek for the resources in the society. Society's resources are so rich, including the customs, the morals and the public opinions; they are "the high-grade ores" for judge to unearth. But, these social resources must enter into the judicature in a sequenced, institutionalized way. So these resources have the predictability, otherwise, using these resources improperly will bring a disaster to the judicial judgment. Taking the customs as representative's folk rules, may make up the norm slit under the specific situation; the judicial knowledge may enrich judges'brains, let judge have a broader field of vision; Recognition and response of the public opinions let judge maintain suitable balance in the professionalism and the popularity. The customs need to be collected and to be distinguished, universal customs are introduced to norm and individual customs are rejected; moreover, universal customs need to be interpreted and proved. Judges not only must master the universal judicial knowledge, but also have to make up the local judicial knowledge and the ethical judicial knowledge in order to meet judicature's multi-dimensional needs. The public opinions in the individual case need to be divided and responded. The recognition and response of public opinions need to insist on the right procedure and adopt the different strategies. Using legal interpretation method responses the public opinions in law text; using the public opinions of fact obtains original truth and saves the judicial cost; Pondering logic of inference behind the public opinions of conclusion, but the judge cannot accept it directly; making public opinions of system construction as reference for the reform administration of justice in future.The conclusion explains what can achieve and cannot achieve in this article. Although the judgment's objectivity is a very great question, actually, this article's entry point is quite small. Therefore, solving the question in this article is also limited, this article advocates to maintain the judgment's objectivity, the standpoint is to defend rule of law. The judicial process insists on legalization, sequencing and institution, it can prevent the judgment from being random. This article does not advocate to take "the social effect" and judicial activism to destroy judgment's objectivity. The objective judgment always needs us to defend. Many problems can not been achieved in this article. It cannot find an ultimate standard about the objectivity in west theory battle. Changing with the time, some objectivity factors will expire.Finally, essential factors of realizing the judgment's objectivity may have omissions possibly. But, firstly, the factors selected by author have the quite high probability. Secondly, the social factors mainly aim on the problems raised in first chapter. The theory resources selected have clear goals. They are not subjective selection.
|
PDF Full Text Request