Judikative Rechtserzeugung. Theorie, Dogmatik und Methodik der Wirkungen von Präjudizien

司法创造法律。

• 批准号: 332211801
• 负责人: Professor Dr. Mehrdad Payandeh
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: Lehrstuhl Öffentliches Recht II – Internationales Recht, Europarecht und Öffentliches Recht
• 依托单位国家: 德国
• 项目类别: Publication Grants
• 财政年份: 2016
• 资助国家: 德国
• 起止时间: 2015-12-31 至 2016-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/332211801?language=en
• 关键词: Judikative; Rechtserzeugung.; Theorie; Dogmatik; und

The book deals with the phenomenon of judicial lawmaking (or precedents), meaning the contribution of courts to the interpretation, concretion and development of law. It analyzes this judicial function and its legal implications. From an institutional perspective, judicial lawmaking is construes as a genuine function of the judicial branch. With regard to its interplay with the legislature, this judicial function is integrated into a coherent system of the production of normativity. The first four chapters lay the foundations: First it is analyzed how precedents work in practice (chapter 1), and the requirements and terminology of judicial lawmaking are conceptualized (chapter 2). Then the historical context of judicial lawmaking is examined (chapter 3), and a legal concept of the operation of precedents is developed (chapter 4). In chapter 5, the centerpiece of the book, a constitutional theory of judicial lawmaking is developed. Building upon the rule of law principle it is explained how precedents can contribute to the binding force of law. A legally recognized effect of precedents can compensate the deficient binding force of statutes and thereby stabilize the normative force of the law. From an institutional perspective the judicial branch seems adequately equipped to fulfill this function. With regard to the institutional setting of the judicial branch as well as its interplay with the legislature, it is further argued that the recognition of a lawmaking function of the judiciary does not contravene the principle of democracy. On the contrary: Judicial lawmaking can enhance the democratic legitimacy of the legal process. Building upon the constitutional principles of the rule of law as well as democracy a constitutional obligation to take precedents into account is therefore developed and its legal contours are outlined. Within the two following two chapters the doctrinal content of this constitutional theory is explored. Chapter 6 analyzes how the jurisprudence of the highest courts confirm this approach. Moreover, classical doctrinal problems which bear a connection to the question of precedent are reconstructed in light of the constitutional approach developed in chapter 5. Chapter 7 then turns to the specific functioning of precedents by the Federal Constitutional Court and reexamines the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court as well as the accompanying constitutional discourse. The final chapter 8 draws the conclusions of these theoretical and doctrinal considerations for the methodological approach towards precedents. Normative guidelines for dealing with precedents are developed as are normative rules for distinguishing and overruling precedents. In doing so, the main features of a general theory of precedents are outlined.

这本书涉及司法立法（或判例）的现象，即法院对法律的解释、具体化和发展的贡献。分析了这一司法功能及其法律的含义。从制度的角度来看，司法立法被认为是司法分支的真正职能。在与立法机构的相互作用方面，这一司法职能被纳入一个产生规范性的连贯系统。前四章是本文的基础：首先分析判例在实践中的作用（第一章），并对司法立法的要求和术语进行概念化（第二章）。然后考察了司法立法的历史背景（第三章），并发展了判例运作的法律的概念（第四章）。第五章是本书的核心部分，阐述了司法立法的宪政理论。在法治原则的基础上，解释了先例如何有助于法律的约束力。判例的法律效力可以弥补成文法约束力的不足，从而稳定法律的规范力。从体制角度看，司法分支似乎有充分的能力履行这一职能。关于司法分支的机构设置及其与立法机构的相互作用，有人进一步指出，承认司法机构的立法职能并不违反民主原则。相反，司法立法可以增强法律的过程的民主合法性。因此，在法治和民主的宪法原则的基础上，制定了考虑先例的宪法义务，并概述了其法律的轮廓。在接下来的两章中，对这一宪政理论的理论内容进行了探讨。第六章分析了最高法院的判例如何确认这一方法。此外，经典的理论问题，承担了连接到先例的问题是根据宪法的方法在第五章中开发的重建。第七章接着讨论了联邦宪法法院判例的具体功能，并重新审视了宪法法院的判例以及随之而来的宪法论述。最后一章第八章总结了这些理论和学说上的考虑，为判例的方法论研究提供了依据。制定了处理先例的规范性准则以及区分和推翻先例的规范性规则。在这样做的时候，一个先例的一般理论的主要特征进行了概述。