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.

本书涉及司法立法（或先例）的现象，即法院对法律的解释、具体化和发展的贡献。它分析了这一司法职能及其法律含义。从制度角度看，司法立法被理解为司法部门的真正职能。就其与立法机关的相互作用而言，司法职能被整合到一个连贯的规范性生产体系中。前四章奠定了基础：首先分析了判例在实践中的运作方式（第一章），并概念化了司法立法的要求和术语（第二章）。然后考察了司法立法的历史背景（第3章），并发展了先例运作的法律概念（第4章）。本书的核心第五章阐述了司法立法的宪法理论。以法治原则为基础，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法规约束力的不足，从而稳定法律的规范力。从制度角度来看，司法部门似乎有足够的能力履行这一职能。关于司法部门的机构设置及其与立法机关的相互作用，有人进一步认为，承认司法部门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程序的民主合法性。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，并概述了其法律轮廓。接下来的两章探讨了这一宪法理论的教义内容。第六章分析了最高法院的判例如何确认这一做法。此外，与先例问题相关的经典理论问题根据第五章中提出的宪法方法进行了重构。第七章随后转向联邦宪法法院对先例的具体运作，并重新审视宪法法院的判例以及伴随的宪法论述。最后第 8 章针对先例的方法论方法得出了这些理论和理论考虑的结论。制定处理先例的规范性指南以及区分和否决先例的规范性规则。在此过程中，概述了一般先例理论的主要特征。