中国司法造法理论与实践研究——以案例是否公开为切入

The Theory and Practice of Judicial Law-Making in China—A Case Study on the Public Accessibility of Judicial Decisions

摘要: 世界上国家法律权利的生成途径最主要是立法，但是应当认识到，权利的生成不仅以立法机关制定法律规范为基础，从法理学与权力理论的交叉视角审视下，司法场域构成了权力生成及演化进程中不容忽视的关键节点。在当代司法改革进程中，司法造法作为法律适用与制度创新的重要方式，其理论与实践受到案例公开程度的深刻影响。随着最高人民法院推动裁判文书全面公开、强化指导性案例制度，司法活动的透明度与公众参与度显著提升，但案例公开与司法造法之间的互动关系尚未得到系统性研究。研究发现，案例公开通过提升司法论证透明度、促进类案参照统一性，为司法造法提供了正当性支撑；但当前存在公开标准模糊、技术工具滞后、法官释法能力不足等瓶颈，导致部分案例的规则创制功能受限。结论表明，需构建“分类公开 + 动态评估”机制，强化技术赋能下的案例检索与知识共享，并通过法官职业培训优化释法技术。本文主张，司法造法的规范化路径应兼顾制度约束与创新激励，在保障法律安定性的同时，回应数字时代社会治理的复杂性需求。

Abstract: While legislation remains the primary pathway for rights formation in national legal systems, jurisprudential analysis from the intersection of legal theory and power dynamics reveals that the judicial domain constitutes a critical nexus in the evolution of rights. Contemporary judicial reforms highlight judicial lawmaking as a vital mechanism for legal application and institutional innovation, though its theoretical and practical development is significantly constrained by the accessibility of case information. Despite enhanced transparency and public engagement through the Supreme People’s Court’s initiatives on comprehensive judgment disclosure and the strengthening of the guiding case system, the interplay between case disclosure and judicial lawmaking remains understudied. This study demonstrates that case disclosure reinforces the legitimacy of judicial lawmaking by improving the transparency of judicial reasoning and promoting consistency in analogous case referencing. However, systemic constraints—including ambiguous disclosure criteria, technological inadequacies in data processing, and deficiencies in judges’ interpretive capabilities—currently limit the normative-creative function of judicial decisions. The conclusion indicates that it is necessary to establish a “classified disclosure + dynamic evaluation” mechanism for case management, enhance AI-driven case retrieval and knowledge-sharing platforms, and optimize hermeneutic techniques through judicial training programs. The paper argues that the institutionalization of judicial lawmaking should balance normative constraints with innovation incentives, ensuring legal stability while addressing the complex governance demands of the digital era.