论原则在疑难案件判决中的作用

Yuridika Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI:10.20473/YDK.V36I2.26497
Peter Machmudz Marzuki
{"title":"论原则在疑难案件判决中的作用","authors":"Peter Machmudz Marzuki","doi":"10.20473/YDK.V36I2.26497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The task of court is to produce just decisions. A court decision may be just if it coheres moral. Principle is praxis of moral. This article is to articulate that principle has significant meanings in court’s decisions. This is because principle is a moral standard that serves to be a reference for Court to settle hard cases equitably. In this writing, case approach is employed. In addition, it also uses comparative approach, in which court decisions of different countries are presented. The purpose of using comparative approach is to find similarities in referring to principle despite different jurisdictions and even different legal systems. From this study, it is found that principle may serve four functions to the court to reach equitable decisions. First, it may be a legal basis for the court to settle a case equitably in the absence of legal rule. In fact, not all human conducts are prescribed by law. It is frequently presumed that what is not prohibited is permitted to do. In this study, it is found that what is not forbidden is not necessarily permissible. The corner stone of determining whether or not it is permissible is principle. In this case, principle served to be legal basis directly applied by the court to avoid producing unjust judgment. Second, the principle has the derogatory function to supersede a statutory provision. In this case, applying such a provision may result in decision contrary to moral. This, certainly, contradicts the idea of the establishment of court of justice. It is justified, therefore, referring to the principle, the court supersedes such a statutory provision to bring about a just decision. Third, the principle serves to be a basis for the court to interpret obscure statutory provision governing the case. It is not unusual that statutory provision is obscure or ambiguous. Such a provision is hard to understand. Settling the case governed by such a provision appropriately, the court should interpret the provision sensibly.","PeriodicalId":31372,"journal":{"name":"Yuridika","volume":"36 1","pages":"383"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Functions of Principle as the Basis of Court Decision in Hard Cases\",\"authors\":\"Peter Machmudz Marzuki\",\"doi\":\"10.20473/YDK.V36I2.26497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The task of court is to produce just decisions. A court decision may be just if it coheres moral. Principle is praxis of moral. This article is to articulate that principle has significant meanings in court’s decisions. This is because principle is a moral standard that serves to be a reference for Court to settle hard cases equitably. In this writing, case approach is employed. In addition, it also uses comparative approach, in which court decisions of different countries are presented. The purpose of using comparative approach is to find similarities in referring to principle despite different jurisdictions and even different legal systems. From this study, it is found that principle may serve four functions to the court to reach equitable decisions. First, it may be a legal basis for the court to settle a case equitably in the absence of legal rule. In fact, not all human conducts are prescribed by law. It is frequently presumed that what is not prohibited is permitted to do. In this study, it is found that what is not forbidden is not necessarily permissible. The corner stone of determining whether or not it is permissible is principle. In this case, principle served to be legal basis directly applied by the court to avoid producing unjust judgment. Second, the principle has the derogatory function to supersede a statutory provision. In this case, applying such a provision may result in decision contrary to moral. This, certainly, contradicts the idea of the establishment of court of justice. It is justified, therefore, referring to the principle, the court supersedes such a statutory provision to bring about a just decision. Third, the principle serves to be a basis for the court to interpret obscure statutory provision governing the case. It is not unusual that statutory provision is obscure or ambiguous. Such a provision is hard to understand. Settling the case governed by such a provision appropriately, the court should interpret the provision sensibly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yuridika\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"383\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yuridika\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20473/YDK.V36I2.26497\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yuridika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20473/YDK.V36I2.26497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法院的任务是作出公正的裁决。法院的裁决可能只是符合道德。原则是道德的实践。本文旨在阐明这一原则在法院判决中具有重要意义。这是因为原则是一种道德标准,可以作为法院公平解决棘手案件的参考。本文采用案例法。此外,它还采用比较法,介绍不同国家的法院判决。使用比较方法的目的是,尽管有不同的管辖权,甚至不同的法律制度,但在提及原则时要找到相似之处。从这项研究中可以发现,该原则可以为法院做出公平裁决提供四种功能。首先,它可能是法院在缺乏法律规则的情况下公平解决案件的法律基础。事实上,并不是所有的人类行为都是由法律规定的。人们经常认为不被禁止的事情是允许做的。在这项研究中,发现不被禁止不一定是允许的。决定是否允许的基石是原则。在本案中,该原则是法院为避免产生不公正判决而直接适用的法律依据。第二,该原则具有贬损功能,可以取代法定条款。在这种情况下,适用这样的规定可能会导致违背道德的决定。这当然与设立法院的想法相矛盾。因此,根据这项原则,法院有理由取代这项法定条文,作出公正的裁决。第三,该原则是法院解释管辖该案的模糊法定条款的基础。法律条文含糊不清并不罕见。这样的规定很难理解。在适当地解决由这一条款管辖的案件时,法院应合理地解释该条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Functions of Principle as the Basis of Court Decision in Hard Cases
The task of court is to produce just decisions. A court decision may be just if it coheres moral. Principle is praxis of moral. This article is to articulate that principle has significant meanings in court’s decisions. This is because principle is a moral standard that serves to be a reference for Court to settle hard cases equitably. In this writing, case approach is employed. In addition, it also uses comparative approach, in which court decisions of different countries are presented. The purpose of using comparative approach is to find similarities in referring to principle despite different jurisdictions and even different legal systems. From this study, it is found that principle may serve four functions to the court to reach equitable decisions. First, it may be a legal basis for the court to settle a case equitably in the absence of legal rule. In fact, not all human conducts are prescribed by law. It is frequently presumed that what is not prohibited is permitted to do. In this study, it is found that what is not forbidden is not necessarily permissible. The corner stone of determining whether or not it is permissible is principle. In this case, principle served to be legal basis directly applied by the court to avoid producing unjust judgment. Second, the principle has the derogatory function to supersede a statutory provision. In this case, applying such a provision may result in decision contrary to moral. This, certainly, contradicts the idea of the establishment of court of justice. It is justified, therefore, referring to the principle, the court supersedes such a statutory provision to bring about a just decision. Third, the principle serves to be a basis for the court to interpret obscure statutory provision governing the case. It is not unusual that statutory provision is obscure or ambiguous. Such a provision is hard to understand. Settling the case governed by such a provision appropriately, the court should interpret the provision sensibly.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信