Research On The Application Of Purposeful Interpretation Method In Civil Judicial Judgment

The purpose interpretation method is an ancient topic,which is a method of exploring the purpose of a certain legal system or norm and applying it.The basis of purpose interpretation is the legislative purpose.Legislators who formulate laws are not unfounded,but must have their own purpose.Interpretation of laws should follow the purpose of the law.Therefore,exploring the legislative purpose is the focus of research on purpose interpretation methods.There is controversy in the academic community regarding the purpose of exploring legislation,and some scholars believe that the purpose of legislation should be explored from the perspective of legal texts;There are also opposite views.They believe that the judge’s exploration of the legislative purpose through the legislator’s intention is the compliance with democratic principles and the embodiment of the Popular Will.The judge should choose the interpretation result that conforms to the legislator’s intention to apply the law.The debate between the two camps has never ceased,but the more truth is debated,the clearer it becomes.The ultimate goal of theoretical disputes is to better guide judicial practice.The core of the purpose interpretation method is to apply the law through interpretation,and the ultimate goal is judicial application.We should combine the theory of the purpose interpretation method with judicial practice,and improve the theory from practice to play a guiding role in practice.Therefore,this article elaborates on the current research status,concepts,and relationship with other interpretation methods of purpose interpretation both domestically and internationally in the introduction and first chapter;Chapter 2 focuses on judicial practice,sorts out cases using the purpose interpretation method,selects 20 typical case samples,and classifies,summarizes,and organizes them;Chapter 3 is a summary of the content of Chapter 2.Observing how judges obtain legislative purposes,what legislative purposes they obtain,and analyzing the difficulties and shortcomings of judges,it can be seen that there are problems in judicial practice,such as judges’ arbitrary use of purpose interpretation methods,diverse ways of obtaining legislative purposes without unified standards,arbitrary use of legislative purpose words,and lack of argumentation and reasoning for obtaining legislative purposes,This reflects that in practice,judges are not clear about when to apply the purpose interpretation,where to obtain the legislative purpose,and what legislative purpose to obtain.They have a large amount of discretion,and there are cases of abuse of discretion.Chapter 4 analyzes the current difficulties in the application of purposive interpretation methods,and explores improved methods based on the theory of purposive interpretation.The core of the problem lies in how judicial adjudicators interpret the purpose.For judges,especially judges at local levels,it is an unavoidable issue in practice to explore and demonstrate the legislative purpose of coexistence of rationality and legality in the reality of multiple cases with few people and uneven levels of ability.Chapter 4,starting from this current situation,attempts to clarify the applicable premise of purpose interpretation and adhere to the principle of prioritizing literal interpretation,When the textual interpretation can draw reasonable conclusions,the purpose interpretation method can serve as an auxiliary to strengthen the correctness of the textual interpretation results.Only when the conclusion drawn from the textual interpretation is absurd can the purpose interpretation method be used as the main method for judgment;Standardize the way in which legislative purposes are obtained,abandon the opposing views of intentionalism and textism,objectivity and subjectivity,and suggest that China establish a system of legislative materials for judges to obtain legislative purposes,in order to standardize the application process of purpose interpretation,limit judges’ discretion,improve judges’ judicial efficiency,and maintain the unity of judicial fairness and judgment.