The article starts with a case that occurred years ago and articulates that our nation's Succession Law and Marriage Law, due to their excessive principle-orientation and thus lack of applicability, as well as the absence of relevant regulations, compel legal professionals to judge such category of cases with basic principles such as public order and fair customs doctrine. The differences of opinions on relevant issues between academics and practitioners of law often expose the court's judgments to challenges from various sides and forces undue burdens onto the court. Besides, public order and fair customs doctrine is a remarkably futile and extremely abstract concept, its essence changes with time, and thus results in the bipolar tendency of its application and effects. In order to cope with the stability of law, legal theory and practice mainly resolve the issue with either categorization or value complement. However, both solutions have imperfections in term of applicability: the approach of categorization necessitates long-term accumulation and summary of cases, while the approach of value complement suffers from excess of subjectivity and, in the context of the recent establishment of our nation's case-directive system and the excessive influence of the judge's quality and related factors onto legal practice, too much discretion of the judge is very likely to engender judiciary unfairness. Nothing could address this issue better than enhancing relevant legal systems and making it realistically possible for the judge to pass judgments in compliance with the law.%我国继承法与婚姻法由于立法规定过于原则而缺乏可操作性,加之相关规定的缺乏,使司法实务在遇到一些类型的纠纷时,只能依据公序良俗这类基本原则来判案.因理论界与实务界对相关问题认识的差异,导致法院判决经常受到各方质疑,法院承受了不应承受的重负. 而公序良俗原则尚属于一个相当不确定及高度抽象的概念,且随着时代的发展其内涵还会发生变化,适用的效果也会呈现出两极化的倾向. 为了保证法的安定性,在法学理论和司法实践中,主要通过类型化及价值补充的方法来解决. 但这两种方法的适用都存在着不足之处,类型化的方法需要长期的案例积累和总结,价值补充法又存在主观性过大的问题.在我国目前案例指导制度刚建立、法官素质及相关因素对司法实务影响过大的现实背景下,法官的自由裁量权过大容易导致司法不公的现象发生.而解决的对策莫过于完善相关的法律制度,使法官的判案真正有法可依.
展开▼
