浙江社会科学

在我国，司法解释的溯及力争议并不仅仅是单纯的溯及力问题，它还涉及对于司法解释规范性质的不同理解，并与立法权在立法机关与司法机关的权限分配密切相关。因此，围绕该争议的规范分析不宜局限于法不溯及既往原则的内部，还应纳入法律保留的视角。在法律保留的维度，司法解释作为立法权而非司法权的产物，因其规范制定的权威性、规范效力的普遍性以及规范内容的权利性，而被证立为具有独立规范位阶的次级法源，客观上落入法不溯及既往原则的适用范围。在此基础上，法不溯及既往原则所根植的信赖保护原理通过信赖表现与信赖值得保护两项构成要件从主观上进一步确立了司法解释不溯既往的拘束方式。综合主客观两方面，司法解释应以不溯既往为原则，只有当新司法解释本身不调整公民权利义务关系，或者公民对于旧法的信赖不值得保护时，它才具有变更溯及的容许性。此外，司法解释的溯及力通常还应受到司法裁判既判力的拘束。

In our country, the dispute about the retroactivity of judicial interpretation is not simply a dispute about temporal validity of law, but also involves different understandings of the normative nature of judicial interpretation, and is closely related to the distribution of legislative power between the legislature and the judiciary. Therefore, the normative analysis around this issue should also be included in the perspective of the principle of reservation of law, in addition to the principle of non-retroactivity of law. In the dimension of legal reservation, judicial interpretation, as a product of legislative power rather than judicial power, is justified as a secondary source of law with an independent normative rank because of its characteristics of the authority of norm formulation, the universality of norm effect, and the rightness of normative content. On this basis, the principle of trust protection further establishes the binding method of the principle of non-retroactivity of judicial interpretation through the elements of reliance performance and reliance worthy of protection subjectively. Combining both subjective and objective aspects, judicial interpretation should be constrained by the principle of non-retroactivity of law. Only when the new judicial interpretation does not adjust the relationship between citizens' rights and obligations, or citizens' trust in the past law is not worthy of protection, can the retroactivity of judicial interpretation be allowed. In addition, the retroactivity of judicial interpretation should be constrained by the adjudged force.