The Jurisprudential Logic of Implementing Core Socialist Values in Judicial Adjudication

Core socialist values have permeated every level of social development and have gradually become people’s emotional identification and habitual conduct. With the promulgation by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China of the *Plan for Integrating Core Socialist Values into Legislation and Law Revision in the Construction of the Rule of Law*, the practice of implementing core socialist values in the judicial sphere has moved from macro-level policy-oriented top-level design to meso-level institutional construction within the legal system, and has ultimately settled on the micro-level methodological construction of individual case adjudication. The construction and improvement of a country’s legal system must be rooted in specific values; likewise, the enforcement of law must be integrated with the mainstream ideas of the times. The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC placed particular emphasis on promoting the spirit of the socialist rule of law. The spirit of the socialist rule of law, as the concentrated embodiment of core socialist values in the field of the rule of law, possesses a distinct contemporary character, scientific character, and practical character. Therefore, integrating core socialist values with judicial adjudication is an inevitable requirement for the construction of the socialist rule of law.

社会主义核心价值观已经渗透到社会发展的各个层面，并逐渐成为人们情感上的认同和行为上的自然习惯。随着中共中央颁布的《社会主义核心价值观融入法治建设立法修法规划》，在司法领域中践行社会主义核心价值观，已经实现从宏观政策性的顶层设计到中观法律体系上的制度构建，并最终落脚到微观个案裁判的方法论建构。一个国家法律制度的建构和完善必须根植于特定的价值观，同样，法律的执行也必须与时代主流观念相融合。党的二十届三中全会着重强调要弘扬社会主义法治精神。社会主义法治精神作为社会主义核心价值观在法治领域的集中体现，具有鲜明的时代性、科学性、实践性。因此，将社会主义核心价值观与司法裁判相结合，是社会主义法治建设的必然要求。

Judicial organs have continuously introduced innovations and discarded the outdated in implementing and practicing the incorporation of core socialist values into laws and regulations and their integration into judicial adjudication. The Supreme People’s Court has successively released six batches of “typical cases for promoting core socialist values” (hereinafter “typical cases”), and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate also issued in February 2024 the *Typical Cases of Procuratorial Organs Exercising Their Functions Proactively and Promoting the Integration of Core Socialist Values into the Construction of the Rule of Law (First Batch)*. Core socialist values, as a value norm derived from moral concepts, differ from legal rules on the one hand, in that they cannot be directly used as the major premise in legal reasoning; on the other hand, they also differ from legal principles, in that even when the conditions of exhausting rules and having stronger reasons are met, they cannot be applied as the major premise. Since 2021, academic circles have conducted relatively comprehensive and systematic research on integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication. This research can be broadly divided into three main categories: one category concerns theoretical foundational research on integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication[1]1 For example, studies on the theoretical foundations of integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication.; one category concerns empirical research on integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication[2]2 For example, empirical studies on the integration of core socialist values into judicial adjudication.; and one category concerns research on the basis and pathways for integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication[3]3 For example, studies on the basis and pathways for integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication.. Existing research touches on the pathways, functions, and methods of integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication, but it has not systematically introduced specific argumentative reasoning methods such as case-type comparison. Reflecting on the argumentative logic of implementing core socialist values in adjudication in current typical cases reveals a lack of specialized systematic discussion on certain difficult issues, such as how to cite specific value content of core socialist values. In view of this, by reviewing the historical process of integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication, conducting in-depth reflection on the practice of implementing core socialist values in judicial adjudication, analyzing the practical difficulties encountered in judicial practice, improving and reconstructing the judicial reasoning system for implementing core socialist values in adjudication, and clarifying its role as a “quasi-source of law” in judicial adjudication, this undoubtedly possesses a certain value for theoretical reflection and practical significance.

司法机关在贯彻和践行社会主义核心价值观入法入规、融入司法裁判等问题上不断推陈出新、革故鼎新。最高人民法院先后发布六批次“弘扬社会主义核心价值观”典型案例(下称“典型案例”)，最高人民检察院也于2024年2月出台《检察机关依法能动履职推动社会主义核心价值观融入法治建设典型案例(第一批)》。社会主义核心价值观作为一种从道德观念衍生而来的价值规范，一方面不同于法律规则，不能直接作为法律推理的大前提使用;另一方面也区别于法律原则，即便在符合穷尽规则和更强理由的前提下也不能作为大前提适用。自2021年以来，学术界对贯彻社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判进行了较为全面系统的研究，这些研究可以大致分为三个主要类别:一类是关于社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的理论基础研究①，一类是关于社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的实证研究②，一类是关于社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的依据、路径研究③。既有研究涉及社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的路径、功能和方法，但并未结合类案比照等具体的论证推理方法进行体系性引入。反思当前典型案例中司法贯彻社会主义核心价值观融入裁判的论证逻辑，对某些难点问题，如社会主义核心价值观具体价值内容如何援引的问题，缺乏专门的系统论述。鉴于此，通过回顾社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的历史过程，对司法裁判贯彻社会主义核心价值观的实践进行深入思考，分析其在司法实践中遇到的现实难题，完善重构司法贯彻社会主义核心价值观的司法推理体系，明确其在司法裁判中“准法源”的角色定位，无疑就具有了一定理论反思价值和现实指向意义。

I. Doctrinal Explanation of the Establishment of the Status of Core Socialist Values as a Source of Law in Judicial Adjudication

一、司法裁判社会主义核心价值观法源地位确立的学理阐释

Since the report of the 18th National Congress of the CPC first elaborated the core concepts and specific connotations of core socialist values, the reports of the 19th, 20th, and the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CPC have all emphasized the comprehensive promotion of core socialist values to all fields of Chinese society and guiding the public to cultivate behavioral habits consistent with core socialist values. To better utilize the role of judicial adjudication in value guidance, the Supreme People’s Court has continuously introduced multiple policies to implement the integration of core socialist values into judicial adjudication. With the promulgation and implementation of the *Working Procedures for the Construction and Operation of the People’s Court Case Database* (hereinafter the *Procedures*) in May 2024, cases in the database containing “core socialist values,” by virtue of the mandatory provision that they “should be referred to and cited,” have had their status as a source of law clarified from the perspective of judicial policy. Strengthening the explanatory argumentation of core socialist values in judicial adjudication documents hinges on constructing a mechanism for value coherence between them and adjudicative activities. The realization of this goal requires, as a prerequisite, a systematic explanation of the normative effectiveness hierarchy and judicial application pathways of core values within the judicial system design.

自党的十八大报告首次阐述社会主义核心价值观的核心理念及其具体内涵后，党的十九大、二十大及二十届三中全会报告都强调将社会主义核心价值观全面推广至中国社会的各个领域，并引导公众培养与社会主义核心价值观相符的行为习惯。为更好地利用司法审判在价值引导上的作用，最高人民法院已经连续推出多项政策贯彻社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判。随着2024年5月《人民法院案例库建设运行工作规程》(以下简称《规程》)的发布和施行，包含“社会主义核心价值观”的在库案例，凭借“应当参照和援引”的硬性规定，社会主义核心价值观的法源地位得以从司法政策上明确。强化社会主义核心价值观在司法裁判文书中的阐释论证，关键在于建构其与裁判活动间的价值融贯机制。这一目标的实现，需以系统解释核心价值观在司法制度设计中的规范效力层级与司法适用路径为前提。

(A) Core Socialist Values Are Guiding Norms of a “Quasi-Legal-Principle” Nature

(一)社会主义核心价值观是“类法律原则”的指导性规范

The 2018 constitutional amendment adopted by the 13th National People’s Congress made normative adjustments to Article 24, Paragraph 2. Through a dual-progressive normative structure — establishing, at the value level, the constitutional advocacy status of core socialist values, while retaining, at the normative level, the admonitory function of the traditional public morality clause — it completed the procedure of incorporating core values into the Constitution. The normative significance of this constitutional amendment is manifested as follows: at the dimension of legal sources, core socialist values, by virtue of their systematic embedding in the General Principles of the Constitution, acquire a normative validity rank under the framework of the “rule of law principle” in Article 5 of the Constitution; at the jurisprudential level, the path of their justification as a fundamental principle of the Constitution requires a doctrinal construction of the mechanism for transmitting validity under Kelsen’s theory of the hierarchy of norms. Core socialist values were formally written into the Constitution, becoming a basic component of its General Principles and acquiring the formal form of a constitutional legal source. The constitutional norm establishing the legal-source status of core socialist values differs from ordinary constitutional provisions: the former is a more comprehensive and overarching legal source, while the latter highlight and embody the former in different parts of the constitutional provisions. The establishment of the constitutional normative rank of core socialist values originates, in essence, from the composite character of their normative quality. This value system exhibits a dual structure at the level of legal philosophy: first, it forms a value-integrating function through the compatibility of heterogeneous value elements (such as the dialectical relationship between freedom and equality). Second, it constructs normative overarching force by relying on the centripetal force of core values (concentratedly embodied in the axial position of “rule of law” and “justice”). At the structural level, the constitutional normative system exhibits characteristics of specific value orientation: most normative provisions target specific value dimensions or normative fields, and their synergistic efficacy requires enhancement. In contrast, core socialist values, as a fundamental value-integrating mechanism, achieve the optimization and reconstruction of the constitutional normative structure through the dual pathways of systematic value orientation and normative coordination. They highly summarize and coordinate the above principles and values, transcending the limitations of a single principle or value category, thereby establishing a legal principle of universal applicability. The value-balancing paradigm established in Article 7 of the Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Integration of Core Socialist Values into the Interpretation and Reasoning of Judgments [n4] can be deconstructed, in terms of its normative structure, into a threefold progressive jurisprudential logic. The first dimension is reflected at the level of normative validity: this provision, by constructing a hierarchical application sequence of “legal rules — legal principles — core values,” positions core socialist values as the ultimate benchmark for judicial value judgment. When an individual case encounters conflicts of multiple values, the judge must follow the argumentation path of “literal interpretation first, teleological interpretation as supplement, value balancing as fallback,” creating institutional space for the open argumentation of substantive justice while adhering to the bottom line of formal rule of law. This design breaks through the mechanical application of the traditional judicial syllogism, instead resorting to a jurisprudential thinking of dynamic balancing. In this sense, core socialist values not only transcend the specific provisions of departmental laws but also establish the status of a general legal principle. As a concrete expression of the constitutional value order, they acquire a superior position relative to specific legal principles within the system of legal sources. This superiority stems from the dual characteristics of this value system: first, through the value integration of dialectical relationships such as “freedom and order” and “efficiency and fairness,” it forms a normative structure with inclusive tension. Second, relying on the axial positioning of core values such as “rule of law” and “justice,” it constructs a hierarchical value sequence of “central radiation — peripheral coordination.” This composite normative structure enables it to effectively coordinate normative conflicts arising from competition among principles. Contemporary legislative technology exhibits a trend toward the systematic construction of value-oriented norms. By setting up value-declaratory provisions and fundamental principles, it achieves dynamic adjustment to ethical demands, effectively alleviating the structural tension between rigid rule systems and social development. The normative structure of core socialist values, because it possesses both value-integrating functions and institution-building efficacy, forms a deep alignment with the original attributes, foundational positioning, and guiding functions of the system of legal principles. Together, they constitute a three-dimensional institutional framework of “value guidance — norm shaping — practical adjustment” within the modern rule-of-law system. As can be seen from the provisions of Article 7 of the Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Integration of Core Socialist Values into the Interpretation and Reasoning of Judgments, this provision, through the composite pathway of “teleological expansive interpretation” and “principled normative guidance,” constructs a flexible governance paradigm for modern rule of law. Its institutional design breaks through the traditional adjudicative pattern of “rule-centeredness,” establishing a dynamic balance between normative stability and value adaptability. On the one hand, it requires strict adherence to the explicit expression of legal texts, upholding the bottom-line requirements of formal rule of law; on the other hand, it authorizes, through the open interpretation of core socialist values, a response to the flux of values during the period of social transformation. Judicial practice and judicial interpretations by the courts further confirm the legal-source status of core socialist values as a general legal principle.

2018 年第十三届全国人大宪法修正案对第二十四条第二款作出规范调适，通过规范结构的二元递进———既在价值层面确立社会主义核心价值观的宪法倡导地位，又在规范层面保留传统公德条款的训示功能———完成了核心价值观的入宪程序。此项宪法修正的规范意义体现为:在法源维度，社会主义核心价值观藉由宪法总纲的体系化嵌入，取得宪法第5条“法治原则”框架下的规范效力位阶;在法理层面，其作为宪法基本原则的证成路径，需置于凯尔森规范层级理论下进行效力传导机制的教义学建构，社会主义核心价值观正式写入宪法，成为宪法总纲的基本组成部分，具备了宪法规范的法源形式。社会主义核心价值观法源地位的宪法规范与一般宪法条文并不相同:前者是更具有综合性、总览性的法源，而后者则在宪法条文的不同部分突出和体现着前者。社会主义核心价值观的宪法规范位阶之确立，本质上源于其规范品格的复合性特征。该价值体系在法哲学层面呈现出双重构造:其一，通过价值要素的异质性兼容(如自由与平等的辩证关系)形成价值整合功能。其二，依托核心价值的向心力(集中体现为“法治”“公正”的轴心地位)建构规范统摄力。宪法规范体系在结构层面呈现特定价值导向特征:多数规范条目针对具体价值维度或规范领域，其间的协同效能有待提升。与之形成对照，社会主义核心价值观作为基础性价值整合机制，通过体系化价值导向与规范协调双重路径，实现宪法规范结构的优化重构。对上述原则与价值进行了高度的概括与协调，超越了单一原则或价值范畴的局限，从而确立了一项具有普遍适用性的法律原则。《关于深入推进社会主义核心价值观融入裁判文书释法说理的指导意见》第七条所确立的价值衡平范式，其规范构造可解构为三重递进式法理逻辑。第一重维度体现在规范效力层面，该条款通过构建“法律规则—法律原则—核心价值观”的层级化适用序列，将核心价值观定位为司法价值判断的终极性基准。当个案裁判遭遇多元价值冲突时，法官须依循“文义解释优先、目的解释补缺、价值衡量兜底”的论证路径，在恪守形式法治底线的同时，为实质正义的开放性论证创设制度空间。此种设计突破了传统司法三段论的机械适用，转而诉诸动态衡平的法理思维。在此意义上，社会主义核心价值观不仅超越了部门法的具体规定，更确立了一般法律原则的地位，其作为宪法价值秩序的具体化表达，在法源体系中取得相对于具体法律原则的优位地位。此种优位性源于该价值体系的双重特性:其一，通过“自由与秩序”“效率与公平”等辩证关系的价值整合，形成具有包容张力的规范结构。其二，依托“法治”“公正”等核心价值的轴心定位，建构起“中心辐射—边缘协调”的层级化价值序列。这种复合型规范构造，使其能够有效协调原则竞争引发的规范冲突。当代立法技术呈现价值导向型规范的系统化建构趋势，通过设置价值宣示条款与基础性原则，实现对伦理诉求的动态调适，有效缓解刚性规则体系与社会发展间的结构性张力。社会主义核心价值观的规范构造，因其兼具价值整合功能与制度建构效能，与法律原则体系的本源属性、基础定位及指引功能形成深层契合，二者共同构成现代法治体系中“价值引领—规范形塑—实践调适”的立体化制度框架。从《关于深入推进社会主义核心价值观融入裁判文书释法说理的指导意见》第七条的规定可见，该条款通过“目的性扩张解释”与“原则性规范指引”的复合路径，构建了现代法治的弹性治理范式。其制度设计突破了传统“规则中心主义”的裁判定式，在规范稳定性与价值适应性间建构动态平衡。一方面要求严格遵循法律文本的显性表达，恪守形式法治的底线要求;另一方面授权通过核心价值观的开放性解释，回应社会转型期的价值流变。法院的司法实践和司法解释进一步确证社会主义核心价值观作为一般法律原则的法源地位。

(II) Core Socialist Values Are “Quasi-Formal Legal Sources”

(二)社会主义核心价值观是“准正式法律渊源”

In judicial adjudication, core socialist values constitute a basic norm that can become a formal legal source. From the perspective of legal interpretation, core socialist values provide an important value orientation for legal interpretation. Given that the key terms of core socialist values — “prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity, friendship” — all possess a certain degree of subjectivity and interpretability, judges, when referring to and applying typical cases concerning core socialist values, should provide a clear explanation of their value choices. When judges face situations where legal provisions are ambiguous, equivocal, or challenged by the need to adapt to the times, they often make value judgments and balance interests in accordance with core socialist values, ensuring that the outcome of legal interpretation both conforms to the original meaning of the legal text and reflects mainstream social values and the principle of fairness and justice. At the same time, the reference and application of core socialist values in judgments is not absolute or exclusive; rather, a balance is chosen based on the specific circumstances of the case and the stage of social development. As the balancing subject of core socialist values, the judge prioritizes these values and fully elucidates them in the reasoning section of the judgment, thereby ensuring an orderly integration of the interpretation and reasoning of the judgment with the promotion of core socialist values. This process not only enhances the reasonableness and persuasiveness of legal interpretation but also promotes a dynamic response between law and social reality, contributing to the organic unity of legal effect and social effect.

在司法裁判中，社会主义核心价值观是一种可以成为正式法律渊源的基本规范。从法律解释的角度来看，社会主义核心价值观为法律解释提供了重要的价值导向。鉴于社会主义核心价值观主题词“富强、民主、文明、和谐、自由、平等、公正、法治、爱国、敬业、诚信、友善”，均具有一定的主观性和可解释性，法官对社会主义核心价值观典型案例的参考适用应作出价值选择的明确说明。当法官在面对法律条文存在模糊性、歧义性或时代适应性挑战时，往往会依据社会主义核心价值观进行价值判断与利益衡量，以确保法律解释的结果既能符合法律文本的原意，又能体现社会主流价值观和公平正义原则。同时，社会主义核心价值观在裁判文书中的参考适用并不是绝对和排他的，而是根据具体案情和社会发展的阶段选择一个平衡。法官作为社会主义核心价值观的平衡主体，将其价值优先考虑在裁判文书说理部分予以充分阐明，从而保证裁判文书释法说理与弘扬社会主义核心价值观的有序结合。这一过程既增强法律解释的合理性与说服力，亦能促进法律与社会现实的动态回应，有助于实现法律效果与社会效果的有机统一。

At the legislative level, core socialist values also play an indispensable role. As an important component of legislative philosophy, core socialist values provide clear value guidance and moral direction for lawmaking. When formulating and amending laws, legislative bodies must fully consider the connotative requirements of core socialist values, ensuring that the content of laws aligns with mainstream social values, in order to safeguard social public interests and fairness and justice. Laws such as the Civil Servant Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Archives Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Law on the Protection of Minors of the People’s Republic of China, the National Flag Law of the People’s Republic of China, the National Emblem Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Law on the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency of the People’s Republic of China directly incorporated the expression “core socialist values” into their legal provisions during revision. Implementing core socialist values not only helps enhance the scientificity and rationality of laws but also strengthens the authority and credibility of laws, laying a solid foundation for the construction of a rule-of-law society. Furthermore, “core socialist values have a guiding role in the formation of guiding cases. The direct citation or indirect reflection of specific content of core socialist values in guiding cases has guiding significance for the adjudication of individual judicial cases in the period before the case is formed.” [n5] Thus, core socialist values acquire the legal status of “quasi-formal legal sources.”

在立法层面，社会主义核心价值观同样扮演着不可或缺的角色。作为立法理念的重要组成部分，社会主义核心价值观为法律制定提供明确的价值指引与道德引领。立法机关在制定和修改法律时，需充分考量社会主义核心价值观的内涵要求，确保法律内容与社会主流价值观相契合，以维护社会公共利益和公平正义。《中华人民共和国公务员法》《中华人民共和国档案法》《中华人民共和国未成年人保护法》《中华人民共和国国旗法》《中华人民共和国国徽法》《中华人民共和国预防未成年人犯罪法》等法律在修订时直接将“社会主义核心价值观”的表述纳入法律条文之中。贯彻社会主义核心价值观不仅有助于提升法律的科学性与合理性，而且增强法律的权威性与公信力，为法治社会的构建奠定坚实的基础。再者，“社会主义核心价值观对指导性案例的形成具有指引作用。指导性案例中对社会主义核心价值观具体内容的直接引用或间接体现，对案例形成前期的司法个案裁判具有指导意义。”由此，社会主义核心价值观则获得“准正式法律渊源”的法律地位。

(III) The Application of Core Socialist Values in Court Adjudication Must Be Combined with “Legal Rules”

(三)社会主义核心价值观在法院裁判适用过程中需要结合“法律规则”

In current judicial practice, the application of core socialist values generally exhibits the characteristic of supplementary argumentation: in specific case adjudication, judicial organs usually take legal rules as the adjudicative benchmark, while simultaneously employing the interpretation of core socialist values to perform a value-reinforcing function. This argumentative paradigm is substantially similar to the application mechanism of legal principles — both exist as supplementary argumentative resources within the normative system, strengthening the substantive legitimacy of adjudicative conclusions through a value-oriented function. Accordingly, core socialist values should be positioned within the hierarchy of normative效力 as an argumentative benchmark with supplementary source-of-law效力. Core socialist values are a value concept and ideology; their application is unstable, and the circumstances for their application are relatively vague. When introducing core socialist values into judicial adjudication, they can generally only be introduced in the reasoning section of the judgment, not in the adjudicative basis section, to prevent the moralization of the adjudicative basis. The "Opinions on Cultivating and Practicing Core Socialist Values in the Work of People's Courts" (hereinafter "the Opinions") also emphatically states that "judges should use core socialist values to interpret the law and reason within the premise of legal norms." This also indicates that core socialist values cannot replace or take priority over legal norms as the adjudicative basis; their main function in the judicial decision-making process is to perform an auxiliary interpretive function. Therefore, the application of core socialist values should adhere to the judicial adjudication principle of "where there is law, follow the law; where there is no law, follow custom; where there is no custom, follow legal principles and core socialist values." Hence, core socialist values must be used in conjunction with clear legal norms. In comparison, the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter "the Civil Code"), which took effect on January 1, 2021, advocates for public order and good customs, fairness and justice, which can be said to be the legal baseline of core socialist values. The formulation of the Civil Code systematically integrates core socialist values, ensuring the clarity and authority of legal norms while emphasizing the internal coordination of the normative system. Judicial practice shows that after the implementation of the Civil Code, the value-interpretation mechanism in adjudicative documents has undergone a qualitative transformation: the precision and persuasiveness of judicial argumentation have significantly improved, and the completeness of the reasoning structure has also been systematically strengthened. This transformation has not only realized the functional shift of core socialist values from value declaration to adjudicative benchmark but has also, through the construction of typified application standards and graded balancing rules, formed an institutional paradigm that unifies value guidance and normative constraint. Therefore, when applying core socialist values in the judicial adjudication of civil and commercial cases, they must be fully integrated with the Civil Code, in accordance with the principle of public order and good customs in society.

现行司法实践中，社会主义核心价值观的适用普遍呈现补充性论证特征:在具体个案裁判中，司法机关通常以法律规则作为裁判基准，同时通过社会主义核心价值观的阐释发挥价值补强功能。此种论证范式与法律原则的适用机理具有实质相似性———二者均作为规范体系的补充性论证资源存在，通过价值导向功能强化裁判结论的实质正当性。据此，社会主义核心价值观在规范效力层级中宜定位为具有补充性法源效力的论证基准。社会主义核心价值观是一种价值理念和意识形态，其适用具有不稳定性，对于适用情形也相对模糊，将社会主义核心价值观引入司法裁判时，一般只能在裁判说理部分引入，不能在裁判依据部分引入，以防止裁判依据道德化。《关于在人民法院工作中培育和践行社会主义核心价值观若干意见》(以下简称《意见》)中也突出强调“法官应在法律规范前提下运用社会主义核心价值观释法说理”。这也就说明，社会主义核心价值观不能替代或者优先于法律规范作为裁判依据，其在司法裁决过程中主要发挥的是辅助性解释功能。因此，社会主义核心价值观的适用应秉持“有法律依法律，无法律依习惯，无习惯依法理、依社会主义核心价值观”的司法审判原则。所以，社会主义核心价值观需与明确的法律规范结合使用。对比2021年1月1日生效的《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)，其倡导的公序良俗、公平正义可以说是社会主义核心价值观的法律底线。《民法典》的制定，系统融入社会主义核心价值观，在确保法律规范明确性与权威性的同时，注重规范体系的内在协调。司法实践表明，民法典实施后，裁判文书的价值阐释机制发生质性转变:司法论证的精准度与说服力显著提升，说理结构的完整性亦得到系统性强化。这种转变不仅实现了社会主义核心价值观从价值宣示向裁判基准的功能转型，更通过类型化适用标准与梯度化权衡规则的构建，形成了价值指引与规范约束相统一的制度范式。因此，在民商事案件司法裁判中适用社会主义核心价值观，需与民法典充分结合，遵照社会公序良俗原则。

II. Empirical Patterns of Citing "Typical Cases" in Implementing Core Socialist Values through the Judiciary

二、司法贯彻社会主义核心价值观“典型案例”援引的实证样态

Through an empirical analysis of judges' citations in typical cases where core socialist values are implemented through the judiciary, one can trace the specific conceptual principles of core socialist values cited by judges, so as to accurately grasp and guide the correct application of core socialist values in judicial adjudication. As of now, among the six batches of typical cases released by the Supreme People's Court, three batches are "typical civil cases." These six batches total 64 typical cases, covering five major case categories: civil, criminal, administrative, enforcement, and intellectual property. These typical cases are the product of selection by the business departments of the Supreme People's Court according to certain standards, with appropriate abridgment and processing; they are not the original adjudicative documents. A comparison in Table 1 below shows that the content and structural arrangements of different batches of typical cases are not entirely identical. The guiding cases that promote core socialist values exhibit a standardized structural element configuration system, which can be specifically deconstructed into a "formal elements — substantive elements" binary dimension. At the formal elements level, "Title," "Basic Facts of the Case," and "Adjudicative Result" constitute the universal structural foundation, where the "Adjudicative Result" strictly follows the rules of normative citation, directly adopting the content of the original trial judgment document; at the substantive elements level, "Core Values" and "Typical Significance" serve as special elements, undertaking value-interpretation and demonstration functions — the former achieves value guidance through title front-loading, while the latter uses substantive argumentation methods to reveal the case's normative innovation value and social governance effectiveness. At the functional hierarchy level, the "Adjudicative Result," as an objective normative element, can more directly present the original trial judge's normative understanding and practical transformation ability regarding core socialist values than the subjective argumentative interpretation of "Typical Significance." The explicit expression of its argumentative logic provides an empirical analysis sample for studying the path selection and technical methods of value integration in judicial practice.

通过司法贯彻社会主义核心价值观在典型案例中法官援引的实证分析，可以追寻到法官援引社会主义核心价值观的具体理念原则，以准确把握和引领社会主义核心价值观在司法裁判中的正确适用。截至目前，最高人民法院发布的六批次典型案例中，有三批为“典型民事案例”。这六批次共计64例典型案例，涵盖民事、刑事、行政、执行及知识产权5大案由。这些典型案例是最高人民法院业务部门根据一定的标准进行遴选，并适当删减和加工后的产物，并非原裁判文书。根据下表1对比可知，不同批次的典型案例在内容结构的体例安排上并不完全相同。弘扬社会主义核心价值观的指导性案例呈现规范化的结构要素配置体系，具体可解构为“形式要件—实质要件”二元维度。形式要件层面，“标题”“基本案情”“裁判结果”构成普适性结构基础，其中“裁判结果”严格遵循规范援引规则，直接采录原审判决文书内容;实质要件层面，“核心价值”与“典型意义”作为特殊要素，承担价值阐释与示范功能，前者通过标题前置实现价值导引，后者运用实质论证方法揭示案例的规范创新价值与社会治理效能。在功能位阶层面，“裁判结果”作为客观性规范要素，较之“典型意义”的主观论证阐释，更能直观呈现原审法官对社会主义核心价值观的规范认知与实践转化能力。其论证逻辑的显性化表达，为研判司法实践中价值融入的路径选择与技术方法提供了实证分析样本。

Table 1: Comparison of the Structural Layout of Typical Cases Promoting Core Socialist Values Across Six Batches

表1六批次弘扬社会主义核心价值观典型案例的体例结构对比

(I) The Proportion of Citations of Core Socialist Values in "Typical Cases" Gradually Increases

(一)社会主义核心价值观在“典型案例”中援引比例逐渐增加

In the typical cases of Batches 1 and 2, the "Adjudicative Result" section, excerpted from the original adjudicative document, did not mention core socialist values or their core values; only in the "Typical Significance" section, through case interpretation, were the content elements reflecting core socialist values within the case excavated. For example, in the "Typical Significance" section of Case 4 in Batch 1, "Case of Selling Goods Bearing Counterfeit Registered Trademarks on WeChat Moments," it is stated: this case violates the value of integrity. However, in the "Adjudicative Result" sections of Case 1 in Batch 3, "Public Interest Litigation Case on Disputes over the Reputation Rights of Heroes Dong Cunrui and Huang Jiguang," and Case 2, "Public Interest Litigation Case on Disputes over the Reputation Rights of Huai'an Martyr Xie Yong," core socialist values were directly mentioned. In Case 6 of Batch 4, "Xinjiang University v. Xie Mou, a Personnel Dispute Case," the "Adjudicative Result" mentions honesty and credibility. In Batch 5, Case 2, "Liu Mou v. Shi Mou, a Dispute over the Right to Health," the "Adjudicative Result" mentions justice and righteousness; Case 4, "Sha Moumou v. Yuan Moumou, a Dispute over Visitation Rights," mentions harmony; Case 5, "Zhou Mou v. Fu Mou, a Dispute over Annulment of Marriage," mentions freedom and civilization[6]6 The core socialist values include prosperity, democracy, civility, harmony, freedom, equality, justice, rule of law, patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendship. The text here lists "freedom" and "civilization" (civility) as specific values mentioned in the judgment.; Case 8, "Wang Mou v. Fu Mou, a Dispute over Liability for Sexual Harassment Damages," mentions core socialist values[7]7 The text references a note marker ⑦ in the original, but the note content is not provided in the source material. This note would typically specify the exact wording of the citation in the judgment.. In the citation of typical cases, this manifests as a shift from implicit application to direct positive and side references, indicating that as the Central Committee of the CPC's requirements for integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication have become clearer and as judicial practice develops, original trial judgments have also begun to place increasing importance on integrating core socialist values into legal interpretation and reasoning, rather than relying entirely on the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court.

在批次一、批次二的典型案例中，从原裁判文书摘抄而来的“裁判结果”部分并未提及社会主义核心价值观及其核心价值，仅在“典型意义”部分，以解读案例的方式，挖掘案例当中体现社会主义核心价值观的内容元素。如批次一中案例4《微信朋友圈销售假冒注册商标的商品案》的“典型意义”部分论述:该案违背诚信价值。但在批次三案例1《董存瑞、黄继光英雄烈士名誉权纠纷公益诉讼案》、案例2《淮安谢勇烈士名誉权纠纷公益诉讼案》的“裁判结果”部分，均直接提及社会主义核心价值观。批次四案例6《新疆某大学诉谢某人事争议案》，“裁判结果”提及诚实信用。批次五案例2《刘某诉史某健康权纠纷案》“裁判结果”提及正当、正义、案例4《沙某某诉袁某某探望权纠纷案》“裁判结果”提及和谐、案例5《周某诉付某撤销婚姻纠纷案》“裁判结果”提及自由、文明⑥、案例8《王某诉傅某性骚扰损害责任纠纷案》“裁判结果”提及社会主义核心价值观⑦。在典型案例的引用上，表现为由隐形运用到直接正面、侧面提及的特征，这说明随着中共中央对社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判要求的明确化和司法实践发展的需要，原审判决也开始越来越重视融入社会主义核心价值观进行释法说理，而不再完全取决于最高人民法院的解读。

(II) The Legal Interpretation Function of Core Socialist Values in "Typical Cases" Is Relatively Weak

(二)社会主义核心价值观在“典型案例”中释法功能较弱

Among the 64 typical cases, only 13 cases mention core socialist values or core values in the "Adjudicative Result" section. Nevertheless, even in these 13 cases, whether core socialist values directly guided the judge's adjudication is open to question. For instance, in Case 4 of Batch 1, "Case of Selling Goods Bearing Counterfeit Registered Trademarks on WeChat Moments," the case involved selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks on the relatively private platform of WeChat Moments, violating the value of integrity. However, the key circumstance for conviction in this case was that "the defendant knowingly sold goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, the amount was relatively large, and their conduct constituted the crime of selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks." The crime of selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks itself violates the principle of honest business operations; the role of core socialist values in the adjudication of this case was not highlighted in the adjudicative document. In Case 11 of Batch 6, "Wu Moumou v. Shanghai Certain Network Technology Co., Ltd., a Service Contract Dispute Case," the court held that "Wu Moumou removed the leased subject matter beyond the service boundary set by the operator for unauthorized parking; this conduct substantially constituted a breach of contractual obligations. Even if the user subsequently performed a second scan code operation to move the subject matter back into the service area, in the absence of special contractual clauses or explicit authorization from the operator, their liability for breach of contract is not exempted by subsequent remedial actions." In this type of contract dispute, as long as the adjudication follows the law, it embodies the value of honesty and credibility of core socialist values. Whether or not core socialist values are cited has no substantive impact on the factual determination and legal judgment of this individual case.

在64个典型案例中，只有13个案例在“裁判结果”部分提及社会主义核心价值观或核心价值。尽管如此，该13个案例当中，社会主义核心价值观是否直接指导法官裁判也有待商榷。如批次一中案例四《微信朋友圈销售假冒注册商标的商品案》，该案利用较为私密的微信朋友圈销售假冒注册商标的商品，违背诚信价值。但该案定罪的关键情节是“被告人销售明知是假冒注册商标的商品，数额较大，其行为构成销售假冒注册商标的商品罪”。销售假冒注册商标的商品罪本身就违背诚信经营原则，社会主义核心价值观在本案的裁判中的作用并未在裁判文书中突显。批次六案例11《武某某诉上海某网络科技有限公司服务合同纠纷案》，法院认为“武某某将租赁标的物移出运营方设定的服务边界实施非授权停放，该行为已实质构成合同义务违反。即便用户事后通过二次扫码操作将标的物重新移入服务区域，在缺乏合同特别条款或运营方明确授权的情形下，其应承担的违约责任不因后续补救行为而获豁免。”该类合同纠纷，只要依法裁判，都体现社会主义核心价值观的诚实信用价值。是否援引社会主义核心价值观，对该个案的事实认定和法律判断没有实质影响。

(III) Core Socialist Values Have Not Entered into Substantive Argumentation in the “Typical Cases”

(三)社会主义核心价值观在“典型案例”中并未介入实质论证

Among the 13 typical cases that cite core socialist values for legal reasoning, three cases do not specify which particular value is involved, but merely state in general terms that the conduct violates the basic requirements of “core socialist values.” Even in the “typical significance” section, where the Supreme People’s Court explains the educational significance of the typical cases, the language is mostly general, using phrases such as “promotes,” “embodies,” “is conducive to,” or “responds to.” By analyzing and summarizing these typical cases, the following problems exist in substantive argumentation: First, they do not combine the specific circumstances of the case to clarify how to provide concrete guidance in fact-finding. Second, they do not combine the specific legal provisions of the case to clarify how to provide concrete guidance in legal reasoning. Third, they do not combine the 12 thematic terms of core socialist values to clarify how to provide concrete guidance in the jurisprudential interpretation of those 12 thematic terms. In summary, at present, core socialist values in judicial practice function more as a political task or a label-like phrase appearing in judgment documents. Although six batches of typical cases have been issued, due to the lack of methods for integration and the absence of integrated argumentation, they cannot play the role that typical cases should play in providing concrete guidance for individual case adjudication.

在13个典型案例裁判中援引社会主义核心价值观进行说理的案例中，有三个案例并未点明具体价值，仅笼统表述为行为背离“社会主义核心价值观”的基本要求。甚至在最高院进行论证释明典型案例教育意义的“典型意义”部分，也多笼统采用“弘扬了”“体现了”“有利于”“回应了”等语词来进行表述。通过剖析总结这些典型案例，在实质论证上存在以下几个问题:一是并未结合具体案例的具体情节，明确在事实认定方面如何具体指引。二是并未结合具体案例的具体法条，明确在法律论证方面如何具体指引。三是并未结合社会主义核心价值观12个主题词，明确该12个主题词的法理解读方面如何具体指引。综上，当前社会主义核心价值观在司法实践中，更多作为一种政治任务或者标签化的语词出现在裁判文书中。尽管已经有六个批次的典型案例，但是因为融入方法不足和融入论证的缺失，在个案裁判上的具体指导，难以发挥典型案例应有的作用。

III. Analysis of Problems in the Judicial Implementation of Core Socialist Values Integrated into Adjudication

三、司法贯彻社会主义核心价值观融入裁判的问题剖析

Based on data collected from the China Judgments Online website, 99% of the court levels where people’s courts currently use core socialist values to interpret the law and reason are basic-level people’s courts and intermediate people’s courts. The types of cases involved in the judgment documents are mainly civil cases, but also include criminal, administrative, enforcement, and state compensation cases, covering almost all types of litigation. Analyzing the “court’s opinion” section of these judgments, among civil case judgment documents, cases involving contracts, negotiorum gestio, unjust enrichment, and disputes are the most numerous, followed by personality rights disputes, tort liability disputes, marriage and family disputes, inheritance disputes, and property rights disputes. In the current court system, especially after the issuance of the Guiding Opinions [8]8 The Guiding Opinions (《指导意见》) refers to the “Guiding Opinions on Further Strengthening the Integration of Core Socialist Values into Judicial Adjudication” (《关于深入推进社会主义核心价值观融入裁判文书释法说理的指导意见》) issued by the Supreme People’s Court in 2021., the citation of core socialist values in judgment documents has surged, increasing more than 11 times compared to the previous year. Overall, the problems in judgment documents involving core socialist values can be summarized into the following three aspects:

从裁判文书网收集到的数据信息来看，当前人民法院运用社会主义核心价值观进行释法说理的法院层级99%为基层人民法院和中级人民法院。裁判文书涉及的案由主要是民事案件，其他还包括刑事、行政、执行和国家赔偿，几乎涵盖全部诉讼类型。对其中判决书的“本院认为”部分进行分析，民事案由裁判文书中合同、无因管理、不当得利纠纷案例中涉及最多，人格权纠纷、侵权责任纠纷、婚姻家庭、继承纠纷、物权纠纷次之。当前法院系统中，尤其是《指导意见》出台后，裁判文书对社会主义核心价值观的援引井喷式增加，是上一年度的11倍多。综合来看，涉及社会主义核心价值观的裁判文书中存在的问题，主要归纳为以下三方面:

(I) The Boundary Between Core Socialist Values and Moral Ethics Is Unclear

(一)社会主义核心价值观与道德伦理界限不清

In judicial practice, there is a tendency to simply equate the legal connotation of core socialist values with the connotation of moral ethics when integrating them into judgment documents. Core socialist values integrate traditional moral concepts and modern judicial concepts. From the perspective of ethics and morality and from the legal perspective, their connotations and extensions have certain differences. Each specific value concept has its specific connotation at the level of moral ethics. In some judgments, the legal connotation of core socialist values is simply equated with the connotation of moral ethics. For example, in the case of Xu Fenglan, Ren Zhenjiang, et al. v. Dispute over Land Contractual Management Right Transfer Contract [9]9 The case citation format “①” in the original text indicates a footnote reference to the specific case number in the China Judgments Online database., the “court’s opinion” section explicitly states: “Regarding whether Ren Zhenjiang’s lawsuit exceeds the statute of limitations. Confusing the citizen moral code of ‘patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendliness’ in core socialist values with the normative effect of legal principles actually constitutes a misplacement of conceptual hierarchy. Specifically, integrity, as a basic principle of civil law (Article 7 of the Civil Code), has normative binding force, while other values in the moral category only have an advocacy function. The adjudicatory body failed to classify value norms according to the hierarchy of sources of law, causing moral evaluation to replace legal judgment, which in essence undermines the institutional intent of integrating core socialist values into the judiciary — that is, to achieve value guidance through legal interpretation techniques, rather than allowing moral exhortation to override normative logic.” In addition, the legal connotation of core socialist values is sometimes applied as a superordinate concept to the connotation of moral ethics, or applied in parallel with it. In some court judgments, although a distinction is made between core socialist values and traditional Chinese virtues, the legal connotation of each value element of core socialist values is not clarified. Therefore, in some judgment documents, core socialist values are used as a superordinate concept to traditional Chinese virtues, while in other courts, they are used in parallel with traditional Chinese virtues. This usage often causes conceptual confusion. The case of Gansu Ronghua Industrial (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Zhongcheng Leasing Co., Ltd. Guarantee Contract Dispute [10]10 The case citation format “②” in the original text indicates a footnote reference to the specific case number in the China Judgments Online database. states: “The principles of honesty, credibility, and equality proposed by core socialist values impose common and equal requirements on all civil subjects in social life. After signing the contract, Zhongcheng Leasing Company, considering the actual difficulties of Gansu Ronghua Company, performed all its obligations under the contract in good faith. However, Gansu Ronghua Company now, in order to evade responsibility, refuses to bear the responsibility it should bear on the grounds of ‘no institutional resolution.’ Gansu Ronghua Company’s contradictory behavior precisely violates the principle of equality and integrity in core socialist values.” Civil law principles include the principle of good faith, the principle of public order and good customs, the principle of fair adjudication, etc., which are themselves consistent with the core elements (12 thematic terms) of core socialist values. In cases where legal principles are applied as the major premise, core socialist values are regarded as a value existence with state coercive force, superior to traditional moral ethics. Judicial power is the key to ensuring the realization of core socialist values, and the independence, impartiality, and fairness of judicial adjudication are the foundation for realizing this guarantee. Merely mentioning the concept of “core socialist values” in judgment documents cannot fully satisfy the public’s reasonable expectations of judicial justice. Because it does not specifically distinguish the overlapping relationship between traditional Chinese virtues and core socialist values, simply conflating the two concepts in judicial practice will inevitably affect the consistency of judicial adjudication, and consequently affect its impartiality and accuracy.

司法实践中存在一种倾向是将社会主义核心价值观的法律内涵简单等同于道德伦理内涵融入裁判文书。社会主义核心价值观融合了传统的道德观念和现代司法理念，从伦理道德视角和法律视角，内涵和外延具有一定的差异性。每种具体的价值观念在道德伦理层面都有其特定的内涵。有的裁判中将社会主义核心价值观的法律内涵简单等同于道德伦理内涵，如《许凤兰、任振江等土地承包经营权转让合同纠纷》①在裁判文书“本院认为部分”明确表述:“关于任振江的起诉是否超过诉讼时效期间的问题。将社会主义核心价值观中“爱国、敬业、诚信、友善”的公民道德准则与法律原则的规范效力混为一谈，实则构成概念位阶的误置。具体而言，诚信作为民法基本原则(《民法典》第7条)具有规范性约束力，而其他道德范畴的价值观仅具倡导性功能。裁判机关未依循法源位阶理论对价值规范进行类型化区分，导致道德评价替代法律判断，实质上消解了核心价值观融入司法的制度初衷———即通过法律解释技术实现价值指引，而非以道德训诫僭越规范逻辑。此外，将社会主义核心价值观的法律内涵作为道德伦理内涵的上位概念适用或并列适用。在一些法院的裁判中，虽然对社会主义核心价值观与中华传统美德进行了区分，但并未明确社会主义核心价值观各价值要素的法律内涵。因此，在某些裁判文书中，社会主义核心价值观被作为中华传统美德的上位概念使用，而在另外一些法院的裁判中，则将它与中华民族传统美德并列使用，这种用法经常造成概念的混淆。《甘肃荣华实业(集团)股份有限公司与中程租赁有限公司保证合同纠纷》中指出:“社会主义核心价值观提出的诚实信用及平等原则，是对社会生活中，所有的民事主体提出共同而平等的要求。中程租赁公司签订合同后，考虑到甘肃荣华公司的实际困难，本着诚实信用原则，依约履行了合同的全部义务。而甘肃荣华公司现今却为了逃避责任，又以‘无机关决议’为由拒绝承担其应当承担的责任。甘肃荣华公司出尔反尔的行为，恰恰违背了社会主义核心价值观中的平等诚信的原则。”民事法律原则包括诚实信用原则、公序良俗原则、公正裁判原则等，本身与社会主义核心价值观的核心要素(12个主题词)相契合。社会主义核心价值观在适用法律原则作为大前提的案例中，被视为具有国家强制力的高于传统道德伦理的价值存在。司法权是确保社会主义核心价值观得以实现的关键，而司法裁判的独立性、公正性、公平性是这一保障得以实现的根本。在裁判文书中仅仅依靠提及“社会主义核心价值观”这一概念，并不能充分满足公众对司法公正的合理期待。因为其并未具体区分中华传统美德与社会主义核心价值观重叠部分的关系，司法实践中简单将两者的概念混为一谈，必然会影响司法裁判的一致性，进而影响其公正性、准确性。

(II) Using Thematic Terms of Core Socialist Values as a Substitute for Specific Legal Rules

(二)泛用社会主义核心价值观主题词代替具体法律规则

Core socialist values have already played the role of a “quasi-formal source of law” in judicial practice, but the judicial application of core socialist values still primarily relies on the subjectivity of judges. Formally, core socialist values cannot directly apply the rules applicable to legal rules and legal principles; procedurally, it is not clearly specified how or when core socialist values should be applied, nor how to choose or balance them if they conflict with legal rules or legal principles. Consequently, in the subjective judicial application process, on the one hand, if a judge directly chooses to apply core socialist values without correctly citing legal rules, this may break the statutory application method of legal rules and legal principles, directly leading to the non-application of statutory rules and causing a problem of “rule escape.” Through a search of the China Judgments Online database, many cases can be seen where core socialist values are cited as the basis for adjudication. However, in these judgments, judges seem reluctant to search for legal rules, instead placing excessive emphasis on moral and ethical reasoning, directly using core socialist values without distinction for explanatory argumentation and adjudication, and even replacing legal rules with core socialist values to decide cases. For example, in the case of Shi Mou, Sun Mou, et al. v. Shi Mou, et al. regarding a dispute over alimony payments, heard by the People’s Court of Qian Gorlos Mongol Autonomous County, Jilin Province②, the judge explicitly stated in the judgment that the two plaintiffs had lost their capacity to work, and that the five defendants, as their children, had the responsibility and should fulfill the legal obligation to provide alimony. Failure to fulfill these statutory duties not only violates legal provisions but also contravenes social morality, being inconsistent with both law and human sentiment, and further runs counter to core socialist values. In this judgment, despite the existence of clear legal rules, the judge did not cite Article 14 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of the Elderly but instead adjudicated based on core socialist values. Such a practice may cause confusion in the application of law. On the other hand, directly using core socialist values as a reason for legal interpretation without argumentation undermines the completeness of the judgment. For instance, the case in the People’s Court Case Database, “Xiwuzhumuqin Banner Certain Lathe Processing Department v. Xiwuzhumuqin Banner Human Resources and Social Security Bureau Work-Related Injury Insurance Qualification Determination Case,” directly denied the existence of a voluntary assistance relationship on the grounds that it did not conform to the requirements of core socialist values③. In this case, whether a voluntary assistance relationship was established directly determined whether the defendant should bear liability for compensation.

社会主义核心价值观已经在司法实践中发挥“准正式法律渊源”的作用，但社会主义核心价值观的司法适用，仍以法官主观性为主要依归。在形式上，社会主义核心价值观不能直接套用法律规则和法律原则的适用规则;在程序上，社会主义核心价值观并未明确如何适用、何时适用，如果与法律规则或法律原则存在冲突，应如何取舍、平衡。由此，在主观的司法适用环节，一方面，法官如果没有对法律规则进行正确引用，而直接选择运用社会主义核心价值观，就可能打破法律规则和法律原则的法定适用方式，直接导致法定规则没有得到适用出现“规则逃逸”的问题。通过对中国裁判文书网检索，可以看到很多引用社会主义核心价值观作为裁判依据的案例。但在裁判文书中，法官似乎怠于寻找法律规则，而是过度注重道德伦理方面的论述，在不加区分的情况下直接使用社会主义核心价值观进行说理阐释和裁判，甚至用社会主义核心价值观代替法律规则来裁判。例如，在吉林省前郭尔罗斯蒙古族自治县人民法院审理的施某、孙某与施某等人之间的赡养费纠纷案件中②，法官在判决中明确指出两位原告已经失去了劳动能力，作为子女的五名被告有责任并应当履行法律规定的赡养义务。不履行这些法定义务不仅违反了法律规定，也违背了社会公德，既不符合法律也不符合人情，更与社会主义核心价值观相悖。在这份判决书中，在存在明确法律规则的情况下，法官没有引用《老年人权益保障法》第十四条，而是依据社会主义核心价值观来进行裁判，这种做法可能会引起法律适用上的混乱。另一方面，不做论证直接用作法律解释的理由，影响裁判的完整性。如人民法院案例库的在库案例《西乌珠穆沁旗某车床加工部诉西乌珠穆沁旗人力资源和社会保障局工伤保险资格认定案》直接以不符合社会主义核心价值观要求，否定了义务帮工关系③。而该案件中义务帮工关系成立与否，直接决定了被告应否承担赔偿责任。

(3) “Labeling”-style citation of core socialist values thematic terms

(三)“贴标”式援引社会主义核心价值观主题词

To better clarify the distinction in reasoning content within judgments, the “Opinions” divide it into two parts: “adjudication basis” and “reasoning basis.” Among these, the “adjudication basis” mainly refers to citations of legal rules, judicial interpretations, legal principles, etc. The “reasoning basis” generally refers to other norms used to explain or support the rules, such as policies, morality, disciplinary regulations, and values. According to the “Opinions,” the purpose of integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication should be to assist legal interpretation and enhance the persuasiveness of argumentation. Core socialist values cover three dimensions: the state, society, and citizens. In some judgments in such cases, the phrase “core socialist values” is directly listed, with a “labeling”-style citation of the wording of core socialist values, without combining it with case-specific reasoning. For example, the case “US Certain Company, Yueyang Certain Company, et al. Dispute over Infringement of Invention Patent Rights”④ states: “Even taking the implementation of the Civil Code as the boundary, in accordance with Article 2 of the ‘Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Temporal Effect of the Application of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China’ concerning favorable retroactivity, applying the provisions on punitive damages to continuous infringing acts prior to January 1, 2021, is more conducive to protecting the lawful rights and interests of civil subjects, more conducive to maintaining the socialist market economic system, and more conducive to promoting core socialist values.” The mere mention of the wording of core socialist values in a labeling manner at the end violates the true legal intent of applying core socialist values. The second part of this article, through an in-depth analysis of six batches totaling 64 guiding cases, found that the current role of core socialist values in judgments is primarily to enhance argumentation, while their contribution to legal interpretation is relatively minor. On the one hand, only about 20% of the 64 typical cases mention core socialist values or core values in the “adjudication result” section. The elaboration of the connotation of core socialist values and their interrelationship with the specific legal rules applied are all interpretations in the “typical significance” section of the Supreme People’s Court; the original intent of the judge in the judgment is not clarified in the original judgment itself. On the other hand, in ordinary cases on the China Judgments Online database, the majority are “labeling”-style one-sided mentions, and in practice, the perfect integration of value concepts with objective legal provisions has not been achieved. For example, the case in the People’s Court Case Database involving “core socialist values,” “Tian Mou v. Yang Mou Dispute over Rights to Life, Health, and Personal Integrity,” had its adjudication basis entirely in legal rules, but the reasoning section stated: “Promoting core socialist values is the legislative purpose of civil law. Judicial adjudication should support and encourage acts that protect the ecological environment and safeguard social public interests in accordance with the law, so as to promote core socialist values.” In the adjudication process, judges should discuss, define the nature of the case, and reach conclusions in accordance with legal provisions, ensuring the accurate application of legal rules. When using core socialist values as the adjudication basis, their interconnected and mutually supportive relationship with legal rules should be reflected.

为了更好地明确裁判文书中说理内容的区分，《意见》将其分为“裁判依据”和“说理依据”两个部分。其中，“裁判依据”主要指对法律规则、司法解释、法律原则等的引用。而“说理依据”则一般指解释或支持规则的其他准则，如政策、道德、清规戒律、价值观念等。根据《意见》，将社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判，其目的应当是辅助法律解释和增强论证的说服力。社会主义核心价值观覆盖国家、社会和公民三个维度。部分裁判文书在此类案件中，直接列明“社会主义核心价值观”几个字，“贴标式”引用社会主义核心价值观字句，未结合案件进行说理。如《美国某公司、岳阳某公司等侵害发明专利权纠纷》④就表述为“即使以民法典的施行为界，按照《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉时间效力的若干规定》第二条关于有利溯及的规定，对2021年1月1日之前的持续侵权行为适用惩罚性赔偿的规定更有利于保护民事主体合法权益，更有利于维护社会主义市场经济体制，更有利于弘扬社会主义核心价值观。”仅仅在最后以贴标的形式提及社会主义核心价值观字句，有违适用社会主义核心价值观真实的法律意蕴。前文第二部分通过对六批次共64个指导性案例的深度剖析发现，目前社会主义核心价值观在裁判文书中主要发挥的作用是增强论证，而在法律解释方面的贡献相对较小。一方面，在64个典型案例中只有两成的案例在“裁判结果”部分提及社会主义核心价值观或核心价值。将社会主义核心价值观的内涵阐述并与适用的具体法律规则的相互关系进行释明，均为最高法“典型意义”部分的解读，法官在裁判文书的原意在原判决中并未阐明。另一方面，裁判文书网上的普通案例，多数为“贴标”式的片面提及，实践中并未实现价值观念与客观法律条文的完美结合。如人民法院案例库涉及“社会主义核心价值观”在库案例《田某诉杨某生命权、健康权、身体权纠纷案》，裁判依据均为法律规则，但是在说理部分列明:“弘扬社会主义核心价值观是民法的立法宗旨，司法审判对保护生态环境、维护社会公共利益的行为应当依法予以支持和鼓励，以弘扬社会主义核心价值观。”在裁判过程中，法官应该按照法律的规定进行论述、界定案件性质和定论问题，并确保准确地适用法律规则。当使用社会主义核心价值观作为裁判依据时，应该要体现其与法律规则相互联结和关联配合的关系。

4. Path Selection for Implementing the Integration of Core Socialist Values into Judicial Adjudication

四、司法贯彻社会主义核心价值观融入裁判的路径选择

Data from the China Judgments Online platform show that, after reaching a peak of application in 2021, the overall frequency declined in 2022. Judges’ invocation of core socialist values in case reasoning and adjudication has gradually matured and become standardized. The integration of core socialist values into judicial adjudication cannot be a mere symbolic incorporation; rather, it must participate in substantive fact-finding and legal determination, engage in legal interpretation and legal reasoning, and intervene in substantive argumentation. To a certain extent, core socialist values represent the elevation and clarification of the values inherent in existing legal rules and legal principles. Incorporating core socialist values into judicial adjudication activities and introducing their value-integrating function essentially reflects a paradigm shift in the mechanism of judicial collaborative governance. This mechanism expands the functions of the rule of law through three dimensions: first, constructing channels for the convergence of normative consensus, promoting rational dialogue among diverse values within judicial proceedings. Second, improving pathways for shaping public policy, facilitating the dynamic adjustment of legal norms to social development. Third, strengthening the reproduction mechanism of institutional justice, achieving a positive interaction between individual case adjudication and social governance. The practical demands of the rule of law during the period of social transformation endow core socialist values with a special normative tension: their ethical dimension possesses dynamic adaptive characteristics, enabling a timely response to governance challenges arising from technological innovation and value flux, while the inherent stability value pursued by the legal system imposes necessary institutional constraints at the normative level. This dialectical relationship between normative flexibility and institutional rigidity allows core socialist values, in judicial governance, to both exert the proactive advantage of value guidance and maintain the internal unity of the legal system. In practice, as a moral standard, although core socialist values have acquired the status of “quasi-formal sources of law,” due to the relative ambiguity and abstraction of their connotations and the richness of their value elements, they cannot, like legal rules, be directly invoked in legal reasoning with clear meaning, nor can they, like legal principles such as public order and good customs, serve directly as the basis for adjudication. Therefore, while ensuring the proactive advantage of core socialist values, transforming the moral and ethical connotations of the twelve key terms contained in core socialist values into legal language for integration into judicial adjudication cannot simply abstractly clarify the connotations of each core value through generalized expressions; rather, a case guidance method should be adopted. The reasoning of precedent cases serves the function of justifying the application of similar cases; it not only provides substantive criteria for determining whether a precedent and a pending case are similar cases but also prepares guarantee reasons for the formation and application of adjudicative rules for similar cases.

从裁判文书网的数据来看，经历了2021年的适用高峰后，2022年整体回落。法官们在案件论证和裁判过程中援引社会主义核心价值观，逐渐成熟规范化。社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判，不能是简单的符号化融入，而应当参与实质的事实认定、法律判断;参与法律解释、法律推理，介入实质论证。社会主义核心价值观在一定程度上对于现有法律规则和法律原则内涵的价值观的升华和明确，将社会主义核心价值观纳入司法裁判活动中，引入其价值整合功能，本质上体现司法协同治理机制的范式革新。该机制通过三重维度实现法治功能拓展:其一，建构规范共识凝聚渠道，促进多元价值在司法程序中的理性对话。其二，完善公共政策形塑路径，推动法律规范与社会发展的动态调适。其三，强化制度正义再生产机制，实现个案裁判与社会治理的良性互动。社会转型期的法治实践需求赋予核心价值观特殊的规范张力:其伦理维度具有动态调适特征，能够及时回应技术革新与价值流变带来的治理挑战，而法律体系固有的安定性价值追求，则在规范层面形成必要的制度约束。这种规范弹性与制度刚性间的辩证关系，使核心价值观在司法治理中既能发挥价值指引的能动优势，又可维系法律体系的内在统一性。实践中，作为一种道德准则，社会主义核心价值观虽然已经具有“准正式法律渊源”的地位，但因为其内涵的相对模糊性和抽象性，价值要素的丰富性，不能像法律规则一样含义明确直接援引参与法律推理，也无法像公序良俗等法律原则一样直接作为裁判的依据。由此，在保证社会主义核心价值观能动优势的前提下，将社会主义核心价值观包含的12个主题词的道德伦理内涵转化为法律用语融入司法裁判，不能简单地抽象地用概括表述方法阐明各项核心价值观的内涵，而应该采用案例指导的方法。先例的裁判理由对类案适用承担着正当化论证的功能，它不仅为判断先例与待决案件是否类案提供了实质标准，也为类案裁判规则的形成和适用准备了担保理由。

(I) The Integration of Core Socialist Values into Judicial Adjudication Should Clarify Applicable Rules

(一)社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判应明确适用规则

The implementation of core socialist values in judicial adjudication requires the concretization of rules. To prevent the arbitrary and subjective application of core socialist values, they cannot be applied independently, detached from legal rules or legal principles. However, there remains a certain distance between core socialist values and legal rules or legal principles. Therefore, the implementation of core socialist values in judicial adjudication requires the concretization of rules or principles, that is, combining the facts of individual cases to transform the key terms of core values into specific “behavioral motives + specific behavioral patterns.” On the one hand, behavioral motives cannot be applied independently, detached from specific behavioral patterns. The twelve key terms of core socialist values, as moral and ethical expressions, only indicate specific “behavioral motives.” For example, in Case 2 of the fifth batch of typical cases, *Liu v. Shi, Dispute over Right to Health*, the core value is “civility,” which merely points to the behavioral motive or value goal of “civility” and cannot affect the determination of the legal relationship; it also requires a “specific behavioral pattern,” that is, completing a specific act under the guidance of the “behavioral motive.” In the aforementioned Case 2, Shi, for the purpose of maintaining public transportation safety and order, kindly advised Liu to cease conduct that obstructed the normal operation of the bus. The legitimacy of his subjective motive and the appropriateness of his conduct were judicially confirmed. Through the interpretation of this individual case, the adjudicatory body established a threefold normative significance: first, establishing a behavioral paradigm for civilized travel, providing guidance for public participation in social governance. Second, affirming the legality of well-intentioned advice, clarifying the reasonable boundaries for the exercise of citizens’ rights. Third, strengthening the normative guarantee of public transportation safety and order, achieving a dynamic balance between individual freedom and public interest. Through the composite reasoning path of “behavioral guidance—value confirmation—order maintenance,” this adjudicatory gist manifests the normative implications of the “civility” and “rule of law” dimensions within core socialist values. In short, the concretization of rules for integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication requires, after clarifying the key term (behavioral motive), elucidating what “specific behavioral pattern” should be adopted. On the other hand, there must be an essential and necessary connection between the behavioral motive and the specific behavioral pattern. An essential and necessary connection must satisfy three conditions: first, there is a substantive correlation between the motive and the act. That is, the specific act must contribute to the substantive realization of the “behavioral motive,” regardless of whether realization occurs or the extent to which it aids the purpose, as in Cases 2 and 13 of the sixth batch mentioned above. Second, reasoning backward from the act must not deviate from the motive. That is, the specific act is a necessary condition for realizing the “behavioral motive”; although it need not be considered a sufficient condition, common-sense reasoning about the act must not produce a conclusion that directly deviates from the “behavioral motive.” Third, it must conform to the principle of proportionality. Reasoning backward from the act may not produce only the single result expected by the “behavioral motive,” but other results should fall within an appropriate scope. For example, although acting courageously for a just cause and friendly mutual assistance are advocated by core socialist values, if “acting courageously for a just cause” is inappropriate and causes excessive harm, it may still constitute excessive defense or excessive avoidance of danger.

司法裁判贯彻社会主义核心价值观需要规则的具体化。为防止社会主义核心价值观适用的随意性和主观性，社会主义核心价值观不能跳脱法律规则或法律原则单独适用。然而，社会主义核心价值观与法律规则、法律原则之间尚存在一定距离。因此，司法裁判贯彻社会主义核心价值观需要规则或原则的具体化，即结合个案事实将核心价值观的主题词，转化为具体的“行为动机+具体行为模式”。一方面，行为动机不能脱离具体行为模式单独适用。社会主义核心价值观的12个主题词作为一种道德伦理用语，仅显示出了具体的“行为动机”。如典型案例批次五案例2《刘某诉史某健康权纠纷案》核心价值是“文明”，只指出了行为动机或称价值目标是“文明”，并不能影响法律关系的界定，还需要“具体行为模式”即在“行为动机”指引之下完成具体行为。在上述案例2中，史某基于维护公共交通安全秩序之目的，对刘某妨害公交车辆正常行驶的行为实施善意劝止，其主观动机的正当性与行为方式的合宜性已获司法确认。裁判机关通过个案阐释，在规范层面确立了三重示范意义:首先，确立文明出行的行为范式，为公众参与社会治理提供指引。其次，肯认善意劝止的适法性，明确公民权利行使的合理边界。最后，强化公共交通安全秩序的规范保障，实现个体自由与公共利益的动态平衡。该裁判要旨通过“行为指引—价值确认—秩序维护”的复合论证路径，彰显了社会主义核心价值观中“文明”与“法治”层面的规范意涵。简言之，社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判规则的具体化，需要明确主题词(行为动机)之后，阐明应当采取何种“具体行为模式”。另一方面，行为动机与具体行为模式间需具有本质必然联系。本质必然联系需要满足三方面的条件:首先，动机和行为之间存在实质关联性。即具体行为要有助于“行为动机”的实质实现，无需考虑是否实现，在多大程度上能够助益于目的的实现，如上文批次六案例2和案例13。其次，由行为反推不能背离动机。即具体行为是“行为动机”实现的必要条件，虽无需考虑是否是充分条件，但该行为以常识推理不能产生直接背离“行为动机”的结论。最后，符合适当性原则。行为反推可能并不只产生“行为动机”所期望的唯一结果，但其他的结果应在适当的范围内。如见义勇为、友善互助虽是社会主义核心价值观所倡导，但“见义勇为”行为失当导致损害过限，仍然可能构成防卫过当、避险过当。

(II) The Integration of Core Socialist Values into Judicial Adjudication Should Follow Standardized Procedures

(二)社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判应遵循规范的程序

Judges cannot treat core socialist values as a panacea for all ills; their application must adhere to procedural norms governing the use of core socialist values. To genuinely apply the adjudicator’s discretion to the judicial decision, it is necessary not only to “state reasons” but also to “interpret the law.” When judges apply core socialist values in judicial adjudication, they should not use the vague expression “core values” but should, based on the specific case circumstances, case facts, and adjudicatory basis (specific legal provisions), conduct detailed argumentation using one or several specific key terms of core socialist values, avoiding arbitrary and one-sided integration of core socialist values into judicial adjudication. In the process of integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication, it is necessary to standardize the logical relationship in the argumentation procedure among legal rules, legal principles, and core socialist values.

法官不能把社会主义核心价值观当作“包治百病”的良药，在适用上要遵守社会主义核心价值观适用的过程性规范。要真正把审理者的自由裁量权运用到司法裁决结果，不仅要“说理”，也要“释法”。法官在司法裁判中适用社会主义核心价值观时，不能笼统表述为“核心价值观”，而应结合具体案情、案件事实和裁判依据(具体法条)，运用社会主义核心价值观的某一个或者几个具体的主题词进行详细的论证，避免社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的随意性和片面性。社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判过程，有必要规范法律规则、法律原则与社会主义核心价值观在论证程序上的逻辑关系。

First, in the determination of case facts. Use the twelve key terms of core socialist values, combined with the specific case circumstances, to interpret the “behavioral motive” of the individual case, and interpret the “behavioral motive” and the key terms of core socialist values using methods of legal interpretation. Use the specific key terms of core socialist values to reason and determine the legality and relevance of evidence. Second, the justification of legal rules. Where clear legal rules exist, use the key terms of core socialist values to argue for the interactive integration of legal rules with reason and common sense, enhancing the legitimacy and rationality of applying the legal rules, thereby increasing the acceptability of the adjudicatory conclusion; where no clear legal rules exist, the judge should, based on the case circumstances, elucidate the internal logic of the legal norms themselves and excavate the inherent requirements of core socialist values they contain. Use the specific key terms of core socialist values as reasons for selecting legal rules. Finally, the selection and balancing of legal principles. Where rules are exhausted, use the key terms of core socialist values to interpret the motive of the individual case, argue for a “stronger reason,” and select among principles with lower compatibility; interpret the dialectical relationship between multiple values and the case facts, determine the priority among various legal principles, and use core socialist values as a measuring element of legal value to participate in legal interpretation and reasoning.

首先，在案件事实认定方面。利用社会主义核心价值观12个主题词，结合具体案情解读个案“行为动机”，将“行为动机”与社会主义核心价值观的主题词，运用法律解释的方法进行解读。利用社会主义核心价值观的具体主题词进行证据合法性、关联性的推理和判定。其次，法律规则的正当性论证。在具有明确的法律规则的前提下，利用社会主义核心价值观的主题词，对法律规则与情理、事理的交互融合进行论证，增强法律规则适用的正当性和合理性，进而提高裁判结论的可接受性;在没有明确的法律规则的前提下，法官应当结合案情阐释法律规范本身的内在逻辑，挖掘其所蕴含的社会主义核心价值观的内在要求。将社会主义核心价值观的具体主题词作为法律规则选择的理由。最后，法律原则的取舍和平衡。在穷尽规则的情形下，利用社会主义核心价值观的主题词解读个案的动机，论证“更强理由”，对契合度较低的原则进行取舍;对多种价值与案件事实之间的辩证关系进行解读，确定各法律原则之间的优先级，利用社会主义核心价值观作为法律价值的衡量要素参与释法说理。

(III) The Integration of Core Socialist Values into Judicial Adjudication Should Follow the Rule of Selecting “Keywords”

(三)社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判应遵循“主题词”选取规则

Legal reasoning is a practical rational action carried out by adjudicators in judicial practice, and this action must be based on corresponding adjudicative reasons. When judges determine adjudicative reasons, interpret the motives in individual cases, and select the keywords of core socialist values, they must also follow corresponding rules. In accordance with the distribution of core socialist values keywords across the three levels of citizen, society, and state, and in conjunction with the specific individual actions of the actor in the case, the “behavioral motive” (the keywords of core socialist values) should be matched from the lower to the higher level. First, the selection of core socialist values keywords should proceed from the lower to the higher level. Legal reasoning must be based on the facts of the case, and on the basis of those facts, methods such as legal interpretation, legal reasoning, and logical subsumption are used to determine the legal facts. In short, the facts of the case are the logical starting point of legal reasoning. The keywords of core socialist values should first be selected from the individual citizen level of “patriotism, dedication, integrity, and friendliness,” serving as the “behavioral motive” in the case, to conduct value judgments with the individual behavior in the case facts, and to carry out evidence determination and legal fact adjudication. If none of the individual-level keywords are suitable, then selection may begin directly from the social level of “freedom, equality, justice, and the rule of law” as value keywords. Similarly, if none of the social-level keywords are suitable, then keywords are selected from the state level of “prosperity, democracy, civility, and harmony” to interpret the law and articulate reasoning, thereby reducing the arbitrariness and subjectivity of integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication. Second, the selection of core socialist values keywords may cross levels. In judicial practice, core socialist values keywords rarely exist in isolation; aside from patriotism and civility, “civility and harmony” often appear together with “rule of law” and “integrity,” “rule of law” often appears together with “dedication,” “harmony” often appears together with “friendliness,” and “equality and justice” often appear together with “integrity.”[14]14 The original text contains a footnote marker ④ here, which is retained as a reference to the authors’ original citation. Finally, the selection of core socialist values keywords must follow the principle of gradient ascent. An individual case first involves “specific behavior”; judicial adjudication must first make a judgment on that individual behavior, and on this basis, ascend to an assessment of its impact on society or the state. Thus, integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication should proceed along the gradient of “individual citizen level – social level – state level,” in the order of “micro – meso – macro,” ascending step by step in reasoning and argumentation. This constructs the legal rights-based connection between the citizen and the state from a modern perspective.

法律推理是裁判者在司法实践中所实施的一种实践理性行动，这一行动必须基于相应的裁判理由做出。法官在确定裁判理由，解读个案的动机，选取社会主义核心价值观的主题词时，也要遵循相应的规则。依照社会主义核心价值观主题词公民、社会、国家三个层面的分布，结合个案中行为人的具体个人行动，由低到高匹配“行为动机”(社会主义核心价值观的主题词)。首先，社会主义核心价值观主题词的选取应该由低到高。法律推理必须基于案件事实，在案件事实基础上运用法律解释、法律推理、逻辑涵摄等方法认定法律事实。简言之，案件事实是法律推理的逻辑起点。社会主义核心价值观主题词，应首先从公民个人层面的“爱国、敬业、诚信、友善”中选取，作为案件中的“行为动机”，与案件事实中的个人行为进行价值判断，进行证据认定和法律事实的判定。如果个人层面无一合适，方可直接从社会层面的“自由、平等、公正、法治”价值主题词开始选取。同样，如果社会层面无一合适，则从国家层面的“富强、民主、文明、和谐”选取主题词进行释法说理，减少社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的随意性和主观性。其次，社会主义核心价值观主题词的选取可以跨层面。社会主义核心价值观主题词在司法实践中很少单独存在，除了爱国和文明，“文明和谐”常与“法治”“诚信”同时出现，“法治”常与“敬业”同时出现，“和谐”常与“友善”同时出现，“平等、公正”常与“诚信”同时出现④。最后，社会主义核心价值观主题词选取要遵循梯度上升原则。具体个案首先涉及的是“具体行为”，司法裁判首先要对该个人行为作出判断，在此基础上再上升为对社会或者国家层面的影响。由此，将社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判，应当从“公民个人层面-社会层面-国家层面”的梯度，由“微观-中观-宏观”的顺序逐级上升进行说理论证。构筑现代化视域下的公民与国家间的法权联系。

(IV) The Integration of Core Socialist Values into Judicial Adjudication Should Restructure the Reasoning System

(四)社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判应重构推理体系

According to the traditional rules of judicial syllogism, as long as “legal rules + case facts” are described in the form of “major premise + minor premise,” a reliable conclusion can be derived under the deductive logic reasoning rules. Clearly, the traditional judicial syllogism has certain flaws to some extent in terms of completeness, reliability, and systemic coherence. Unlike formal logic, which deals with the textual connection between the premises of legal rules and the conclusion, the application of law deals with substantive inferences involving natural language and containing the material of the case; it requires substantive assertions about the premises and conclusion, which goes beyond the scope of formal logic. The judicial implementation of core socialist values integrates them into judicial adjudication by introducing “keywords” as new premises into the deductive reasoning process, restructuring the “deductive syllogism” into a “recursive quadruple syllogism” reasoning model. Compared with the argumentation of the traditional judicial syllogism, the recursive quadruple syllogism, on the one hand, retains the case facts as an independent premise of legal reasoning, and on the other hand, replaces the minor premise in the judicial syllogism with a recursively attributed new premise. For example, in Batch 5, Case 9, “Shen Moumou v. Hu Mou and Deng Mou, Labor Dispute Case,” the reasoning model under the traditional syllogism would be: Major premise: wages shall be paid in legal tender. Minor premise: the company paid wages in virtual currency. Conclusion: the virtual currency payment is invalid, and payment shall be made in RMB. The minor premise “the company paid wages in virtual currency” is inconsistent with the major premise “wages shall be paid in legal tender,” and cannot be directly derived through deductive logic. Therefore, the aforementioned minor premise is recursively treated as “minor premise 1,” and with the intervention of a new premise, i.e., “minor premise 2”: virtual currency is not legal tender, and paying wages in virtual currency does not comply with the legal requirement to pay wages in legal tender, so the company’s wage payment is invalid. Only then can the conclusion be smoothly reached: the company must re-pay in RMB. In this case, core socialist values’ “integrity” was used as “minor premise 2” to intervene in judicial reasoning, arguing that “virtual currency” is not “legal tender,” and then “rule of law” was used to argue that “paying wages in virtual currency does not comply with the legal requirement to pay wages in legal tender, and paying wages in virtual currency is illegal,” thereby reaching the correct conclusion. Additionally, when citing typical cases in judicial application and using the method of comparing similar cases to introduce core socialist values into judicial adjudication, besides following the rules of application, the application process, and the rules for selecting keywords, attention must be paid in analogical reasoning to the argumentative comparison between the typical case and the “minor premise 2” in the individual case, introducing core socialist values into the case’s legal interpretation and substantive reasoning; following the rules for selecting keywords, ascending along the gradient of “individual citizen – society – state,” reasoning step by step, ensuring the saturation and coherence of the reasoning logic; and restructuring the judicial adjudication reasoning system, using the “recursive quadruple syllogism + comparison of similar cases” model, to achieve the coherence and integrity of adjudicative reasoning.

依据传统的司法三段论规则，只要将“法律规则+案件事实”描述为“大前提+小前提”的形式，就可以在演绎逻辑的推理规则下得出可靠性结论。显然，传统的司法三段论在完全性、可靠性和体系完备性方面一定程度上存在些许瑕疵。与形式逻辑处理法律规则前提和结论之间文本关联不同，法律适用处理的是涉及自然语言且包含案件质料的实质推论，它需要对前提和结论作出实质意义上的断言，这超越了形式逻辑的处理范畴。司法贯彻社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判，以“主题词”作为新的前提介入演绎推理过程，将“演绎三段论”重构为“递归四段论”的推理模式。与传统司法三段论的论证相比，递归四段论一方面将案件事实作为法律推理的独立前提予以保留，另一方面将司法三段论中的小前提替换为递归式归属新前提。如批次五案例9《沈某某诉胡某、邓某劳动争议案》，按传统三段论的推理模式为:大前提，工资应当以法定货币支付。小前提，公司以虚拟货币支付工资。结论，虚拟货币支付行为无效，应支付人民币。小前提“公司以虚拟货币支付工资”与大前提“工资应当以法定货币支付”不一致，并不能由演绎逻辑直接推导出来。因此前述小前提递归为“小前提1”，加之介入的新前提，即“小前提2”:虚拟货币不是法定货币，以虚拟货币支付工资行为不符合以法定货币支付工资的法律规定，公司支付工资行为无效。方可顺利得出结论:公司应重新支付人民币。该案例以社会主义核心价值观的诚信作为“小前提2”介入司法推理，论证“虚拟货币”不是“法定货币”，再以“法治”参与论证“以虚拟货币支付工资行为不符合以法定货币支付工资的法律规定，以虚拟货币支付工资行为不合法”，进而得出正确结论。另外，在司法适用时援引典型案例，以类案比照的方法将社会主义核心价值观引入司法裁判，除了要遵循适用规则、适用过程和主题词选取规则外，在类比推理中要重视典型案例与个案中“小前提2”的论证比较，将社会主义核心价值观介入案件的释法和实质推理;遵循主题词选取规则，由“公民个人-社会-国家”梯度上升，逐级说理，保证说理逻辑的饱和连贯;重构司法裁判推理体系，运用“递归四段论+类案比较”模式，实现裁判说理的融贯性和整全性。

Conclusion

结语

The integration of core socialist values into judicial adjudication is a process in which they serve as an internal reason, participating in legal reasoning and the adjudicative conclusion. The promotion and advocacy at the state level endow core socialist values with inherent political authority and social recognition. The use of core socialist values in the process of judicial legal reasoning can enhance the legitimacy and persuasiveness of the reasoning process and the adjudicative conclusion, and increase the acceptability of judicial adjudication. With the support of the state political system, the number of judges citing and applying core socialist values in adjudicative documents has surged. However, using “core socialist values” in a general way for reasoning, or even directly replacing laws and regulations in adjudication, undermines the stability, integrity, and authority of legal norms. Optimizing the path choice for implementing core socialist values in judicial adjudication is not only a procedural issue of enhancing the fairness of legal reasoning and legal adjudication, but also a matter of institutional safeguards concerning the realization of the rule of law. A complete set of methodological strategies can not only guide the practice of integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication, avoiding the uncertainty of the rules for their practical application and the disorder in keyword selection, but also enhance the reliability and stability of judicial adjudication reasoning, thereby normatively providing justification and reasonableness for the derivation of judicial adjudication conclusions. Continuously adjusting, improving, and promptly cleaning up typical cases and cases in the database, restructuring the methodological system for integrating core socialist values into judicial adjudication, ensuring substantive justice through procedural justice, actively exercising the functions of the judiciary, and providing strong theoretical support and practical examples for the realization of the modernization of the socialist rule of law.

社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判，是其作为一项内在理由，参与法律推理和裁判结论的过程。国家层面的推行倡导赋予社会主义核心价值观与生俱来的政治权威、社会认可。司法法律推理过程中对社会主义核心价值观的运用，能够增加推理过程和裁判结论的正当性和说服力，增强司法裁判的可接受性。在国家政治体系的支撑作用下，法官在裁判文书中援引适用社会主义核心价值观的数量突飞猛进。但笼统地用“社会主义核心价值观”进行说理，甚至直接取代法律法规进行裁判，冲击了法律规范的稳定性、完整性和权威性。优化司法裁判贯彻社会主义核心价值观的路径选择，不仅是提升法律推理和法律裁判公正性的程序性问题，更是关涉法治实现的制度保障性问题。一套完备的方法论策略，不仅可以引领社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判的实践，避免其实践适用的规则不确定性以及主题词选择之无序，还能够提升司法裁判推理的可靠性和稳定性，进而规范化地为司法裁判结论的得出提供正当性和合理性辩护。不断调整、完善和及时清理典型案例和入库案例，重构社会主义核心价值观融入司法裁判中的方法论体系，以程序公正保证实体公正，能动发挥司法的功能，为社会主义法治现代化的实现提供强有力的理论支撑和实践例证。