附带意见

附带意见（拉丁语单数：Obiter dictum，拉丁语复数 obiter dicta），又称判词旁论，指法官或仲裁员在判决书中不具拘束力，“附带”的论述。

附带意见的概念源自英国普通法，将判决书分为具有约束力的“判决理由”（ratio decidenti）以及不具约束力（但具有说服力）的附带意见^[1]^[2]。

Obiter dicta 拉丁语的字面意思是“说的其他内容”^[3]。英语中根据地区不同，通常简称为 obiter 或 dicta。

意义

司法判决书的内容只有在涉及案件的关键事实和法律时，才能成为判决理由。不重要的、涉及假设性事实的、或涉及不相关法律问题的论述，则是附带意见。

附带意见虽然出现在判决书中，是法官的意见，但不构成法院判决的必要部分，例如“用以说明、类比或论证”的内容^[3]。美国法学家Wambaugh提出的倒置测试 (Wambaugh's Inversion Test) 规定，要确定判决书的一部分是判决理由还是附带意见，应该将内容倒置。也就是说，如果该部分被省略，决定是否会有所不同。如果会不同，则该部分不可或缺，是判决理由；反之则是附带意见。

参考内容

^ United States v. Warren, 338 F.3d 258. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 7, 2003 [2022-02-02]. （原始内容存档于2021-09-27）. Simply labeling a statement in an opinion as a 'holding' does not necessarily make it so. Gratuitous statements in an opinion that do not implicate the adjudicative facts of the case's specific holding do not have the bite of precedent. They bind neither coordinate nor inferior courts in the judicial hierarchy. They are classic obiter dicta: 'statement[s] of law in the opinion which could not logically be a major premise of the selected facts of the decision.'
^ United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 6, 2010 [2022-02-02]. （原始内容存档于2021-11-02）. To be sure, Supreme Court dicta, even while nonbinding, are still highly persuasive. (plurality opinion)
^ ^3.0 ^3.1 Black's Law Dictionary, p. 967 (5th ed. 1979).

[Warren-1] United States v. Warren, 338 F.3d 258. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 7, 2003 [2022-02-02]. （原始内容存档于2021-09-27）. Simply labeling a statement in an opinion as a 'holding' does not necessarily make it so. Gratuitous statements in an opinion that do not implicate the adjudicative facts of the case's specific holding do not have the bite of precedent. They bind neither coordinate nor inferior courts in the judicial hierarchy. They are classic obiter dicta: 'statement[s] of law in the opinion which could not logically be a major premise of the selected facts of the decision.'

[Dupree-2] United States v. Dupree, 617 F.3d 724. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Harvard Law School. August 6, 2010 [2022-02-02]. （原始内容存档于2021-11-02）. To be sure, Supreme Court dicta, even while nonbinding, are still highly persuasive. (plurality opinion)

[black-3] 3.0 ^3.1 Black's Law Dictionary, p. 967 (5th ed. 1979).

[1]

[2]

[3]