建构法律推理的新视角：以语用学合作原则为切入点

如何建构大小前提,关系到法律推理能否取得有效性,以往对于建构大小前提的研究偏向于抽象的理论探讨,缺乏具体的、可操作的方法。在语用学视域中,法律推理不仅是逻辑推理也是行动推理,构建大小前提的过程体现为言语行为活动,而语用学合作原则是理解言语行为的一个非常重要的原则,能够在建构大小前提中发挥重要作用,为研究法律推理提供了新的视角。     

论一般法律会话含义推理及其有效性

一般会话含义推理是推出说话者的一般会话含义,促进对话者之间达成理解的推理.它的前提和基础是对合作原则的遵循.正是因为合作原则在法律推理中的适用,一般会话含义推理才作为一种法律推理方法存在.相对于关于前提和结论的演绎、归纳等推导方法,一般法律会话含义推理是将推导融入对话过程的理解方法,是实现个案正义的必要方法.一般法律会话含义推理的有效性以逻辑有效性为基础,以程序有效性为核心,以语言有效性为前提.     

论法律语用预设推理的建构性及“预设陷阱”

法律语用预设推理是法律语用推理的一种具体形式,是主体间为建构语用预设,对潜预设进行的对话活动。它不仅强调语境对预设的影响,更突出"听者"对预设的积极建构。在法律语用预设推理中,需要时时处处关注各个主体的建构作用。在积极层面,法律语用预设推理因为可以构筑公共知识背景,提高诉讼效率而作为一种语言技巧和策略来使用。在消极层面,法律语用预设推理容易被说者用来支配听者,从而成为无视听者建构作用的"预设陷阱",因而要善于识别和破解,清理"通向正义之路"上的预设障碍。     

协商一致 择善而从

立法的过程是协商一致、达成共识的过程。刑事诉讼法的修改需要各机关达成共识,这对立法的影响很大。我国的立法习惯实际上一直以来都坚持协商一致原则,即在相关部门达成共识的基础上写入法律中,便于法律执行。我们应从建设法治国家的角度,从有效维护社会秩序、司     

高校学生管理规定法律地位的立法分析

高校学生管理规定是各高校正常运行的重要制度保障。由于高校学生管理规定法律地位法律一直未明确，导致部分高校学生管理行为屡遭争议。从法律行为与道德行为和立法基本原则分析，高校学生管理规定应当是在校学生达成的共同遵守的契约，不是国家法律效力的规范性文件。     

法律中的可辩驳推理

法律中的可辩驳推理是法律方法研究中的一个新课题。可辩驳推理作为一种独立的推理模式而在各个领域发生影响主要有以下三种理论的支持:其一,哲学的“语用学转向”;其二,人工智能研究的深入;其三,单一性法律推理向非单一性法律推理的转向。法律中的可辩驳推理可以分为三个维度:推定的可辩驳性;过程的可辩驳性和理论的可辩驳性。可辩驳推理对法律方法、法律论证与民主法治等重大的法律理论问题都产生了深远的影响。     

法学方法论研究的语用学转向( 下)——法学方法论研究的语用模式及其新开展

随着哲学的语用学转向,哲学与法学的内在交融与互动,法哲学、法学方法论、法律语言学、法律逻辑的研究也随之发生了“语用学的转向”,这种转向的标志就是法律语用学和“规范语用学”的诞生与日新月异的发展,进而为我们理解和诠释法律的本质、类型、功能、适用机理、适用效力及其行动之有效性,提供了前所未有的分析方法、知识范式和建构模式,从而使法哲学、法学方法论（尤其是狭义的法律方法论）实现了——由事实世界向规范世界的转变,由主客二分到主体间性的行为互动,由面向单向度的工具理性转向实践理性,再由面向单一主体的实践理性转向多主体之间的沟通理性,由静态的逻辑分析转向动态的语境分析或情境构作,由困固于语形、语义分析转向以法律言语行为主体及其相关语境为出发点的语用建构和实践.     

哈贝马斯交往行动理论视域下的商议式司法

哈贝马斯的交往行动理论意蕴深邃,它将法律看作动态、开放、互动的行动系统。交往行动的学理资源是语用学;存在方式是商谈;生长土壤是"理想话语情境"。交往行动理论视域下的商议式司法提倡各方当事人以及其他社会民众在有关具体案件的事实认定和法律适用方面采取真诚互动、沟通协商的方式,从而达成理解与共识。商议式司法具有对话性、程序性、伦理性,其价值在于增强裁判结果的可接受性;克服机械司法的缺陷;促进司法民主;遏制司法腐败。     

辩证推理中的大前提的选择——语用学的视角

辩证推理是在大前提不明确或相互矛盾的情况下，借助辩证思维寻找或选择最佳的大前提以解决法律问题所进行的推理。辩证推理不是没有前提的推理，只是这大前提不像形式推理那样由制定法明确地规定，而是法官以价值判断基于特定语境的案件事实审视和选择出来的，法官对大前提的选择具有语用学的性质。     

刑法解释的立场是客观解释——基于会话含义理论的分析

司法者理解和解释法律的活动是其和法律文本进行对话的过程,语用学中的会话含义理论可以作为研究法律解释问题的分析工具。根据会话含义理论,立法者预料到并期待解释者会根据文本的语义结构、读者的心理图式、生活中的常规关系等解读出刑法文本的语用意义,司法者必然会根据语境因素对刑法文本的意义进行语用推理,解读出字面意义之外的隐含意义、形式意义之外的实质意义、语义意义之外的语用意义,并且在不同语境下解读出不同意义。刑法文本为语用推理划定了大致范围,语用推理实现了文本静态意义向动态意义的转化,因此刑法解释立场是并应该是客观解释。     

Legal Concepts in a Natural Language Based Expert System*

Abstract. A new approach to the formalization of concepts used in legal reasoning such as obligation and cause is presented. The formalization is based on the linguistic use of the concepts both in legal language and in ordinary language, and has been motivated by work on a legal expert system with a natural language interface. Particularly for the concept of obligation this yields quite different results from those obtained by the usual approach of deontic logic: So-called paradoxes are avoided, quantification over obligations becomes possible, no restriction to a “single-agent system” is required, and collisions of obligations can be formulated.     

Taking Language Seriously: An Analysis of Linguistic Reasoning and Its Implications in EU Law

This article discusses legal reasoning at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The following questions are addressed. First, the authors look at the way linguistic arguments are used in ECJ case‐law. Second, they consider whether the requirements of legal certainty, and more specifically that of predictability, may be fulfilled by reference to linguistic arguments in a multilingual legal system. The theoretical starting‐point is that of open‐endedness of language: no means exists to definitely pin down the meaning of words. Defining the meaning of words in a legal context is necessarily a matter of choice involving evaluative considerations. Consequently, when the ECJ uses linguistic arguments to justify a decision, it is an active agent choosing the meaning of words in a specific case. Essentially, the authors argue that legal reasoning based on linguistic arguments is particularly problematic from the viewpoint of legal certainty and predictability. In this respect, the key importance of systemic and teleological argumentation is emphasised in assuring convincing, acceptable and transparent legal reasoning especially in the context of multilingual EU law.     

The pedagogy of legal reasoning: democracy,discourse and community

Learning legal reasoning is a central part of any undergraduate law degree and remains a threshold concept: one which is vital for any law student to grasp, but which is often difficult to explain. It is a form of reasoning which is very distinctive to the discipline. This article explores the applicability of learning theories typically used to ground pedagogy in higher education to the specific task of teaching legal reasoning. Constructivist or experiential theories of learning are widely used in higher education, but they need to be used with a clear focus on the specific nature of legal reasoning, which does not fit neatly within the assumptions about learning which underpin many constructivist approaches. Situated learning theories, which place emphasis on the role of the community in constructing knowledge, can also be of value. However, steps need to be taken to avoid replicating the hierarchy of the legal community within educational communities. Overall, the pedagogy of legal reasoning needs to pay attention to the specific nature of legal reasoning, to enable students to access the discourse of the legal community to use as a model, and to take students seriously as members of that community.     

The Meanings of the Logical Constants in Deontic Logic

If deontic logic is to cast light on any of the normative sciences, such as legal reasoning, then certain problems regarding its logical constants must be faced. Recent studies in the area of deontic logic have tended to assume that it is our responses to the "paradoxes" of deontic implication which are fundamental to resolving problems with the use of deontic logic to investigate various branches of normative reasoning. In this paper I wish to show that the paradoxes are of secondary importance; that they are merely by-products of the central issue, namely the ability of certain syntactic forms to embody natural language structures used in reasoning about norms. An investigation of modal syntax is proffered as the best starting-point from which to tackle the questions that still dog the legitimacy of deontic logic. Part I provides some philosophical background to the discussion of deontic logical constants. Part II addresses in greater detail issues concerning the representation of normative concepts; and Part III offers a few remarks on the general issue of deontic logic's fruitfulness as an analytical tool.     

法律逻辑的基本问题

法律领域里有三种推理:事实推理、法律推理、判决推理。法律推理是法律逻辑的主要研究对象,法律推理的正当性问题的探讨是法律逻辑的基本问题,解决法律推理的正当性判定问题和推导问题是法律逻辑的重要任务。     

On the Autonomy of Legal Reasoning*

Abstract The paper argues that reasoning according to law is an instance of moral reasoning. Several ways of understanding this claim are distinguished. A number of arguments to the effect that because of the internal logic of the law, or the special skills it involves legal reasoning should be seen as immune to moral considerations are rejected. Nevertheless, the paper affirms the relative and limited autonomy of legal reasoning, and the sui generis role of doctrine in it which is manifested in the many cases in which the moral considerations pertaining to the case underdetermine its result.     

案例指导制度下的法律推理及其规则

与制定法传统下的法律推理不同,案例指导制度下的法律推理由法律规则、指导性案例、案件事实以及判决结论四个要素构成。在这种思维模式中,由于对待决案件与指导性案例作出是否同案的判断以及如何形成同判是整个法律推理的论证重点,判定两者是否属于相同案件以及如何作出相同判决的方法自然成为这种法律推理的核心方法。案例指导制度下法律推理的规则主要包括：基本参照规则、实现同案同判的认识规则、断定同案的判断规则、形成同判的约束规则、回归规则以及指导性案例选编的编写规则。上述推理形式和推理规则的系统作用是案例指导制度下法律推理得以正确进行的基础和保障。     

迈向“言说”理性的法律会话推理

法律推理是理性的过程,具体而言是一种实践理性.法律实践是一种“言说”的实践,特别是在司法过程中,任何一个环节都离不开“言说”这种会话模式.法律推理的过程就是在法律会话实践中选择最适合结论的过程,它包括一定法律行为正当化的论证和相对于一定目的的最佳手段的确定.法律会话推理①正是从多主体“言说”角度寻找正当性的法律推理方法,是一种“言说着”的理性,其以话语为媒介,以法律当事人之间的会话沟通为方式,通过各方对话语意图理解找到解决问题的最佳行为方法,从而对推理结论进行正当性论证,这里的正当性建立在主体间性的基础上,因而具有主体间的可接受性和社会层面的合理性.     

法律推理中的独特思维倾向及其可能的误区

法律推理是一种特殊的推理。它既具有推理的一般特征,也有自身的独特性。法律推理的独特性主要表现在推理主体的思维方式上。在法律推理中,人们根深蒂固地具有三种思维倾向:规则取向、概念取向与自治取向。这些思维倾向是在长期的法律推理活动中形成的,因此在法官、律师、学者等专业或经常从事法律推理的主体身上最为凸显。正因如此,它们有时也被称为法律人的思维方式或法律(人)思维。一般情况下,这些思维倾向使得相关主体更有可能得出正确的裁判结论,有助于说明判决的合法性来源,并在一定程度上增进了限权、平等、法治等对于现代社会来说极为重要的政治道德理想。但如果在一些相关理论问题上缺乏正确认识,它们也可能会给法律事业造成危害。为了推动法律领域内的知识增长与实践进步,我们要对这些思维倾向有充分、自觉的认识,一方面要承认它们的存在并给予应有的尊重;另一方面也要注意防范可能的风险。