二元规范理论下的法律原则检讨

当下法律原则理论的论争重心,已从"法律是什么"的概念分析,转向了司法实践中的原则裁判。自德沃金以来的"规则-原则"二元规范理论,对实际的司法裁判的解说力和作用力较为有限,也未能解决原则权衡这一关键性问题。"融贯性"命题和"籍由法政策权衡进行裁判"命题,是原则裁判理论的两大基石。但德沃金对融贯性命题的回答过于抽象,而阿列克希依比例原则和权重公式对权衡命题和原则理论的最新推进,却是一种不成功的自反性进化。这种自反性进化和理论反讽,表明作为一种"过度整合式"的裁判理论,原则裁判已然走到了穷途末路。     

论法律原则及其司法价值

法律原则是法律规则的起源,贯穿于法律文本、法律部门直至法律整体的始终。法律原则是法律规则精神的集中体现,同时法律原则本身也是一种特殊的行为规则,其价值不仅表现在立法领域,在司法领域也发挥着重要作用。     

Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory Revisited

This article deals with the relation between a theory of law and a theory of legal reasoning. Starting from a close reading of Chapter VII of H. L. A. Hart's The Concept of Law, it claims that a theory of law like Hart's requires a particular theory of legal reasoning, or at least a theory of legal reasoning with some particular characteristics. It then goes on to say that any theory of legal reasoning that satisfies those requirements is highly implausible, and tries to show that this is the reason why not only Hart, but also writers like Neil MacCormick and Joseph Raz have failed to offer a theory of legal reasoning that is compatible with legal positivism as a theory of law. They have faced a choice between an explanation of legal reasoning that is incompatible with the core of legal positivism or else strangely sceptical, insofar as it severs the link between general rules and particular decisions that purport to apply them.     

法律认知和法律原则：情感、效率与公平

情感、效率、公平是人们认知活动中惯常的三个进程。对应这三个进程,人们对法律的认知有一些基本的原则。这些认知互动既可能形成社会自发秩序,也可能为法学提供一个基于认知背景的分析框架,有助于法学应对实践问题。“公平主导”的一个简单回答是,面对不同场合,情感、效率、公平三种进程被激活的程度不同。大体上,家庭场合激活情感,工程场合激活效率,市场和法律则更激活公平。在实践中,公平主导的法律原则由于比较接近主流社会认知,所以法律规范在社会中往往可能“自执行”,无需全靠外界监督或者激励。公平原则也有其自身的局限。虽然规范和原则很重要,是社会秩序的母体。但是,公平原则并不能解决所有问题。缺乏制度上的法治,光靠情理法是不足的。所以现代社会形成了规则化解决纠纷的机制,这就是二阶意义上的法律。     

法律原则的规范性研究

规范性主要是对合法权威与守法主体之间相互关系的一种认识。对理解规范性问题来说,规范性强度是一个重要的概念。法律原则的规范性追问这样两个问题：原则何以成为法律？为何具有指引、约束司法裁判的规范效力？法律原则的规范性包括形式渊源、价值理据、规范特征三个方面的意涵。对法律原则规范性的追问,考问着国家司法权威的公信力。法律原则构成了人之为人的主体性根基。晚近学界对分类式法概念的批判不能替代也不应阻断对法律原则的定性,即对法律原则规范性的追问。     

法律原则核心问题论辩

法律原则理论主要包括法律原则规范属性理论、法律原则区分理论以及法律原则适用理论三个部分。法律原则在规范评价与事实描述两个层面上均作为有效的规范类型存在,它与法律规则作为两大构成要素并存于法律规范之中,它们之间的差异是逻辑性的而不是程度上的,但两者的关键区分在于法律原则无法像法律规则那样被承认规则所鉴别。法律原则不可以直接适用于具体个案,只能在符合形式限定与实质限定的条件下发挥其规范作用。对于我国许多学者基于实用主义偏好而热衷的法律原则适用理论,我们需要保持一种前提性的反思,有意识地进行语境置换,以便更好地把握法律原则的意涵。     

亚历山大·佩策尼克的法律转化与法律证成理论

亚历山大·佩策尼克一生的研究重点在于法律论证理论和认识论,特别是法律与正义上的融贯理论,在《作为合理性的理性:论法律证成》一书中提出了一套独特的法律转化与法律证成理论。在他看来,法学结论、司法裁决等既可以在法律语境之中充分证成,也可以在它之外加以证成。前者为法律语境内充分证成,其建立在既有的法律传统之上;后者为深度证成,它们作为商谈之最佳化条件下尽可能根本的证成而被法律人视为正当的前提提供某种支持或者批判。他成功地将法律解释的分析与我们这个时代最为核心的哲学、道德和文化问题结合起来。     

论法律原则的司法适用——从规范性法学方法论角度的一个分析

法律原则之把握,与其给以界说,毋宁探究其适用;而在司法实践中,法律原则的适用大凡有四种情形第一,原则与规则一致情形下,原则作为规则的基础和指引。第二,规则缺位的情形下,适用原则以作漏洞补充。第三,原则与规则相冲突的情形下,适用原则创制规则的例外。第四,原则之间相互冲突情形下的特别复杂的适用。四种情形也可能在结构上交叉耦合,其中第一种情形已为人熟知,而其他情形,尤其是三、四两种则有待深究。本文即力图从规范性法学方法论的纵深角度,探讨法律原则之司法适用的逻辑结构。     

The Derivational Theory of Legal Interpretation in Polish Legal Theory

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique - The article presents so-called “derivational” theory of legal interpretation and...     

On the Structure of Legal Principles

The author offers a sketch of his thesis that legal principles are optimization commands. He presents this thesis as an effort to capture the structure of weighing or balancing and to provide a basis for the principle of proportionality as it is applied in constitutional law. With this much in place, he then takes up some of the problems that have come to be associated with the optimization thesis. First, he examines the objection that there are no such things as principles, but only different modes of the application of norms. Second, he discusses problems concerning the concept of an optimization command and the character of the “ought” contained in principles. He concludes that the distinction between commands to optimize and commands to be optimized is the best method for capturing the nature of principles.     

Legal Theory and Sociological Facts

The authors investigate MacCormick and Weinberger's claim that the Institutional Theory of Law provides a conceptual framework for the study of legal phenomena from a socio-legal point of view. They evaluate this claim by confronting both the Institutional Theory of Law and Weinberger's theory of action with two approaches in socio-legal theory, i.e. the instrumentalist and the constitutive approach. The conclusion is that the Institutional Theory of Law lends itself to empirical research from an instrumentalist perspective, for both place the concept institution in the context of law. Weinberger's theory of action may provide a basis for empirical research from a constitutive perspective. The authors make some suggestions for refinement of Weinberger's theory of action in order that the relation between institutions and action can be labeled dynamic.     

法律翻译的特殊原则

法律语言翻译研究是翻译学研究的一个分支学科,是对翻译学体系的重要补充。法律翻译在遵守翻译普遍原则的同时,也有属于自身专业特点的特殊原则。法律翻译的特殊原则主要体现在专业性、严谨性、准确性和等效性四个方面。法律翻译特殊原则的提出,有利于提高法律翻译质量,亦有助于促进立法机关对法律翻译立法的关注。     

测谎原理、冲突与法律思考

测谎是科学技术发展的产物,测谎证据也是自然科学与法律科学交叉共生的结果。通过鉴定结论,可以利用科学技术,给案件的侦破、公诉以及审判带来一些国家层面上的便利,但是,测谎证据同时也会引起国家利益与个人权利、科学与否的冲突。这里,问题的关键是如何给测谎证据以正确的定位。     

行政法基本原则的反思与重构

我国行政法学者对行政法基本原则的认识先后经历了从早期之“行政管理原则论”到晚近之“行政法治原则论”这样一个逐步成熟和发展的过程 ,但仍旧存在种种分歧和不足。本文在反思国内现有理论研究的基础上 ,采用矛盾分析、价值分析与宪政分析的方法 ,重新界定了行政法基本原则的概念和确立标准 ,并进而以行政法的根本价值———“法的正义价值”和行政法的基本矛盾———“法与行政的关系”为内在根据 ,结合现代宪政所包含的民主、法治、人权等原则与精神 ,提出应当将行政法的基本原则确立为行政法定、行政均衡和行政正当三大原则     

Principles, Values, and Rules in Legal Decision-Making and the Dimensions of Legal Rationality

Abstract. The author singles out various conceptions of rationality used in practical legal discourse: formal and substantive rationality, instrumental goal- and means-rationality, communicative rationality. Practical rationality is expressed in decisions justified by epistemic and axiological premises according to the rules of justificatory reasoning. Five levels of analysis of this justification are identified. Rules, principles and evaluations are used as justifying arguments and their characteristics determine the dimensions of rationality of decision depending on the features of rules, various conceptions of principles, and kinds of relativisation of evaluations. The dimensions of legal rationality depend mainly on three singled out conceptions of rationality, i.e., formal rationality dealing with the deep structure of justification, instrumentally oriented rationality as content of justifiability, and communicative rationality linked with the pragmatics of human interaction. Legitimacy, according to the presented analysis, appears as a subclass of external justification dealing with axiological premisses in terms of instrumental rationality and/or communicative rationality.