Argumentation and Interpretation in Law

Abstract
The author proceeds from a brief elucidation of the concept "argumentation" through a more extended account of substantive reasons in pure practical argumentation and of institutional argumentation applying "authority reasons" as grounds for legal decisions to an initial account of the nature and place of legal interpretative reasoning. Then he explores the three main categories of interpretative arguments, linguistic arguments, systemic arguments and teleological/deontological arguments; and he examines the problem of conflicts of interpretation and their resolution. His conclusion is that legal argumentation is only partly autonomous since it has to be embedded within widerelements of practical argumentation.     

论法官的道德自觉与法的确定性

法官道德包括个人道德内在自律和职业道德外在约束,法官的个人道德又包括作为常人的道德层面和高于常人的道德层面。道德自觉的法官既可在司法程序中维护法律的确定性,又能引领社会的变迁。法官、公众以及法律三者的道德价值取向,在实质内涵上都以公民基本权利和自由为根本。崇敬权利价值是法官道德信念的极致,是法官个人道德和职业道德的升华。法官是现代法治社会道德共同体的守望者。     

法律社会学中的法律文化概念——评劳伦斯·弗里德曼《选择的共和国》

弗里德曼认为现代西方世界是一个选择的共和国,个人自由选择的观念和表现型个人主义是现代西方文化以及法律文化的重要特征。这种表现型个人主义支配着我们时代的政治和法律。从弗里德曼的论述中可以发现:法律文化是一个核心概念,法律文化在法律制度的生成和运作过程中扮演者着至关重要的角色,也就是说,法律文化是介于社会变化和法律变化之间的一个干涉性变量。然而,法律文化作为弗里德曼法律社会学中的一个分析性的概念,在解释法律制度的过程中可能面临着方法上的困境。     

反思性法制现代化初论

反思性法制现代化的规范基础是商谈政治,法律范式是程序法。中国法制现代化事业应反思西方法制现代化运动轨迹,针对自身社会发展状况,创生一条具有独特个性也切合反思性法制现代化一般要求的合理性道路。     

刑法关怀与刑法解释

刑法应体现法律之公平善良的特质 ,刑法关怀是指刑法对自然人、社会组织及社会所给予的刑法关注、刑法抵御和刑法保护 ,刑法解释即有权解释 ,是指有权机关依据一定原则使用法定方法对法律文本所作的阐释 ,是连结刑事立法与刑法适用的纽带和中介 ,是折射和反映刑法关怀的最佳视角。欠缺刑法关怀的刑法解释在一定程度上说可能是合法的但未必是合理的。从刑法关怀的维度审视我国现有的刑法解释 ,一方面在于把刑法关怀坚持到底 ,另一方面在于反思刑法解释的真正科学的定位 ,由此建立合法合理的刑法解释体系。     

破产抵销权新论

"破产抵销权"不是破产法新创设的权利类型,而是民法上的抵销制度在破产法上的确认和适用,破产法确认抵销制度的立足点不应放在扩张适用抵销权以保护个别债权人利益之上,其制度构建的重心应是如何完善抵销权适用的限制性因素,平衡个别利益和团体利益,实现利益保护的真正公平。以此价值理念为指导和评价标准,主张从主体、客体和行使等三方面对抵销权作出限制。     

制定法框架下的判决论证模式

制定法框架下的判决论证其本质是法官适用制定法证立判决。其要义不在于创制一般法律规则,而在于将制定法应用于判决证立之中。法官承担依法裁判和公平、公正裁判的义务。但制定法是开放的、非协调的、不完全的法律体系,不可能为每个具体案件都准备好现成答案,法官不得不通过解释制定法以获取裁判理由。法官审判案件受制定法的约束,但法官对制定法具有广泛的解释权与酌处权,具体包括三个方面:一是澄清制定法含义;二是平衡制定法冲突;三是正当背离制定法。因此,制定法框架下的判决论证具有三种基本模式:涵摄模式、权衡与平衡模式、衡平模式。     

Interpretation of International Law: Rules,Content, and Evolution

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Theories of Legal Argumentation and Concepts of Law. An Approximation

This article provides an assessment of the merits of recent theories of legal reasoning. After a quick historical aperçu a number of models of legal argumentation are presented and discussed, with an eye to their mutual connection. An initial conclusion is that universalizability and discursivity are the common features of those models. The focal question dealt with, however, is that of the impact of the argumentative paradigms of adjudication on the very concept of law. Here the contention is that an argumentative style of reasoning contributes to rendering the structure of the law itself and its operations argumentative as well. By so doing the latter are—so to say—civilized and made less truculent. They will thus be able to develop more in conformity with a democratic form of life.     

Teleological Interpretation and Land Law

It may also be presumed that contracts for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land (including leases) fall outside [the] provisions of [the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive] (Chitty on Contracts, 27th ed, 1994, vol 1, at 14–091).     

公共利益、法律的具体化与释法

正在现代法律体系中,释法系"将法律具体化"这个宽泛任务的重要组成部分。在大多数法律争议中,法官援引法条处理案件,因此必须解释相关条款之意义。将这种法官释法的活动称为"解释"(Auslegung)、"注释"(Interpretation)或"具体化"(Konkretisierung)都无关紧要,〔1〕但是能否将此活动的结果视为"法律评论"(KommentierungdesRechts)或者"法律"     

Interpretation of Law and Judges Communities

The principle of omnia sunt interpretanda refers to the derivational conception and derivational theory of interpretation. The principle appears in disputes concerning the role of a judge in the process of interpretation, and this has produced an effect that Polish theory of law is currently getting closer to the conceptions presented in the American debate on activism and textualism. In the practice of jurisdiction, the principle of omnia sunt interpretanda is mostly invoked outside theoretical context. It becomes a manifestation of a new dimension of judicial independence, namely an independent authority over the meaning of legal text. In the following paper the legal cultures and legal theories involved in the dispute are being disclosed in order to put in question the possibility of achieving a clear result of interpretation against a background of a crisis of the relations between law and law-making state, which manifests itself in the peculiar process of legal institutions becoming autonomous in relation to state institutions. In this context, the aforementioned principle constitutes the manifestation of the way in which courts come up with a new definition of the role of the third (sui generic) power. The certain organizational requirements placed upon the courts (especially the SAC and provincial administrative courts) are being scrutinized in order to find out in which mode it is possible to at least reduce the degree of inconsistency of the results of interpretation. Here, the attempt to organize a community of judges for the activities of legal interpretation undertaken by them plays a crucial role.     

类型化与民法解释

类型化思维是民法解释的基本思考方式,是民法漏洞补充的理论基础。在坚持马克思主义法学基本原理的同时,应对西方马克斯·韦伯的理想类型论、亚图·考夫曼的事物本质类型论及卡尔·拉伦茨的类型分类理论有所借鉴。类型化思维适用于民事立法和司法,其中司法不仅以立法的类型规范为依据,更须以规范对应于个案寻找出的详尽法规则为依据。     

刑法解释中的形式论与实质论之争

当前我国刑法学中的形式解释论与实质解释论之争不是事实论与价值论之争，而是发生在价值论内部，涉及如何适用价值判断的问题。检视这场争论可以发现，双方不仅在基本范畴的指涉与运用上较为混乱，还存在误读、曲解甚至虚构对方观点的现象，并且双方所宣称的立场往往与其实际做法不尽一致；此外，实质论者在论证逻辑上也有值得商榷之处。双方存在若干重要分歧，缘起于对刑事法治基本任务的不同定位。我国刑法学中的形式解释论与实质解释论之争，在性质上具有不同于德日相关争论之处。     

司法确定性的寻求——析哈贝马斯的“程序确定性”理论

司法判决究竟有没有确定性？疑难案件的判决结论究竟具不具有＂唯一正解＂？司法判决正确性的理论基础何在？法律现实主义、法律实证主义、法律诠释学等理论对此都提出了自己的看法。德沃金在吸收这些理论的基础上提出了＂权利论＂的＂结果确定性＂理论。哈贝马斯则在批判德沃金的基础上提出了＂程序确定性＂理论,为回答法理学上的这一系列经典问题提供了一份程序主义的独特答卷。     

An Interpretation of Max Weber's Theory of Law: Metaphysics, Economics, and the Iron Cage of Constitutional Law

Among legal scholars, Anthony T. Kronman and David M. Trubek have provided the leading interpretations of Weber's theory of law. Kronman and Trubek agree on two important points: Weber's theory is fundamentally contradictory, and Weber's theory relates primarily to private law subjects such as contracts. This article contests both of these points. Building on a foundation of Weber's neo-Kantian metaphysics and his sociological categories of economic action, this article shows that Weber's theory of law is not fundamentally inconsistent; rather it explores the inconsistencies that are inherent within Western society itself, including its legal systems. Furthermore, Weber's insights can be applied to modern constitutional jurisprudence. Weberian theory reveals that modern constitutional law is riddled with irreconcilable tensions between process and substance—between formal and substantive rationality. In the context of racial discrimination cases involving equal protection and the Fifteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court's acceptance of John Hart Ely's theory of representation-reinforcement demonstrates the Court's resolute pursuit of formal rationality, which insures that the substantive values and needs of minorities will remain unsatisfied.     

论法律科学中的解释与诠释

本文运用语义学和语用学知识分析了法律科学中的解释和诠释概念。文章认为:法律只能被解释而不能被诠释;在法律科学中,解释是法律方法,诠释是法学方法;解释是语义域概念,诠释是语用域概念;解释是客观性范畴,诠释是主观性范畴。     

刑法当然解释论

刑法第125条规定了非法制造、买卖、运输、邮寄、储存枪支、弹药、爆炸物罪,但近来新疆“东突组织”人员开始非法制造大炮,司法机关也破获了几起此类案件,对此类案件的处理遇到刑法上的困难,因为刑法规定有非法制造枪支罪,但并未规定非法制造大炮罪,对此类案件的犯罪人能否以非法制造枪支罪定罪处罚?有人主张定非法制造枪支罪,并认为这是当然解释,不违反罪刑法定原则。对此,学界的意见颇不一致,没有形成通说。本文拟对刑法中的当然解释提出自己的见解,以期抛砖引玉。一、当然解释的概念比较根据台湾学者的理解,当然解释是指刑法法规虽未明文…     

刑法目的解释的作用、边界及规制

刑法目的解释的存在根据包括理论与实践两个层面。在刑法解释体系中,目的解释不能简单定位为辅助作用或决定作用,应具体问题具体分析。目的解释边界的厘定与文义解释有关,也与历史解释、体系解释有关。目的解释主要局限在法律疑难情况下适用,且目的解释常与非规范因素相联系,所以应从实体规范、司法程序及司法技术等角度对该法律方法进行规制。     

西方法官解释的历史与学派之争

法官解释是在法律适用过程中,法官对法律规定的理解、分析与说明。西方人认为没有法官解释就没有法律适用。然而,对法官解释的认可有一个历史发展的过程,而且,在肯定法官解释存在的基础上,如何解释亦存在派别之争。当今的派别主要有德沃金的无需造法的法官解释、波斯纳的超越成文法的解释以及哈特的调和式法官解释。这三种有代表性的观点从不同角度对法官解释进行了有价值的探讨,对我国法制建设具有参考意义。