德沃金“唯一正确的答案”法律思想研究

发布时间：2018-01-22 11:14

本文关键词： 确定性唯一性结构疑难案件群体两级分化　出处：《复旦大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：关于法律确定性、稳定性的争议在西方法律思想史上源远流长,特别是在二十世纪,当共识、认识性的统一基础日渐丧失时,德沃金提出了“唯一正确的答案”这一观点,这是一个饱受争议的观点。法律现实主义、批判主义法学以及各持相反观点的学者都围着这个观点就法律的确定性以及稳定性展开了激烈的争论。当然,唯一正确的答案不仅是一个法律问题,也是合法性危机在法律领域的体现。本文旨在分析德沃金有关“唯一正确的答案”的法律思想的内涵与理论以及反对者的质疑与德沃金的回应,并且尝试重新界定和阐述“唯一正确的答案”的命题。为此,笔者将文章的主体内容分为三个章节。第一章讨论了唯一正确的答案的基本理论内涵特别是德沃金的理论,德沃金认为所有的案件都有唯一正确的答案,而正确的答案应当由法律因素决定。并且,当一个法律问题存在多个答案时,总有一个答案比其他答案更好,或者说总有一个答案是最佳的。德沃金主要从三个方面作出论证。针对哈特的在规则用尽的情况下由法官行使自由裁量权的观点,德沃金认为法律除了规则之外还存在原则,法官在规则无法有效适用的情况下,原则可以为法官裁判提供依据。德沃金认为疑难案件存在唯一正确的答案不仅是在应然层面上存在,而且在实然层面上也同时存在。他在《原则问题》一书中详细分析了疑难案件在逻辑和事实上为何存在唯一正确的答案。但随着对于这个命题的进一步探讨,德沃金关于唯一正确的答案的观点也发生了一定的变化和深化,他认为法官应当接受整体性阐释的法律观,在关乎公民权利义务的原则中找到对社会的政治结构、道德权利最合理的建设性阐释来裁判疑难案件。第二章归纳质疑法律存在唯一正确的答案的观点及其理由,主要是哈特的观点、理论问题的“不可通约性”以及怀疑主义者关于法律的“外在认识”。德沃金认为,各种法律价值在一定程度上、借助一定的方法是可以进行比较、研究的。对法律的外在认识,德沃金主要通过法律的内在观点进行反驳,他认为对待唯一正确的答案这一问题应当从法律的角度出发,用法律的因素而不是运用非法律的因素来研究法律确定性问题。第三章通过讨论德沃金和反对者之间的相似、相同之处,重新界定与阐述“唯一正确的答案”的法律思想。德沃金与反对者在根本问题上是一致的,他们之间的争议只不过是路径选择的问题,而不是对确定性这个根本问题的争议。本文将疑难案件分为两类,程序法意义上的疑难案件以及实体法意义上的疑难案件,程序性疑难案件一般是基于证据不足、认识错误以及程序权利的丧失而产生的,但程序性的疑难案件可以通过程序法、举证规则的完善加以解决。实体法意义上的疑难案件才是德沃金主要讨论、论证的疑难案件。本文认为,唯一正确的答案存在于事实与规范之间,唯一正确的答案更准确的是一种确定性的结构,任何通过特定的法律逻辑或结构推导出来的答案就是唯一正确的答案。并且,本文认为可以通过“未完全理论化协议”来解决原则问题无法达成一致的情况下,在具体案件结果上达成一致,通过搁置原则、理论问题形成“唯一正确的答案”。
[Abstract]:On the legal certainty, the stability of the dispute has a long history in the history of western legal thought, especially when the consensus in twentieth Century, a unified understanding of increasingly lost time, Dworkin put forward the viewpoint of "the only correct answer", this is a controversial point of view. Legal realism, criticism and legal scholars the opposite view around this point of legal certainty and stability in a fierce debate. Of course, the only correct answer is not only a legal issue, but also reflects the crisis of legitimacy in the legal field. This paper aims to analysis the connotation of Dworkin and Dworkin questioned about "the only correct answer" legal thought with the theory and the opponents of the response, and try to re define and elaborate the "only right answer" proposition. Therefore, the main content of the article It is divided into three chapters.
The first chapter discusses the basic theory of the connotation of the only correct answer especially Dworkin's theory, Dworkin believes that all cases have the only correct answer, the correct answer should be decided by the legal factors. And, when there are multiple answers to a legal problem, there is always an answer better than other answers, or that there is always an answer is the best. Dworkin is mainly made from three aspects. On the basis of Hart's rule in the exhaustion of the situation by the discretion of the judges point of view, Dworkin believes that the law in addition to rule out there in principle, the judge rules can not effectively apply to the case, the principle can provide the basis for the judge the referee. Dworkin difficult cases are the only correct answer is not only exist in the ideal level, but also exists in reality. In his book < > principle detailed Fine analysis of the difficult case why the only correct answer in logic and in fact. But as to further explore this proposition, Dworkin about the only correct answer view changed and deepened, he believes that the judge should accept the legal concept of holistic interpretation, find the political structure of the society in which citizens the rights and obligations of the principle, the construction of moral rights of the most reasonable interpretation to the difficult cases.
The second chapter questioned the legal existence view of the only correct answer and its reason, mainly is the view of Hart, the theory of "incommensurability" and skepticism about the law of "external knowledge". Dworkin believes that all kinds of legal value in a certain extent, with a certain method can be compared, research. External awareness of the law, Dworkin refuted by the internal point of view of the law, he considered the only correct answer to this problem should be from the angle of law, and legal factors rather than the use of non legal factors to study the problem of legal certainty.
The third chapter through the discussion between Dworkin and opponents of similar similarities, re defined and elaborated "the legal thought of the only correct answer." Dworkin and the opposition is consistent on fundamental issues, the dispute between them is only the path selection problem, and not on this fundamental issue of uncertainty. In this dispute the cases are divided into two categories, difficult cases and difficult cases in terms of the procedural law and the substantive law meaning, procedural cases are generally based on insufficient evidence, the loss of awareness of errors and procedural rights of the procedural but difficult cases by procedural law, improve the rules of evidence to solve the problems. Difficult cases on the meaning of the substantive law is Dworkin to discuss difficult cases, the argument. The author thinks that the only correct answer in between facts and norms, the only correct answer The case is more accurate is a structure of uncertainty, by any specific legal logic or structure derived the answer is the only correct answer. Moreover, this paper considers that the "incompletely theorized agreement" to solve the problem of the principle of cannot reach an agreement, agreed on a specific case results, through the principle of use and the formation of "the only correct answer" theory.

【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D909.1

【相似文献】