法律解释方法的位序

发布时间：2018-05-11 22:41

本文选题：法律适用 + 法律解释方法　；参考：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：法律解释方法的位序问题在法学领域为大家所熟知,且国内外法学界对该问题有着较为广泛的探讨,其理论价值和实践意义自不待言。但令人遗憾的是,至今并没有形成一种为法律职业人所普遍认可的位序模式。果真如某些法学家所说的,没有一种固定的位序模式可以遵循吗?或者说法律职业人做出相关法律解释的过程没有一定的规则可遵循吗?为了澄清这些问题,本文就此作一种尝试,在对国内外法学家提出过的各种不同位序理论进行分析的基础上,融入部分论证理论的成果,以期对该问题做出一种全新的解答。长期以来,理论界之所以没有能够对法律解释方法的位序问题达成较为一致的见解,其首要问题就在于对法律解释方法的作用及其性质认识的不够准确。所以,在理清各个解释方法的优先性关系以前,我们必须要对法律解释方法的作用和性质有一基本的把握,这就是论文第一章的主要内容。法律解释方法的作用就在于,它是一种将法的渊源转换到法律规范的转换规则。而法律职业人并没有一种“义务”去遵守它,所以这种转换规则仅仅具有一种指导性或引导性。因此,法律解释方法典型地具有原则的性质。当不同法律解释方法之间发生冲突的时候,应当对各种方法进行权衡或衡量,以确定哪一种方法更具分量。因此,我们说各种解释方法之间存在着一定的优先性关系。论文第二章着重对国内外不同学者的优先性关系理论模式进行了一定的检讨和总结。在这其中,我们充分肯定了拉伦茨关于语义学解释是解释的出发点的观点,并认为合宪性解释也应当作为一种解释方法而被考虑。同时,对麦考米克和萨默斯关于“位序在后的解释方法比位序在先的解释方法优先时,必须给出一种合理的理由”给予了充分的认可。尤其是阿列克西论证理论的引入,使得对法律解释方法的问题的解决有所突破。文中也对其他位序理论进行一定的检讨,在肯定其中的合理性成分的同时,并对各位序理论的不足之处做出了相关说明。本文第三章在吸收了部分论证理论成果的基础上,对不同解释方法间的位序或优先性关系进行了全新的安排,并附以相关论证。第三章首先对法律解释方法的类型问题进行了界定,并认为有语义学解释、体系解释、立法者意图或目的解释、客观目的解释、历史解释、比较解释以及合宪性解释等七种类型。我们在适用这些解释方法的同时,应当充分考量各个解释方法背后的价值基础。在此基础上,文章重点对上述七类解释方法间的优先性关系进行了全新的安排和论证,从而形成一种新的位序模式。文章最后做了一定的总结,并期望借着这种新的理论模式,能将法律适用中的不确定性问题控制在最小的范围内,以此来保证某一特定的法律决定的最大程度的正当性和合理性。
[Abstract]:The problem of the order of the method of legal interpretation is well known in the field of law, and the law circles both at home and abroad have a more extensive discussion on this problem, and their theoretical and practical significance are not to be said, but it is regrettable that there has not been a preface pattern recognized by the legal profession so far. Indeed, as some jurists have said Does not have a fixed position pattern that can be followed, or does the legal profession have no rules to follow in the process of making relevant legal interpretations? In order to clarify these problems, this article tries to make an attempt to integrate a partial theory on the basis of the analysis of various theories of different order of order proposed by jurists at home and abroad. The results of the theory of evidence are intended to give a new answer to this question.
For a long time, the reason why the theorists have not been able to reach a more consistent view on the position of the legal interpretation method is that the first question is that the understanding of the role and nature of the legal interpretation method is not accurate. So, before we clarify the priority relationship of the various interpretation methods, we must play a role in the legal interpretation method. There is a basic grasp of the nature, which is the main content of the first chapter of the paper. The function of the legal interpretation method is that it is a transformation rule that converts the origin of the law to the legal norms. And the legal profession does not have a "obligation" to observe it, so this transformation rule has only a guiding or guiding nature. Therefore, the method of legal interpretation typically has the nature of principle. When different legal interpretations are conflicting, various methods should be weighed or measured to determine which method is more component. Therefore, we say there is a certain priority relationship between the various methods of interpretation.
The second chapter of the thesis focuses on a certain review and summary of the theoretical model of the priority relationship between people at home and abroad. In this, we fully affirm the viewpoint that Lentz's interpretation of semantics is the starting point of interpretation, and that the constitutional interpretation should be considered as an explanation method. At the same time, MaCaw Mick and Summers has given a reasonable reason to give a reasonable reason when the post order interpretation method is preceded by the preorder. Especially, the introduction of Alexy's argument theory makes a breakthrough in the solution of the problem of the legal interpretation method. While affirming the reasonable elements, we also give some explanations for the shortcomings of the preface theory.
The third chapter, on the basis of some of the theoretical results of the argument, has made a new arrangement of the relationship between the preorder or priority of different interpretations. The third chapter first defines the types of the methods of legal interpretation, and considers that there is a semantic interpretation, a system interpretation, a legislative intent or a purpose solution. There are seven types of interpretation, objective interpretation, historical interpretation, comparative interpretation and constitutional interpretation. We should consider the value basis of each interpretation method fully while applying these interpretation methods. On this basis, the article focuses on a new arrangement and demonstration of the priority relationship between the above seven types of interpretation methods. A new pattern of sequence is formed.
At the end of this paper, a certain summary is made, and the new theoretical model is expected to control the uncertainty in the application of the law to the minimum scope, in order to ensure the maximum legitimacy and rationality of a certain legal decision.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D90

【参考文献】