哲学诠释学视野下的司法审判活动

发布时间：2018-05-12 11:29

本文选题：哲学诠释学 + 主客二分式思维　；参考：《西南政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：在传统的法律方法论的研究中,法律形式主义者企图借助法律推理的典型模式——司法三段论的逻辑理性来杜绝法官审判时的主观任性,以保证司法裁判的客观性。在形式主义法学的极致概念法学派的眼里,甚至法官对规范文本的解释都不被允许。但是司法三段论只有在大小前提都给定的情形下,才能凭借逻辑规则推出必然性的裁判结论。所以,后来的学者为了弥补司法三段论在构建法律推理之大前提上的先天不足,就不得不求助于法律推理之外的另一司法技术——法律解释,方法论的法律解释学应运而生。研究法律解释学的学者们希望借助系统化的解释方法,保证法律解释的客观性,进而与司法三段论的逻辑理性双剑合并,共同为司法裁判的客观性保驾护航。然而,传统法律方法论对法律解释和裁判结论之客观性的坚信,实质上却是在近代西方理性哲学的主客二分的思维模式下解读司法现象的一种迷信。始于海德格尔成于伽达默尔的哲学诠释学,立足于对人之生存实际的分析,使传统的认识论哲学转向了一种新型的本体论哲学。这种哲学本体论维度的诠释学,把理解当作人的存在方式,而不再像以往的方法论诠释学那样,认为理解是作为主体的诠释者对某种客观原意进行思维探究的活动。应该说,哲学诠释学的思想内容,挖掉了理性哲学的根基——主客二分的思维模式,是对传统的理性哲学一次釜底抽薪的反叛。因此,本文首先对传统法律方法论的基本内容作了深入的理论反思,揭露了其自身所不能克服的内在困境——对法律解释和裁判结论之客观性的追求是不可能实现的。而这困境的根本原因并不是由于传统法律方法论所主张的方法不对路,而是它一直以近代理性哲学的那种主客二分式思维解读司法现象的结果。接着,本文以哲学诠释学所开创的新视角,从理论上对司法实践中的审判活动作了崭新的解读。比如,哲学诠释学的效果历史原则,很好地诠释了于历史传统中流传的法律文本的存在,它的意义并非某种一经制定就固定封闭了的东西,而是在时间的长河里,在法官面对具体案件的每一次理解事件里,不断生成而来。又如,哲学诠释学的前见理论,也为我们重新理解审判中法官的角色提供了新的视点,法官不再被当作纯粹理性的主体而是被当作一个生活于历史传统中不可不避免地会带有真假前见的现实的人。再如,哲学诠释学的对话理论,也可作为我们在法官与法律文本和诉讼当事人之维持对话关系的理论渊源,从而使得法官所做的针对法律文本的诠释和当事人的裁判结论都得以避免独断的嫌疑。
[Abstract]:In the study of traditional legal methodology, the legal formalists attempt to prevent the subjective arbitrariness in the trial of judges by means of the typical mode of legal reasoning-the logical rationality of judicial syllogism, in order to ensure the objectivity of the judicial decision. In the view of the extreme Conceptual Law School of formalism, even the judge's interpretation of the normative text is not allowed. But judicial syllogism can draw the inevitable conclusion with logical rules only when the size of the premise is given. Therefore, in order to make up for the inherent deficiency of judicial syllogism in constructing legal reasoning, later scholars had to resort to another judicial technology besides legal reasoning-legal interpretation, and methodological legal hermeneutics came into being. The scholars of legal hermeneutics hope to guarantee the objectivity of legal interpretation with the help of systematic interpretation methods, and then combine with the logical rationality of judicial syllogism to protect the objectivity of judicial judgment. However, the traditional legal methodology's belief in the objectivity of legal interpretation and adjudication is, in essence, a superstition in interpreting judicial phenomena in the light of the dualistic mode of thinking of the subject and object of modern western rational philosophy. Heidegger became a philosophy hermeneutics of Gadamer, based on the analysis of the reality of man's existence, so that the traditional epistemological philosophy turned to a new ontology philosophy. This philosophical ontological dimension of hermeneutics regards understanding as a way of human existence, rather than as a methodological hermeneutics in the past, which holds that understanding is the activity of the hermeneutics of the subject in thinking about some objective intention. It should be said that the ideological content of philosophical hermeneutics, which excavates the foundation of rational philosophy-the mode of thinking between subject and object, is a rebellion against the traditional rational philosophy. Therefore, this paper firstly makes a deep theoretical reflection on the basic content of the traditional legal methodology, and exposes the inherent predicament which can not be overcome by itself-the pursuit of objectivity of legal interpretation and judgment conclusion is impossible to realize. The fundamental reason for this dilemma is not that the method advocated by the traditional legal methodology is wrong, but that it has always interpreted the judicial phenomenon with the subjective and objective dichotomous thinking of modern rational philosophy. Then, from the new perspective of philosophical hermeneutics, this paper makes a new interpretation of judicial activities in judicial practice. For example, the philosophy hermeneutics of the effect of the historical principle, a good interpretation of the historical tradition of the existence of legal texts, its significance is not something once fixed closed, but in the long river of time, In the face of the judge in the face of a specific case of each understanding of the incident, and continue to generate. For example, the theory of philosophical hermeneutics also provides a new perspective for us to re-understand the role of judges in the trial. The judge is no longer regarded as the subject of pure reason, but as a person who lives in the historical tradition inevitably with the reality of truth and falsehood. For example, the dialogue theory of philosophical hermeneutics can also be used as the theoretical origin of maintaining the dialogue relationship between the judge and the legal text and the litigant. So that the judge to the interpretation of the legal text and the parties to the conclusion to avoid arbitrary suspicion.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D90

【相似文献】