论司法判决中的辨证推理

发布时间：2018-05-30 07:42

本文选题：辩证推理 + 法律冲突　；参考：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：司法判决的过程包括:事实的发现、法律的获取和判决的证成三个部分。法律的获取是其中不可或缺的一环,也是长期以来法学家们研究的主要领域,而获取法律的过程实质上是对已查明的案件进行司法归类的过程,即寻找与案件事实相适应的法律规范的过程。由于法律规范本身的多样性和抽象性特征,法官在寻找法律规范的过程中可能会遇到很多困惑,如“法无明确之文”、“法律反差”、“法律冲突”“恶法”以及“法无明文规定”等。当遇到这些法律上的难题时,法官并不能袖手旁观,而应通过不同的途径寻找解决问题的方法和手段。由于立法程序的复杂性和人类认识能力的局限性,“法律冲突”的情形在任何一个成文法国家都是普遍存在的,然而法律规范作为司法判决的重要依据,一旦法律对相同的案件情形做出了不一致的规定,则必然会导致法律适用的混乱和困难,辩证推理正是人们在长期的实践中寻找的一种解决“法律冲突”的方法或手段。另外,由于辩证推理自身具有的实质性和或然性的特点,为了增强其客观性和可靠性,对辩证推理的模式和方法的研究就成为十分必要之事,在实践中也具有非常重要的意义和价值。本文的第一部分主要介绍辩证推理的研究现状及研究意义,辩证推理自古希腊亚里士多德在与人进行辩论和对话的过程中提出,至今已有几千年的历史,在此过程中,中外的许多学者都对辩证推理进行了哲学上和法理学上的研究,产生了许多研究成果,本文只探讨与法学相关的研究成果。本部分首先对已有的法理学和法逻辑学方面的辩证推理研究成果进行梳理,指出其不足和缺陷,然后对研究司法判决中辩证推理的理论意义和实践意义进行总结和概括。第二部分研究司法判决中辩证推理的涵义及适用,在第一部分对已有的研究成果进行梳理的基础上,本部分主要对辩证推理的涵义和适用问题进行概括和总结,最后指出辩证推理在适用于司法实践中时,应注意的一些现实问题。第三部分阐述“法律冲突”情形下运用辩证推理的依据,主要从法律的逻辑结构、法律的目的和意图及法律的价值取向等与法律规范有关的依据和社会习惯或社会惯例、社会效用或社会利益及社会公共政策或社会公平正义观念等与其他社会规范有关的依据两个方面来展开论述,意在说明辩证推理并不是主观的、随意的,而是有其客观依据的。第四、五部分,在对以往文献和资料进行研究的基础上,笔者试图从法律逻辑学的角度总结出辩证推理的模式和方法,以期对法官在司法实践中应用辩证推理时起到一定的借鉴和参考作用。笔者总结的司法判决中辩证推理的四种主要模式有:原则导向模式、后果导向模式、时代价值观导向模式及优势导向模式;两种重要方法有:法律解释的方法、论辩说理的方法等。
[Abstract]:The process of judicial decision includes the discovery of facts, the acquisition of law and the proof of judgment. The acquisition of law is an indispensable part of it, and it is also the main field studied by jurists for a long time, and the process of obtaining law is essentially a process of judicial classification of the cases that have been identified. That is, the process of finding legal norms suitable to the facts of the case. Due to the diversity and abstract characteristics of the legal norms themselves, judges may encounter many puzzles in the process of seeking legal norms, such as "there is no clear text of law", "legal contrast", Conflicts of laws, draconian laws and laws without express provisions. When confronted with these legal problems, the judge can not stand idly by, but should find ways and means to solve the problem through different ways. Due to the complexity of the legislative process and the limitation of human cognitive ability, the situation of "conflict of laws" is prevalent in any statutory country. However, legal norms are the important basis for judicial decisions. Once the law makes inconsistent provisions on the same case, it will inevitably lead to confusion and difficulties in the application of the law. Dialectical reasoning is just a method or means to solve the "conflict of laws" that people seek in the long practice. In addition, due to the substantial and probable characteristics of dialectical reasoning itself, in order to enhance its objectivity and reliability, it is necessary to study the models and methods of dialectical reasoning. In practice also has very important significance and value. The first part of this paper mainly introduces the research status and significance of dialectical reasoning, which was put forward by Aristotle in ancient Greece in the process of debating and dialogue with people. It has been thousands of years since, in the process of dialectical reasoning, Many scholars both at home and abroad have studied dialectical reasoning in philosophy and jurisprudence and have produced many research results. This part firstly combs the existing research results of dialectical reasoning in jurisprudence and legal logic, points out its shortcomings and defects, and then summarizes and generalizes the theoretical and practical significance of dialectical reasoning in the study of judicial decision. The second part studies the meaning and application of dialectical reasoning in judicial decision. On the basis of combing the existing research results in the first part, this part mainly summarizes and summarizes the meaning and application of dialectical reasoning. Finally, it points out some practical problems that should be paid attention to when dialectical reasoning is applied to judicial practice. The third part expounds the basis of applying dialectical reasoning in the case of "conflict of laws", mainly from the logical structure of law, the purpose and intention of law and the value orientation of law, etc. Social utility or social interests, social public policy or social fair and just concept and other social norms are discussed in order to explain that dialectical reasoning is not subjective, arbitrary, but has its objective basis. The fourth and fifth parts, on the basis of studying the past literature and materials, the author tries to sum up the model and method of dialectical reasoning from the angle of legal logic. In order to judge in judicial practice in the application of dialectical reasoning play a certain reference and reference. The four main models of dialectical reasoning in judicial judgment summarized by the author are: principle oriented mode, consequence oriented mode, times value oriented model and advantage oriented mode, two important methods are: the method of legal interpretation, A method of arguing, etc.
【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】：D90-051

【参考文献】