法律论证中的权威与正确性——兼论我国指导性案例的效力

发布时间：2018-06-12 16:32

本文选题：佐证 + 权威　；参考：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2014年02期

【摘要】：法律论证既需要运用权威理由,也需要运用实质理由来证立法律命题。法律渊源是最重要的权威理由,它通过说明法律命题之来源的方式来证明后者的初步有效性。制定法与先例构成了法律论证之权威性框架的主要部分,制定法属于规范权威,而先例属于事实权威,它们在司法裁判中一般只需被指明。同时,法律论证的正确性宣称决定了法律论证也必须运用有效的实质理由,即对法律命题内容的正确性进行证立。这种论证既可以是法律体系内的论证,也可以是超越体系的论证。法律论证旨在于平衡权威与正确性,其中权威论证具有初步的优先性但并非不可推翻,权威性的强度与相关正确性论证的负担成正比。以此来分析,我国的指导性案例介于规范权威与事实权威之间,它的效力是一种"准制度拘束力"。
[Abstract]:Legal argumentation requires both authoritative and substantive reasons to establish legal propositions. The source of law is the most important authoritative reason, which proves the initial validity of the latter by explaining the source of the legal proposition. Making law and precedent constitute the main part of the authoritative frame of legal argumentation. The law of establishment belongs to the authority of norms, while precedent belongs to the authority of fact, and they generally only need to be specified in the judicial judgment. At the same time, the correctness of the legal argument determines that the legal argument must also use effective substantive reasons, that is, to prove the correctness of the content of the legal proposition. This argument can be either within the legal system or beyond the system. The purpose of legal argumentation is to balance authority and correctness, among which authority argument has primary priority, but it is not insurmountable, and the intensity of authority is proportional to the burden of relevant correctness argumentation. From this point of view, our country's guiding case lies between normative authority and factual authority, and its effect is a kind of quasi-institutional binding force.
【作者单位】：中国政法大学法理学研究所;
【基金】：2011年度教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(11YJC820050)“规范、逻辑与法律论证”
【分类号】：D90-051

【参考文献】