法律推理的可废止性研究
发布时间：2019-02-23 21:21
【摘要】：法律推理是以法律规范、法律原则、先例等为大前提,以构建的案件事实为小前提,根据一定的推理模式得出法律结论的过程,是司法过程中必不可少的一部分。法学界普遍的观点认为法律推理可以分为法律形式推理和法律实质推理。但是随着法学理论研究的发展,我们发现法律推理的这种分类并不能完全刻画出法律推理的逻辑机制。法律形式推理和法律实质推理都是具有可废止性的。法律形式推理是严格的按照三段论模式进行的推理,强调的是法律推理的确定性。法律形式推理的大前提的选择、小前提的确定和推理结论都是具有可废止性的。法律实质推理主要是应用在疑难案件中,在法律出现漏洞、需要解释、根据现有法律得出的结论背离立法目的时,就需要法官进行一定的价值衡量等实质推理方法。法律实质推理是一个动态的过程,也具有可废止性。 法律推理的可废止性是指：在某一语境下,我们根据自身的认知能力对大前提的选择是确定的,对小前提的构建也是确定的,这时按照三段论的推理模式我们就可以推出一个确定的结论。然而当确定的火前提或者小前提因为某些因素的加入出现变化时,据以推出的结论也就变得不正确或者不确定了。此时要对推理的火前提或小前提进行相应的修正后,再进行相应的推理,得出在这个语境下下相对确定的推理结论。本文认为可废止性推理产生的根源有三个方面,分别是法律规范(法律推理的大前提)的开放性、案件事实(法律推理的小前提)的建构性、案件结论的可接受性(法律推理的结论)。在上述造成法律推理可废止性的原因的基础上,本文把法律推理的可废止性详细分成了三个类别进行详细论述,分别是法律事实认定的可废止性、法律规范选择的可废止性、法律推理结果的可废止性。法律推理的可废止性特点不仅对法学理论的研究产生了深远的影响,对司法实践的影响也是不可小觑的。法律推理的可废止性特点拓宽了法律推理方法的研究视野。法学者们对法律推理的研究不再局限与狭小的范围内,更加辩证的对待逻辑对法律推理的意义。法律推理的可废止性特点给社会法治的实现提出了一个新的挑战。深入的了解法律推理的可废止性的特点,我们才能更好的运用有限的条件,做到方方面面的考虑,得出最正确的结论,以实现法律纠纷的合理解决,最终实现法治社会的目的。
[Abstract]:Legal reasoning is based on legal norms, legal principles, precedents, etc. It is an essential part of the judicial process to draw legal conclusions according to certain reasoning models. Legal reasoning can be divided into legal formal reasoning and legal substantive reasoning. However, with the development of legal theory, we find that the classification of legal reasoning can not completely depict the logical mechanism of legal reasoning. Both legal formal reasoning and legal substantive reasoning are abrogated. Legal formal reasoning is strictly based on syllogism model, emphasizing the certainty of legal reasoning. The choice of major premises of legal formal reasoning, the determination of small premises and the conclusion of reasoning are abrogated. Substantive reasoning of law is mainly applied in difficult cases, which needs to be explained because of loopholes in the law. When the conclusion of the existing law deviates from the purpose of legislation, judges are required to carry out substantive reasoning methods such as certain value measurement. The substantial reasoning of law is a dynamic process, and it is also abrogated. The nullification of legal reasoning refers to: in a certain context, according to our cognitive ability, we are certain of the choice of the major premise, and the construction of the small premise is also certain. At this point, according to the syllogist reasoning model, we can draw a definite conclusion. However, when certain fire premises or small premises change due to the addition of certain factors, the conclusion based on them becomes incorrect or uncertain. At this time, the fire premise or small premise of reasoning should be revised accordingly, then the corresponding reasoning should be carried out, and the inference conclusion should be obtained under this context. This paper holds that the causes of abrogation reasoning have three aspects: the openness of legal norms (the premise of legal reasoning) and the constructiveness of case facts (small premises of legal reasoning). The admissibility of the conclusion of a case, ie the conclusion of legal reasoning On the basis of the above reasons, this paper divides the nullity of legal reasoning into three categories in detail, that is, the nullification of legal facts, the nullification of legal norms. The nullity of the result of legal reasoning. The abrogation of legal reasoning not only has a profound influence on the study of legal theory, but also on judicial practice. The abrogation of legal reasoning broadens the research field of legal reasoning. Legal scholars no longer limit and narrow the scope of legal reasoning, more dialectical treatment of logic to the significance of legal reasoning. The abrogation of legal reasoning brings a new challenge to the realization of social rule of law. By deeply understanding the characteristics of abrogation of legal reasoning, we can make better use of limited conditions, do all aspects of the consideration, draw the most correct conclusion, in order to achieve a reasonable solution of legal disputes, and finally achieve the goal of a society ruled by law.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-051
本文编号：2429215
[Abstract]:Legal reasoning is based on legal norms, legal principles, precedents, etc. It is an essential part of the judicial process to draw legal conclusions according to certain reasoning models. Legal reasoning can be divided into legal formal reasoning and legal substantive reasoning. However, with the development of legal theory, we find that the classification of legal reasoning can not completely depict the logical mechanism of legal reasoning. Both legal formal reasoning and legal substantive reasoning are abrogated. Legal formal reasoning is strictly based on syllogism model, emphasizing the certainty of legal reasoning. The choice of major premises of legal formal reasoning, the determination of small premises and the conclusion of reasoning are abrogated. Substantive reasoning of law is mainly applied in difficult cases, which needs to be explained because of loopholes in the law. When the conclusion of the existing law deviates from the purpose of legislation, judges are required to carry out substantive reasoning methods such as certain value measurement. The substantial reasoning of law is a dynamic process, and it is also abrogated. The nullification of legal reasoning refers to: in a certain context, according to our cognitive ability, we are certain of the choice of the major premise, and the construction of the small premise is also certain. At this point, according to the syllogist reasoning model, we can draw a definite conclusion. However, when certain fire premises or small premises change due to the addition of certain factors, the conclusion based on them becomes incorrect or uncertain. At this time, the fire premise or small premise of reasoning should be revised accordingly, then the corresponding reasoning should be carried out, and the inference conclusion should be obtained under this context. This paper holds that the causes of abrogation reasoning have three aspects: the openness of legal norms (the premise of legal reasoning) and the constructiveness of case facts (small premises of legal reasoning). The admissibility of the conclusion of a case, ie the conclusion of legal reasoning On the basis of the above reasons, this paper divides the nullity of legal reasoning into three categories in detail, that is, the nullification of legal facts, the nullification of legal norms. The nullity of the result of legal reasoning. The abrogation of legal reasoning not only has a profound influence on the study of legal theory, but also on judicial practice. The abrogation of legal reasoning broadens the research field of legal reasoning. Legal scholars no longer limit and narrow the scope of legal reasoning, more dialectical treatment of logic to the significance of legal reasoning. The abrogation of legal reasoning brings a new challenge to the realization of social rule of law. By deeply understanding the characteristics of abrogation of legal reasoning, we can make better use of limited conditions, do all aspects of the consideration, draw the most correct conclusion, in order to achieve a reasonable solution of legal disputes, and finally achieve the goal of a society ruled by law.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-051
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 孙明湘;李建华;;论逻辑的有效性及其判定[J];湖南文理学院学报(社会科学版);2006年05期
2 邱昭继;法律中的可辩驳推理[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;2005年04期
3 陈金钊;;法律推理及其对法治的影响[J];法律方法;2004年00期
4 罗惠娜;;浅谈法律推理[J];法制与社会;2010年25期
5 陈金钊;;对“许霆案”的方法论诠释[J];公民与法(法学版);2009年02期
6 张传新;;法律中的逻辑分析方法[J];甘肃社会科学;2008年05期
7 罗仕国;;法律推理与法律结论的确定性[J];广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2009年05期
8 杨仁厚;论良法的基本内容[J];贵州大学学报(社会科学版);2002年05期
9 韩登池;;法律推理与司法裁判[J];河北法学;2010年07期
10 张传新;;法律思维的理性力量之源——论法律推理的形式性[J];海南大学学报(人文社会科学版);2010年02期
相关硕士学位论文 前4条
1 王春丽;试论法律应用中推理的可废止性[D];西南大学;2011年
2 王军宁;法律推理及其形式与实质[D];河北大学;2011年
3 刘丹丹;阿列克西法律论证理论述评[D];中国政法大学;2009年
4 胡桂哲;形式法律推理与实质法律推理的比较研究[D];河北大学;2010年
，本文编号：2429215
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2429215.html
