哈特权利选择理论探析

发布时间：2018-01-17 23:28

本文关键词：哈特权利选择理论探析　出处：《西南政法大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：自启蒙运动以降，“权利”日益成为人类社会最重要的概念。但什么是权利？人们在该问题上表现出的极度困惑与“权利”概念的流行形成了鲜明对比。边沁（JeremyBentham1748-1832）使用“语境界定”的方法提出了权利利益理论，该理论认为，享有一项权利就是成为符合法律意图的通过他人义务获益的人。哈特（H.L.A. Hart1907-1992）高度赞扬了边沁在分析“权利”概念方面所作的努力，尤其是对“语境界定”方法的使用；但他认为，“法律意图通过义务使某主体获益”既非“该主体享有权利”的充分条件，也非其必要条件；因而，从一定程度上讲，权利的本质并非某种利益或使某主体获益，而是为法律所尊重的选择——这就是哈特的权利选择理论。权利选择理论一经问世便在学界引发了争论热潮，众人对其褒贬不一，该理论的价值也似乎在论战中被批驳殆尽。但是，许多批判意见曲解了权利选择理论的本意，学者们提出的替代性方案也因存在严重问题而不足以取代该理论。本文以哈特的权利选择理论为研究对象，大量参考相关英文著作及学术论文，尤其是国外学界最新的研究成果；对已有中译文的文献也尽量参考英文原版，试图通过对第一手资料的咀嚼消化，更为全面、深刻地解读和澄清哈特的权利选择理论。除引论和结论外，本文共分为五章：第一章，概述哈特对“权利”概念归属性特征的分析，揭示他沿用边沁“语境界定”方法进行概念分析的原因。哈特认为，人们对“什么是权利”表现出的困惑很大程度上源于“权利”概念的归属性特征，即“权利”概念与单纯的描述性概念不同，它是由法律及其他社会规则归于人类的东西，它既依赖于规则，，又具有可辩驳性。因此，“属+种差”的定义方法在“权利”概念的分析过程中不仅无效，且易导致混乱，而真正有效的分析方法是边沁的“语境界定”方法，即将“权利”概念放入其被使用的语句和上下文中，整体性考察它所扮演的角色。第二章，总结边沁的权利利益理论以及哈特对该理论的批判，探究哈特沿用“语境界定”方法却否定权利利益理论的原因。边沁的权利利益理论认为，享有一项与义务相对应的权利，意味着成为法律意图使之从义务的履行中获益的人。但哈特认为，该理论使得“权利”概念在刑法领域的使用沦为“义务”概念的简单转述，且无力解释为第三方利益所签订合同的权利情形，没有揭示“权利”概念的真正本质。第三章，在构建哈特式权利类型理论的基础上，详细探析权利选择理论的内涵及适用限度。哈特重构了边沁的权利类型理论，对自由权、权力以及与义务相对应的权利做了新的解读，并由此提出了权利选择理论。该理论认为，三种权利的共性在于它们都是为法律所尊重的选择。但是，权利选择理论并不能囊括所有权利情形，哈特认为该理论仅适用于一般法律权利，并不适用于宪法性豁免权以及严肃的法律批评家及社会理论家们眼中的权利。第四章，汇总并分析权利选择理论遭受的批判，澄清权利选择理论原貌。学界对权利选择理论提出了诸多批判，或者认为它缩小了权利的范围，或者认为它缩小了权利主体的范围，或者认为它脱离了概念分析领域，或者认为它缺乏道德纬度……这些批判意见归根结底源于学者们对同一性权利本质理论的迫切需要以及他们对哈特貌似“凌乱”的权利本质理论的反感。因为预设了权利本质具有同一性的假设，忽视了哈特对权利选择理论适用范围的限定，混淆了不同权利本质理论在逻辑起点及论证进路方面的差异，这些意见在许多方面有失公允。第五章，概述并简要评析学界为取代权利选择理论所提出的诸多替代性理论，指出它们不能替代权利选择理论的原因。现代权利利益理论、权利的混合理论、权利的多功能理论、权利的证成性约束理论、权利的正直性理论等有助于进一步加深人们对“权利”概念的理解，也有助于进一步澄清权利选择理论，但因它们自身面临诸多理论困境，难以替代权利选择理论。哈特的权利选择理论是理解“权利”概念的一个重要视角。该理论有助于保障哈特法理学理论体系的自洽性和连贯性；有助于克服“权利”概念僵化的定义模式，展现权利的开放性特征，拒绝同一性权利本质理论不切实际的构想；有助于理解“权利”概念的核心价值及客观认定标准，契合其自由主义底色；有助于防止“权利”概念的神秘化、平庸化。对权利人自主性的彰扬，应当是“权利”概念的核心，也应该是使用权利话语应秉持的最起码的准则。
[Abstract]:Since since the enlightenment, the "right" has become the most important concept of human society. But what is right? Extreme confusion and the concept of "rights" show people on the issue of the popular stark contrast. Bentham (JeremyBentham1748-1832) using the method of context defines "put forward the interests of rights theory, the theory of think, have a right is to be with others who benefit obligations legal purpose. Hart (H.L.A. Hart1907-1992) is highly praised by Bentham in the analysis of the concept of" rights "efforts, especially the use of" context definition "method; but he thought," the legal obligation to make a sufficient condition by intention the main benefit "is neither" the rights of the subjects ", nor the necessary conditions; therefore, to a certain extent, the essence of rights is not a benefit or a main benefit, and It is the choice of respect for the law - this is Hart's theory of the choice of rights.
The right choice theory by the advent of the academic controversy on the boom, all mixed, the theory of value seems to be in the debate was refuted completely. However, many critics misinterpreted the right to choose the theory of intention, the alternatives proposed by scholars because of the existence of serious problems but not enough to replace the theory.
Based on Hart's choice theory as the research object, referring to a large number of English related works and papers, especially the research achievements of foreign scholars in the latest of the existing literature in translation; also as reference English original, trying to chew and digest on the first hand data is more comprehensive, profound interpretation and clarification of Hart the right choice theory.
Apart from the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into five chapters.
The first chapter analysis, summarized Hart attributes the concept of "right" to reveal, he used Bentham "context definition" method of concept analysis. Hart believes that people of "what is the attributive characteristics in the concept of" rights "of confusion right" showed largely, the concept of "rights" with the simple descriptive concept is different, it is by law and other social rules as human things, it not only depends on the rules, and can be contested. Therefore, the genus + species difference "method in the definition of the concept of" rights "in the analysis process not only ineffective, and easily lead to confusion, but the real effective analysis of Bentham's" context definition "method, the" right "concept into the context of its statement and is used in the whole study of the role it plays.
The second chapter summarizes Bentham's rights theory and Hart critique of the theory of inquiry, Hart used the "context definition method" denied reason of the interest theory of rights. That the rights and interests of Bentham's theory, have a corresponding obligation, legal means to be the intention to benefit from the obligations of people. But Hart believes that the theory makes the concept of "rights" in the field of criminal law use become "obligation" to the concept of simple reporting, and unable to account for the interests of the third parties signed the contract rights, no rights "concept to reveal the true nature.
The third chapter, in the foundation of the Hart type of right theory, detailed analysis on the right choice theory connotation and scope of application. The reconstruction of the right type of Hart Bentham's theory of freedom, power and rights and obligations should be relatively made a new interpretation, and then puts forward the right choice theory. The theory is that three kinds of rights in common is that they are respect for the choice of law. However, the right choice theory does not include all the rights, Hart believes that this theory is only applicable to general legal rights, constitutional exemption does not apply to the right and the right to serious legal and social theorists in the eyes of the critics.
The fourth chapter summarizes and analyzes the right to choose the theory of criticism from the right to choose, to clarify the theory circles on the right. The original choice theory put forward a lot of criticism, or that it narrows the scope of rights, or that it narrows the scope of the subject of right, or that it is detached from the concept analysis field, or that it lacks moral the latitude. These criticisms after all from scholars of the same rights and the theory of the essence of urgent need. They look like "theory of the essence of right messy" of Hart. Because of the nature of right of presupposition has the same assumptions, ignore the Hart right to choose to limit the application of the theory, confuses the differences between different rights the essence of theory in the logical starting point and the demonstration route, these opinions are unfair in many ways.
The fifth chapter summarizes and briefly comments on the academic theory of the right to choose to replace the many alternative theories, pointed out the reason why they cannot substitute for right choice theory. Modern rights theory, mixed theory of rights, multi function theory of rights, the rights of justification about the integrity of the beam theory, right theory help to further deepen the understanding of the concept of "rights", but also help to further clarify the right choice theory, but because of their own faces many theoretical difficulties, it is difficult to replace the right choice theory.
The choice of Hart's theory is an important perspective understanding of the concept of "rights". The self consistency and coherence of the theory can help to protect Hart's jurisprudence theoretical system; help to overcome the "right" concept definition model of the rigid, show the openness of the rights, the theory of the essence of the idea to unrealistic identity right; concept helps to understand the "rights" of the core values and objective standards, with its liberal background; to help prevent the concept of "rights" of the mysterious, mediocre. On the right of autonomy should be Chang Yang, "the core concept of rights, should also be right to use words uphold the minimum standards.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D909.1

【参考文献】