拉德布鲁赫法哲学思想浅析

发布时间：2018-06-25 22:15

本文选题：新康德主义 + 矛盾　；参考：《西南政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 在近现代西方法学史上,新康德主义法学流派虽不占主导性地位,但是却写下了浓墨重彩的一笔,成为我们对法学进行反思的丰富的智识之源。作为新康德主义法学派鼎盛时期的主要代表之一,拉德布鲁赫的法哲学思想更是给我们留下了深刻的印象。众所周知,在二战之后,拉德布鲁赫提出了著名的“拉德布鲁赫公式”,使得其思想看起来似乎是前后矛盾的,这引起了法学后学们激烈的争论。如有些学者将拉德布鲁赫归入自然法阵营,而另一些学者却认为他是一个不折不扣的实证主义,还有一些学者认为拉德布鲁赫超越了自然法与法实证主义两大哲学派别,是个不折不扣的相对主义者;更有甚者,一些学者对于以上的几种概括同时否定,他们认为,拉德布鲁赫的法哲学思想缺少体系性与连贯性,内部充满着矛盾与张力,因此,很难简单地进行如此的归类。拉德布鲁赫的法哲学思想到底具有什么特点,应当归入哪一阵营(或更接近于哪一阵营)呢?本文拟对这些问题进行探讨。为了解决这些问题,本文从以下几个部分进行论述: 引言部分主要是提出本文所要解决的问题,以及国内外论者对该问题的看法,进而介绍笔者探讨问题的方法与思路,并指出自己的观点。第一部分简要介绍拉德布鲁赫法哲学思想的理论背景,其中分为两个部分:哲学背景与法学背景,并在此基础上指出其理论一开始便以复兴自然法为己任。第二部分具体的探讨了拉德布鲁赫自然法复兴之路。首先指明其自然法的复兴是通过将法哲学转化为法律的文化哲学来实现的,并进而指明其理论因此走向一种积极的相对主义,但是还没有阐明其到底有没有真正复兴自然法。第三部分承接第二部分的问题,通过比较分析得出拉德布鲁赫成功的复兴了自然法,并提出了独具特色的自然法理论。进而得出,关于拉德布鲁赫在二战之后转向了自然法理论的观点是不正确的,笔者认为,并不存在所谓的转向问题,“拉德布鲁赫公式”的提出只是拉德布鲁赫实践自己理论的一个表现。结语部分则是指出本文的写作缘由,并对笔者的观点作进一步的强调。
[Abstract]:In the history of modern western jurisprudence, Neo-Kant School of Jurisprudence does not occupy the leading position, but it has written a brilliant stroke, which has become a rich intellectual source for us to reflect on the jurisprudence. As one of the main representatives of the Neo-Kantian School of Law in its heyday, Radbroch's philosophy of law impressed us deeply. As we all know, after World War II, Radbroch put forward the famous "Radbruith formula", which makes his thought seem contradictory, which has aroused fierce debate among the postschool of law. For example, some scholars put Radbroch into the camp of natural law, while others considered him to be an unmistakable positivism, while others thought that Radbruge had transcended the two major philosophical schools of natural law and positivism of law. Is a true relativist; what's more, some scholars deny the above generalizations at the same time. They believe that Radbruch's philosophy of law lacks systematicness and coherence, and is full of contradictions and tension. It is difficult to make such a simple classification. What are the characteristics of Radbroch's philosophy of law, and which camp (or closer to) should he belong to? This paper discusses these problems. In order to solve these problems, this paper discusses from the following parts: the introduction part is mainly to put forward the problems to be solved in this paper, as well as the views of domestic and foreign scholars on this issue. Then the author introduces the methods and ideas of exploring the problem, and points out his own views. The first part briefly introduces the theoretical background of Radbroch's philosophy of law, which is divided into two parts: the background of philosophy and the background of law, and on this basis points out that his theory began with the revival of natural law as its own responsibility. The second part discusses the road of natural law renaissance. Firstly, it is pointed out that the revival of its natural law is realized by transforming the philosophy of law into the philosophy of culture of law, and then its theory moves towards a positive relativism, but it has not been clarified whether it really revives the natural law or not. The third part carries on the question of the second part, through the comparative analysis, draws the conclusion that Radbroch has successfully revived the natural law, and has proposed the unique natural law theory. Furthermore, it is not true that Radbruith turned to the theory of natural law after World War II. The author believes that there is no so-called turning problem. The proposition of Radbruch's Formula is only a manifestation of Radbruith's practice of his own theory. The conclusion part is to point out the writing reason of this article, and make further emphasis on the author's point of view.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D90

【引证文献】