法律论证中融贯论的应用
发布时间：2019-06-04 09:49
【摘要】：什么是有效的法律规范,这是一个充满争议的话题,法唯实论坚持符合论的立场,主张某一法律规范之所以有效,在于“该规范被它所处的职业共同体接受为有效的法律规范”这一事实。但是,规范命题具有无法单纯使用“真或假”标准予以判断的属性,所以,法唯实论的立场忽略了人们在接受法律规范时价值因素的影响。因此在法律领域中,规范命题应当以“有效或无效”之标准予以判断,并且这一判断过程应当在融贯论的立场上予以讨论。本文即将如何追求司法裁判的合理性这一问题放在融贯论的立场上进行研究。本文从法律逻辑学、法理学、哲学的角度出发,分析借鉴各大学者的理论观点,来论证法律论证合理性标准的问题。 第一部分概述了融贯论的内容及其从哲学领域发展到法律论证理论的过程,主要目的在于理清这个概念。融贯是对司法裁判过程的一个理性约束,同时是评价论证合理性的一个标准,是论证终止的条件。法律论证的正确性宣称,一方面要求一个正确的司法决定应当能够根据有效法逻辑地推导出来,另一方面要求所适用的法律规范本身是合理或公平的。前者需满足逻辑一致性的要求,表现为演绎式的线性证立方式,后者需满足融贯性的要求,表现为各个理由之间的相互支持关系,是一种整体性的证立方式。坚持融贯性标准的法律论证,在本质上是一种整体性的证立方式。 第二部分将法律论证融贯性理论和法律论证相结合,对命题之“真”的探索,研究融贯论在法律论证中的作用。及法律论证的介绍,是在多位学者的理论之间找到共同点和区别,主要目的在于了解这个理论体系的大概状况,相互比较,取其精华。法律领域一般有三种融贯论:法律论证中的融贯论、法律体系内的融贯论、法律融贯主义。结合此三种理论可以很好地分析法官审判实践中的论证标准。融贯论的运用必须区分叙述性融贯和规范性融贯。叙述性融贯保持认识论的基本原则,规范性融贯则是与法官的实践理性相关。叙述性融贯中基础融贯论为法官认定事实提供了形式标准,而在规范性融贯中,解释的融贯论揭示了法官的基本立场以及价值取向,它不是庸俗化的实用主义,而是一种有效地实现关于法律命题完整集合的方法。在这两个层面上,法官的论证可以趋向认识上的合理性以及价值判断上的合理性。麦考密克对规范性融贯和描述性融贯的区分,启示我们在司法裁判或证立过程中不但要重视规范要素的融贯、而且要重视事实要素的融贯,规范性融贯与描述性融贯密不可分,法律方法领域不应忽视对证据融贯性要求的研究。努力在法律体系内确保价值融贯的原则论证方式,不仅是对司法证立的一种形式要求,而且含有正当性要求,它把司法行为限制在合法范围内,在约束法官判决主观因素的同时,增加了司法行为的机动性。 第三部分是是论述融贯论在法律论证理论中的具体运用。在开放的体系中论证,必然带来裁判理由的多元化,对其中任何一个理由的衡量都会受到其他理由的影响,各个理由之间应当形成相互支持的网络结构关系。而且,只有这一融贯的网络结构建立在广泛共识的基础之上,才能够证成一个有效且可接受的裁判结论。必须分清楚融贯性与一致性的不同,才能将该问题深入。 第四部分则是将法律论证融贯性理论与中国司法裁判的证立活动相结合,论证完善司法裁判证立的必要性。在司法实践中,要求法官以事实与法律为基础来办案,但是什么样的事实和何种法律可以作为法官办案的根据呢?各方当事人出于自己的利益所给出的证据、证言,法官要怎样采用;在面对具体案件有法律规则冲突或案件无法律规则对照时,法官也要思考怎么去选择。这也是本文研究的核心问题。
[Abstract]:What is the effective legal norm, this is a controversial subject, the law-only theory insists on the position of the theory, and it is the fact that a certain legal norm is effective and that it is the "The Code is accepted by its professional community as an effective legal norm". However, the normative proposition has the property that cannot be judged simply by using the "true or false" standard, so the position of the law-only theory ignores the influence of people on the value factor in the acceptance of the legal norm. Therefore, in the field of law, the normative proposition should be judged in the standard of "valid or invalid", and the process of judgment should be discussed in the position of the theory of fusion. In this paper, the question of how to pursue the rationality of the judicial decision is put in the position of the theory of fusion. In this paper, from the point of law logic, jurisprudence and philosophy, this paper analyzes the problems of the rationality of the law. The first part provides an overview of the content of the theory of fusion and the process of developing from the field of philosophy to the theory of legal reasoning. It is a rational constraint to the process of the judicial decision, and it is a standard to evaluate the rationality of the demonstration, and it is the rule to prove the termination. The correctness of the legal argument, on the one hand, requires that a right judicial decision be able to be logically derived in accordance with an effective law and, on the other hand, that the applicable legal norm itself is reasonable or fair The former needs to meet the requirement of logic consistency, and it is a deductive type of linear proof. The latter needs to meet the requirements of the fusion, and it is a kind of integrity proof cube. The legal argument of adhering to the standard of fusion, in essence, is a kind of integrity-proof cube. The second part combines the legal argument with the legal argument, the exploration of the "true" of the proposition, and the study of the theory of fusion in the legal argument. The main purpose of this system is to understand the general situation of the theoretical system, compare it with each other, and take it The essence of the law is that there are three kinds of fusion theory in the field of law: the fusion theory in the legal argument, the fusion theory in the legal system and the melting of the law. In combination with the three theories, the theory can be used to analyze the theory of the judge's trial practice well. The application of the fusion theory must distinguish the narrative and the standard. It is the basic principle of the epistemology, and the normative fusion is the practice of the judge. On the basis of the theory of the basic fusion of the narrative fusion, the judge's basic position and the value orientation are revealed, and it is not vulgar. It is an effective way to achieve a complete set of legal propositions. At both levels, the judge's argument can tend to be in the sense of rationality and value judgment. The rationality of McCormick's distinction between the normative fusion and the descriptive fusion is that we should not only attach importance to the integration of the normative elements in the process of judicial decision or witness, but also attach importance to the fusion of the elements of the facts, the normative and the descriptive and the close relationship. In the field of legal method, the requirement for the fusion of evidence should not be ignored. The study of the principle and way of ensuring the value fusion in the legal system is not only a form requirement for the judicial certificate, but also the legitimacy requirement. It limits the judicial behavior to the legal scope, and increases the judicial behavior while restraining the judge's subjective factors. The third part is to discuss the theory of the theory of fusion. In the open system, it is necessary to bring the diversity of the judgment reason, and the measurement of any one of the reasons will be affected by other reasons, and a mutually supportive network should be formed between the various reasons The structure of the network can be proved to be a valid and acceptable only if the network structure of the network is based on a broad consensus. The referee's conclusion is that it is necessary to distinguish between the consistency and the consistency. The fourth part is to combine the theory of combining the law and the legal activity of the judicial referees in China to demonstrate the perfection of the judicial cut-off. The necessity of the judgment. In the judicial practice, the judge is required to deal with the case on the basis of the fact and the law, but what kind of facts and what law can be used as a law In the light of the evidence and testimony given by the parties for their own interests, how the judge should adopt it, and in the case of a conflict of legal rules or a case-free rule against a specific case, the judge shall also Think about how to choose. It's here too.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926
[Abstract]:What is the effective legal norm, this is a controversial subject, the law-only theory insists on the position of the theory, and it is the fact that a certain legal norm is effective and that it is the "The Code is accepted by its professional community as an effective legal norm". However, the normative proposition has the property that cannot be judged simply by using the "true or false" standard, so the position of the law-only theory ignores the influence of people on the value factor in the acceptance of the legal norm. Therefore, in the field of law, the normative proposition should be judged in the standard of "valid or invalid", and the process of judgment should be discussed in the position of the theory of fusion. In this paper, the question of how to pursue the rationality of the judicial decision is put in the position of the theory of fusion. In this paper, from the point of law logic, jurisprudence and philosophy, this paper analyzes the problems of the rationality of the law. The first part provides an overview of the content of the theory of fusion and the process of developing from the field of philosophy to the theory of legal reasoning. It is a rational constraint to the process of the judicial decision, and it is a standard to evaluate the rationality of the demonstration, and it is the rule to prove the termination. The correctness of the legal argument, on the one hand, requires that a right judicial decision be able to be logically derived in accordance with an effective law and, on the other hand, that the applicable legal norm itself is reasonable or fair The former needs to meet the requirement of logic consistency, and it is a deductive type of linear proof. The latter needs to meet the requirements of the fusion, and it is a kind of integrity proof cube. The legal argument of adhering to the standard of fusion, in essence, is a kind of integrity-proof cube. The second part combines the legal argument with the legal argument, the exploration of the "true" of the proposition, and the study of the theory of fusion in the legal argument. The main purpose of this system is to understand the general situation of the theoretical system, compare it with each other, and take it The essence of the law is that there are three kinds of fusion theory in the field of law: the fusion theory in the legal argument, the fusion theory in the legal system and the melting of the law. In combination with the three theories, the theory can be used to analyze the theory of the judge's trial practice well. The application of the fusion theory must distinguish the narrative and the standard. It is the basic principle of the epistemology, and the normative fusion is the practice of the judge. On the basis of the theory of the basic fusion of the narrative fusion, the judge's basic position and the value orientation are revealed, and it is not vulgar. It is an effective way to achieve a complete set of legal propositions. At both levels, the judge's argument can tend to be in the sense of rationality and value judgment. The rationality of McCormick's distinction between the normative fusion and the descriptive fusion is that we should not only attach importance to the integration of the normative elements in the process of judicial decision or witness, but also attach importance to the fusion of the elements of the facts, the normative and the descriptive and the close relationship. In the field of legal method, the requirement for the fusion of evidence should not be ignored. The study of the principle and way of ensuring the value fusion in the legal system is not only a form requirement for the judicial certificate, but also the legitimacy requirement. It limits the judicial behavior to the legal scope, and increases the judicial behavior while restraining the judge's subjective factors. The third part is to discuss the theory of the theory of fusion. In the open system, it is necessary to bring the diversity of the judgment reason, and the measurement of any one of the reasons will be affected by other reasons, and a mutually supportive network should be formed between the various reasons The structure of the network can be proved to be a valid and acceptable only if the network structure of the network is based on a broad consensus. The referee's conclusion is that it is necessary to distinguish between the consistency and the consistency. The fourth part is to combine the theory of combining the law and the legal activity of the judicial referees in China to demonstrate the perfection of the judicial cut-off. The necessity of the judgment. In the judicial practice, the judge is required to deal with the case on the basis of the fact and the law, but what kind of facts and what law can be used as a law In the light of the evidence and testimony given by the parties for their own interests, how the judge should adopt it, and in the case of a conflict of legal rules or a case-free rule against a specific case, the judge shall also Think about how to choose. It's here too.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D926
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 侯学勇;郑宏雁;;整体性等于融贯性吗?——评德沃金法律理论中的融贯论[J];法律方法;2010年01期
2 侯学勇;;什么是有效的法律规范?——法学中的融贯论[J];法律方法;2009年00期
3 侯学勇;;融贯性论证的整体性面向[J];政法论丛;2009年02期
4 梁庆寅,张南宁;论刑事辩护中的法律论证[J];学术研究;2005年02期
5 刘丹丹;;浅析法律论证理论兴起的原因[J];法制与社会;2008年30期
6 杨宁芳;;论图尔敏的法律论证理论[J];重庆理工大学学报(社会科学);2010年08期
7 焦宝乾;分析学还是解释学——法律论证之知识属性辨析[J];法制与社会发展;2005年03期
8 舒国滢;从方法论看抽象法学理论的发展[J];浙江社会科学;2004年05期
9 葛松琰;;公案的法律论证[J];才智;2008年20期
10 李川;内部证成:法律陈述的力量之源[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2004年04期
相关会议论文 前10条
1 卢春荣;王森波;;阿列克西法律论证理论述评[A];当代法学论坛（二○一○年第1辑）[C];2010年
2 潘文爵;;法律为什么要论证——试论法律论证的可能[A];第十六届全国法律逻辑学术讨论会论文（成就·反思·前瞻——中国法律逻辑三十年）[C];2008年
3 欧晓彬;;浅谈法律论证[A];第十六届全国法律逻辑学术讨论会论文（成就·反思·前瞻——中国法律逻辑三十年）[C];2008年
4 张庆彦;;法律适用中的后果考量[A];法律逻辑与法律思维——第十七届全国法律逻辑学术讨论会交流论文[C];2009年
5 郭志强;;论法律论证(摘要)[A];第十四届全国法律逻辑学术讨论会论文集[C];2006年
6 缪四平;;批判性思维与法律逻辑(全文)[A];第十四届全国法律逻辑学术讨论会论文集[C];2006年
7 蔡琳;;法律论证中的融贯论[A];法律逻辑与法学教育——第十五届全国法律逻辑学术讨论会论文集[C];2007年
8 王晓;王s，
本文编号：2492641
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/gongjianfalunwen/2492641.html
