本文關(guān)鍵詞： 法律擬制 法律的穩(wěn)定性 法律的發(fā)展 法律推定 法律解釋　出處：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：法律擬制作為一種古老的法律現(xiàn)象,在古今中外的法律制度中都有它的身影。富勒教授曾經(jīng)將法律擬制比作“法律的病理學(xué)...是用以修補(bǔ)法律體系大廈縫隙的笨拙的補(bǔ)丁”1。由此可見(jiàn),法律擬制是與法律相伴生的,只要存在著法律規(guī)范與現(xiàn)實(shí)之間的裂縫,就有法律擬制存在的空間。國(guó)外法學(xué)界曾經(jīng)對(duì)法律擬制有過(guò)激烈的探討,分屬歷史法學(xué)派、實(shí)證法學(xué)派與自然法學(xué)派的代表人物均加入了這場(chǎng)討論。但是,由于法律擬制在不同的時(shí)代、不同的法律體系的表現(xiàn)形式不盡相同,加之學(xué)者們對(duì)法律本質(zhì)的認(rèn)識(shí)各異,致使這些討論從不同的角度出發(fā),對(duì)法律擬制的概念各執(zhí)一詞,甚至是褒貶不一。盡管如此,學(xué)者們不同角度的精辟論述對(duì)法律擬制在理論上的深入挖掘,不僅能使我們以更寬闊的視角去領(lǐng)略法律擬制的真面目,而且還能從中窺見(jiàn)分屬各流派的法學(xué)家以此為戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)展現(xiàn)出的各自的法學(xué)理論觀(guān)點(diǎn)。由于未能出現(xiàn)較前人更有建樹(shù)的觀(guān)點(diǎn),國(guó)外關(guān)于法律擬制的討論在二十世紀(jì)后期已然降溫。然而,法律擬制作為與法律相伴生的現(xiàn)象,并未像理論探討那樣銷(xiāo)聲匿跡;恰恰相反,它仍普遍存在于各國(guó)現(xiàn)行的法律制度與實(shí)踐之中。反觀(guān)國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)界對(duì)法律擬制的研究,國(guó)內(nèi)的法學(xué)理論界似乎并未感受到這場(chǎng)久遠(yuǎn)的“法律擬制之辯”曾經(jīng)如火如荼的氣息,有關(guān)法律擬制的譯作與探討相對(duì)較少,僅有少量以法律擬制為視角對(duì)部門(mén)法相關(guān)法律規(guī)則的反思,且多集中在刑法領(lǐng)域。這些部門(mén)法層面的分析僅是局限于自身的對(duì)法律擬制的“管窺”,缺乏理論的完整性與體系性,亟待法理學(xué)在理論層面上的回應(yīng)。本文選取我國(guó)與英美法律制度中擬制運(yùn)用的比較為視角,結(jié)合不同法律體系的具體法律制度對(duì)法律擬制這項(xiàng)立法技術(shù)作深入的剖析與解讀。第一章,總結(jié)與比較有關(guān)法律擬制概念的不同觀(guān)點(diǎn),將法律擬制界定為立法者基于某種價(jià)值目的的考慮,不問(wèn)事實(shí)上的真實(shí)性,有意將事實(shí)T1與既有法律規(guī)則中的事實(shí)條件T2做決斷性的等同或者關(guān)聯(lián),從而使事實(shí)T1獲得T2之法律后果的一種特殊的立法手段。第二章,以第一章中法律擬制的概念界定為指引,對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律制度中的擬制條款做全面與具體的制度分析與功能分析。第三章,從相關(guān)判例與法官的司法活動(dòng)入手,以同樣的制度與功能分析的思路,探尋法律擬制在英美法律制度中的表現(xiàn)形式與作用。第四章,通過(guò)比較法律擬制在我國(guó)與英美法律制度之中運(yùn)用的共同與區(qū)別之處,一方面,挖掘法律擬制的核心助益所在,以期將其合理利用;另一方面,相互借鑒二者相互之間更為可取的操作方法,避免擬制的濫用。
[Abstract]:Legal fiction is an ancient legal phenomenon. In ancient and modern legal systems there is its shadow. Professor Fuller once compared the legal fiction to "the pathology of the law... Is a clumsy patch to repair the gaps in the building of the legal system." Legal fiction is accompanied by law, as long as there is a crack between legal norms and reality, there is room for legal fiction. They belong to the historical school of law, the representatives of both the positivist school and the natural law school have participated in the discussion. However, due to the legal fiction in different times, different legal systems have different forms of expression. In addition, scholars have different understanding of the nature of the law, so that these discussions from different perspectives, the concept of legal fiction is different, or even mixed. Scholars from different angles to explore the legal fiction in theory, not only can we use a broader perspective to understand the true face of legal fiction. And can also be seen from the different schools of jurists as the battlefield to show their respective legal theoretical views. Because of the failure to appear than the previous people more successful point of view. The discussion on legal fiction in foreign countries has cooled down in the late 20th century. However, the phenomenon of legal fiction as a companion to law has not disappeared as much as the theoretical discussion. On the contrary, it still exists in the current legal system and practice of various countries. The domestic legal theorists do not seem to feel the long history of "legal fiction debate" has been in full swing, the translation and discussion of legal fiction is relatively rare. Only a small amount of reflection on the relevant legal rules of branch law from the perspective of legal fiction, and mostly concentrated in the criminal law field. The analysis of these branches of law is limited to their own legal fictitious "peek". The lack of theoretical integrity and systemativeness requires the theoretical response of jurisprudence. This paper chooses the comparison of fictitious application between China and the Anglo-American legal system as the angle of view. Combined with the specific legal system of different legal systems, the legislative technology of legal fiction is deeply analyzed and interpreted. The first chapter summarizes and compares different views on the concept of fictitious legal system. Legal fiction is defined as the consideration of legislators based on a certain value purpose, regardless of the fact of authenticity, the fact T1 and the existing legal rules of the fact conditions T2 to make a decisive equality or correlation. The second chapter is guided by the definition of the concept of legal fiction in the first chapter. This paper makes a comprehensive and specific institutional analysis and functional analysis of the fictitious clauses in the current legal system of our country. The third chapter starts with the relevant cases and the judicial activities of the judges with the same ideas of system and function analysis. Chapter 4th, through the comparison of the legal fiction in our country and the common and different use of the Anglo-American legal system, on the one hand. Excavating the core benefits of legal fiction in order to make rational use of it; On the other hand, learn from each other the more desirable operation between the two, to avoid the abuse of fiction.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D90

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳倩靚;民事訴訟擬制自認(rèn)制度探析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1443336