本文關(guān)鍵詞： 確定性 合理性 交往理性 法律商談　出處：《南京師范大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：語(yǔ)言本身就存在著一種事實(shí)性與有效性的張力。這種張力造成了語(yǔ)言的不確定性。在通過對(duì)以語(yǔ)言為媒介的交往活動(dòng)的社會(huì)整合的過程中,經(jīng)過了生活世界和古代權(quán)威建制的發(fā)展和鋪墊,最終現(xiàn)代法律成為了社會(huì)整合的最主要手段,內(nèi)在于語(yǔ)言之中的事實(shí)性與有效性之間的張力也必然通過語(yǔ)言的交往活動(dòng)體現(xiàn)到法律中來,哈貝馬斯認(rèn)為,內(nèi)在于語(yǔ)言之中的事實(shí)性與有效性之間的張力造成了法律不確定性的產(chǎn)生。 自然法學(xué)派試圖用自然法的不可質(zhì)疑的正確性和權(quán)威性來保證實(shí)在法的確定性和正確性。而分析法學(xué)派則堅(jiān)持法律自身的自洽性,用法律規(guī)范的形式合理性來保證法律的確定性；也就是使法律成為一個(gè)邏輯嚴(yán)整、體系明確,效力等級(jí)森嚴(yán)的規(guī)范等級(jí)體系。而法律現(xiàn)實(shí)主義,從完全實(shí)證的角度否認(rèn)法律的確定性。哈特則在傳統(tǒng)分析法學(xué)的基礎(chǔ)之上還主張最低限度的自然法是法律必不可少的內(nèi)容,并通過承認(rèn)規(guī)則來協(xié)調(diào)法律的確定性和合法性。德沃金則訴諸法律的整體性,由法律傳統(tǒng)和現(xiàn)代法律實(shí)踐構(gòu)成對(duì)法官雙重制約,并且通過對(duì)于法律整體性的把握和建構(gòu)性詮釋,實(shí)現(xiàn)了確定性和合理性的統(tǒng)一。 哈貝馬斯認(rèn)為,以前的理論并沒有真正解決法律確定性的問題。因?yàn)樗鼈儧]有·看到法律不確定性產(chǎn)生的真正原因是內(nèi)在于法律語(yǔ)言之中的事實(shí)有效性和規(guī)范有效性之間的矛盾。哈貝馬斯指出,只有通過建立在交往理性基礎(chǔ)之上的法律商談才能真正解決內(nèi)在于法律語(yǔ)言之中的事實(shí)有效性和規(guī)范有效性之間的矛盾,并最終達(dá)到法律確定性和合理性之間的統(tǒng)一。交往行為是主體之間通過符號(hào)協(xié)調(diào)的互動(dòng),它以語(yǔ)言為媒介,通過理由與對(duì)話,達(dá)到人與人之間的理解與一致。因此通過交往行為可以使得行為結(jié)果具有合理性。法律商談是交往行為在法律領(lǐng)域的特殊化形式,除了要滿足一般的交往行為所必須的特征,法律還必須具有特定的建制化形式。通過商談?wù)摰囊暯菍?duì)法律領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行重構(gòu),法律中的確定性和合理性的矛盾得到妥善的解決。法律商談中的通過充分理由的論辯并最終產(chǎn)生的“無強(qiáng)制的同意”保證了法律的合理性。而為了確保法律商談的順利進(jìn)行,則必須對(duì)于法律商談的過程進(jìn)行程序化的法律建制。這些法律程序構(gòu)成了法律商談的“理想言談情境”,從而構(gòu)成了法律確定性的來源。法律確定性在此時(shí)不再是傳統(tǒng)意義上的那種絕對(duì)的確定性,它是一種程序主義的確定性。但是這種法律確定性融入了合理性的特征,具有重構(gòu)性的特點(diǎn),是一種全新的法律確定性。哈貝馬斯的法律確定性理論妥善地解決了內(nèi)在于法律之中的事實(shí)有效性和規(guī)范有效性之間的矛盾。
[Abstract]:The language itself is the existence of a fact and effective tension. The tension caused by the uncertainty of language. In the process of social integration through the medium of language communication activities in the after life world and ancient authority system and the development of the modern legal basis, eventually became the most important means of social integration in fact, between the effectiveness of language is also bound by the tension of language communication activities to reflect the law, Habermas believes that in between facticity and validity in a language that the tension caused the uncertainty of law.
The school of natural law to natural law can not be questioned the validity and authority of the law to ensure the certainty and correctness. And analysis of the law school insisted that the self consistency of law itself, in the form of laws and regulations to ensure the rationality of the certainty of law; that is the law into a rigorous logic system, clear, normative effect hierarchy hierarchy. Legal realism, from an empirical perspective completely denied legal certainty. Hart is in the tradition of natural law on the basis of analysis of law also advocated the minimum legal essential contents, and the rule of recognition to coordinate the legal certainty and legitimacy. Dworkin resorts to the integrity of law, the legal tradition and modern legal practice of judges and by double restriction, to grasp and constructive interpretation of the integrity of law, to achieve certainty And the unity of rationality.
Habermas believes that the previous theory does not really solve the problem of legal certainty. Because they had no reason to see the real legal uncertainty is within the validity of law lies in the fact that language and regulate effectively the contradiction between. Habermas pointed out that only by establishing on the basis of communicative rationality can really solve the internal legal negotiation in fact the legal validity of language and regulate effectively the contradiction between, and ultimately achieve unity between legal certainty and rationality. Communicative behavior is through interactive coordination between the main symbol, it uses language as medium by reason and dialogue, understanding and consensus reached between people. Therefore the interaction can the behavior results are reasonable. Legal negotiation is a specialized form of communicative behavior in the legal field, in addition to meet the general The characteristic of the necessary communication behavior, the law must also have a particular form of institutionalization. To reconstruct the legal field through the discourse theory of law perspective, the certainty and rationality of the contradictions are properly resolved. Legal discourse by reason and argument eventually produced "no mandatory consent" to ensure that the rationality of law. In order to ensure legal negotiation smoothly, it must be the legal process for the establishment of legal discourse procedures. These proceedings constitute legal discussions of "ideal speech situation", so as to constitute a source of legal uncertainty. The uncertainty of law at this time is no longer the absolute certainty of traditional sense it is OK, a procedural. But this kind of legal certainty into the rationality of the characteristics, has the characteristics of reconstruction, is a kind of new legal determination Habermas's legal certainty theory properly solved the contradiction between the fact validity and the normative validity within the law.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D90

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李錦;;語(yǔ)義學(xué)之刺及其解決方案[J];北方法學(xué);2009年03期

2 翟志勇;;哈貝馬斯論域中的法律與道德[J];比較法研究;2007年05期

3 蒂莫西A.O.恩迪科特;戴一飛;;語(yǔ)言的不確定性[J];比較法研究;2009年05期

4 約瑟夫·拉茲;雷磊;;法律原則與法律的界限[J];比較法研究;2009年06期

5 嚴(yán)存生;法的合法性問題研究[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

6 謝暉;科學(xué)與詮釋:法哲學(xué)研究的兩種理路[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

7 陳偉;;司法確定性的尋求——析哈貝馬斯的“程序確定性”理論[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2011年01期

8 楊春福;“現(xiàn)代之后”的權(quán)利觀及其對(duì)中國(guó)社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型的意義——以�？潞凸愸R斯為例[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2005年01期

9 張?jiān)讫?;交往與共識(shí)何以可能——論哈貝馬斯與后現(xiàn)代主義的爭(zhēng)論[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年06期

10 孫文愷;;開放結(jié)構(gòu)中的確定性追求——兼論哈特與富勒法律理論的契合性[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1460455