本文選題：弗蘭克 + 盧埃林��； 參考：《山東大學》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：美國法律現(xiàn)實主義運動對美國法律思想和法律實踐的發(fā)展具有重要意義,至今仍然是美國法學界最關注的問題之一。弗蘭克和盧埃林是最具典型性的代表人物,是法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的激進派和溫和派,盡管國內關于法律現(xiàn)實主義運動、弗蘭克與盧埃林法律思想的研究日趨豐富,但缺乏系統(tǒng)化的研究,即使專門化的研究作品也存在存在諸多曲解、誤解。筆者力圖全面系統(tǒng)地研究弗蘭克、盧埃林的法律思想,并通過比較研究揭示揭示法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的歷史意義,指出實際上是圍繞羅斯福新政展開的,是法律界的凱恩斯主義。筆者分五章進行具體闡述： 第一章,“弗蘭克、盧埃林與美國法律現(xiàn)實主義運動”。本文以龐德與盧埃林、弗蘭克的“論戰(zhàn)”為線索探尋什么是法律現(xiàn)實主義運動,展開其特殊的時代背景,最后比較分析弗蘭克和盧埃林的個人經歷以及思想淵源。龐德與盧埃林、弗蘭克的論戰(zhàn)拉開法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的帷幕,本文將指出盧埃林與龐德的思想在很多方面具有一致性,他們之間的“論戰(zhàn)”是商談性的；而弗蘭克與龐德之間則更多的是思想批判。這不僅可以澄清許多學者對“論戰(zhàn)”性質的誤解、展現(xiàn)論戰(zhàn)的真實面目,而且把龐德、盧埃林、弗蘭克對法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的觀點清晰化,為后文進一步闡述奠定基礎。美國法律現(xiàn)實主義運動是特定時代的產物,本文以聯(lián)邦最高法院的判例為線索闡述這個時代背景,不僅因為最高法院的判決集中反應社會政治經濟的根本性矛盾,是社會背景最好的縮略圖,而且法律現(xiàn)實主義運動致力于揭示司法過程的真相,本文以現(xiàn)實主義者的視角觀察判決背后的社會背景。弗蘭克和盧埃林的不同個人經歷在一定程度上決定了他們的法律思想,決定了弗蘭克的政治家視角和盧埃林的學者視角。盡管弗蘭克和盧埃林共同分享早期實用主義的法律思想,但弗蘭克更推崇霍姆斯,而盧埃林則推崇卡多佐；在研究方法的選擇上,弗蘭克偏好心理學方法,而盧埃林強調社會學方法。對弗蘭克和盧埃林思想淵源的比較可以部分展現(xiàn)法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的思想背景。 第二章,“弗蘭克的事實懷疑論與盧埃林的規(guī)則懷疑論比較”。弗蘭克和盧埃林同屬于法律現(xiàn)實主義運動,共同分享對法律形式主義的批判態(tài)度,但批判的方法、內容、結論等方面都不相同。弗蘭克以心理學的方法戳穿形式主義的基本法律神話,而盧埃林以語言學的方法證明規(guī)則存在彈性的操作空間。弗蘭克把法律與具體判決相聯(lián)系,而盧埃林強調從形式主義的規(guī)則中心轉向行為中心。弗蘭克認為初審過程充滿法官、證人、律師、陪審團的主觀性因素,導致了初審事實的不確定性,但盧埃林認為弗蘭克夸大了主觀偏見的影響,盡管法律形式主義的確定性是虛假的,但通過研究實際的司法過程仍然可以預測判決結果。弗蘭克的事實懷疑論以初審法院為中心,認為初審法院是司法系統(tǒng)的核心,而盧埃林的規(guī)則懷疑論則以上訴法院為中心,并非盧埃林忽視了初審法院的重要作用,而是盧埃林認為法院的主要功能不是解決具體糾紛,而是通過創(chuàng)造法律規(guī)則參與制度改革。而弗蘭克認為具體案件公正解決才是司法公正的根本目標,從始至終弗蘭克都是一位徹底的事實懷疑論者,不存在由事實懷疑論向規(guī)則懷疑論的轉向。教育思想是弗蘭克與盧埃林法律思想的重要組成部分,批判蘭德爾的傳統(tǒng)法律教育模式也是法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的任務之一。弗蘭克把拯救司法公正的希望寄托在法律教育的改革上,建議通過增加心理學課程、參與實際的庭審過程(特別是初審庭審)、學生在具有律師經驗的教師帶領下實際辦理案件等措施培養(yǎng)更加合格的初審法官,從而在初審事實的認定上更加逼近客觀案件事實,但這些措施并未真正影響美國的法律教育模式。盧埃林作為職業(yè)的法律教育者,早期即參與了哥倫比亞的課程改革,并且出版買賣法的教材貫徹執(zhí)行其法律教育的思想,與弗蘭克不同,盧埃林法律教育的目標是培養(yǎng)優(yōu)秀的律師,他們不是僅僅為當事人服務的“訟棍”,而是熟悉社會背景、對正當?shù)纳鐣枨蠹捌涿舾�、具有正義感和理性的律師,他們對法官作出公正判決的提供最有力的幫助。 第三章,“弗蘭克與盧埃林思想體系比較”。弗蘭克和盧埃林對法律形式主義的批判不是孤立的,而是從屬于他們的思想體系。弗蘭克的法律思想只是其思想體系的一部分,從本質上說弗蘭克是一位出色的政治家,弗蘭克指出美國應當采取獨立發(fā)展的國家經濟政策,孤立歐洲,重視提高國內購買能力,在思想上反對一切決定論,他從政治、經濟、哲學等方面闡述維持和完善美國民主市場制度的重要性,法律思想是實現(xiàn)這一政治理想的工具。盧埃林的法律思想是一個完整的樹狀結構,可以按照時間順序劃分為三個部分,即現(xiàn)實主義的批判思想、法律社會學思想、關于上訴司法過程的實用主義思想,這三個部分是有機聯(lián)系的,法律社會學思想和實用主義思想是對法律形式主義批判的繼續(xù),而批判是后期思想建構的前提,整體性理論是宏大風格理論的社會學部分。四十年代盧埃林與他的學生霍貝爾合作法人類學著作,盧埃林承擔理論建構的任務,建立了既適用于現(xiàn)代社會又適用于初民社會的法律職能理論,希望能夠超越韋伯建構的理想模型,建立以整體性理論為核心的法律社會學。盡管盧埃林的法社會學理論模型沒有最終完成,但不能忽視他對法律社會學做出的重要貢獻。五十年代以后盧埃林把焦點轉移到法理學上,隨著法律現(xiàn)實主義的階段性勝利,律師界產生了對上訴司法過程的信任危機,盧埃林以宏大風格的“可估量性”救治這種恐懼。《普通法傳統(tǒng)》是盧埃林法律思想的集大成,體現(xiàn)了盧埃林的實用主義法律思想。弗蘭克與盧埃林思想體系的差異最終體現(xiàn)在法律訴求的不同上,弗蘭克以個案正義追求法律面前人人平等的理想,從而保證美國民主制度的千秋萬代,而盧埃林則希望法律制度實現(xiàn)社會生活的和諧秩序,尋求法律人如何理解社會、團體成員如何在法律的保護下實現(xiàn)自治的途徑。 第四章,“弗蘭克與盧埃林的法律實踐比較”。弗蘭克作為美國第二巡回上訴法院的法官,其判決意見和異議意見也是體現(xiàn)其法律思想的重要載體,研究表明盡管弗蘭克在法律思想上屬于激進派,但在司法實踐中卻是嚴格的保守派,甚至淪為其所反對的法律形式主義者。而即使弗蘭克掌握了精神分析的方法,也并不能控制他對共產主義者的偏見,側面證明了其教育改革建議的失敗。盧埃林也并非單純的學者,通過主持起草《統(tǒng)一商法典》把他的法律思想付諸實踐,盡管由于商人陪審團設置的撤銷而使其理論構想部分受挫,但商法典的整體框架仍然保留了盧埃林的最初設計,仍然滲透著盧埃林的個人氣質。無論是弗蘭克還是盧埃林都是羅斯福新政的支持者,他們的思想都是為了建立更加健康的經濟社會秩序。最后分析了弗蘭克與盧埃林法律思想和實踐異同的原因,盡管這些原因在前面的論述中都有涉及,但集中明確地提出來有助于加深理解。 第五章,“美國法律思想史背景下的弗蘭克與盧埃林”,探討弗蘭克、盧埃林與早期實用主義、批判法學、新現(xiàn)實主義的關系,在美國法律思想史的背景下研究弗蘭克、盧埃林以及美國法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的影響。法律現(xiàn)實主義運動與早期實用主義法學分享相同的哲學基礎,弗蘭克是霍姆斯的信徒,盧埃林十分推崇卡多佐,但通過對他們的思想和實踐進行具體分析,可以表明盧埃林才是真正的實用主義者,而弗蘭克僅僅是法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的邊緣人物。二十世紀四五年代以后,美國法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的思想獲得了廣泛肯定,在某種程度上說二十世紀的法理學流派都受到他們的影響,我們都是法律現(xiàn)實主義者了,但六七十年代興起的法律和社會運動、批判法學運動更具有代表性,他們繼承了法律現(xiàn)實主義運動的不同方面。美國法律現(xiàn)實主義運動在三個方面取得成功：打破法律形式主義的確定性神話、倡導交叉學科的法學研究、強調法律和政治的聯(lián)系。四五十年代以后,法律的不確定性作為共識被廣泛接受,幾乎沒有人再相信規(guī)則的邏輯推理能夠得出判決。法律現(xiàn)實主義運動把交叉學科研究推向繁盛,弗蘭克以心理學方法分析法律現(xiàn)象,盧埃林更偏好社會學／人類學的方法,新現(xiàn)實主義(即法律與社會運動)繼承了法律現(xiàn)實主義的這個方面,致力于完全中立客觀地研究法律的描述性方面。盧埃林指出法律淵源不僅包括規(guī)則和原則,還包括政策,政治悄悄進入盧埃林的法律思想當中,而弗蘭克的法律思想服務于其政治理想,美國法律現(xiàn)實主義運動是羅斯福新政的法律變革思想,批判法學繼承了法律現(xiàn)實主義運動關于法律的政治性方面,指出法律是政治制度的工具,目的是為了保護資本主義的市場和民主,其中預設了階級之間的不平等和激烈矛盾。
[Abstract]:The American Legal Realism Movement is of great significance to the development of legal thought and legal practice in the United States. It is still one of the most important issues in the legal circle of the United States. Frank and Llewellyn are the most typical representative figures, the radicals and the warm schools of the Legal Realism Movement, despite the domestic movement of legal realism, The research of Frank and Llewellyn's legal thought is becoming more and more abundant, but it lacks systematic research. Even the specialized research works have many misunderstandings and misunderstandings. The author tries to comprehensively and systematically study the legal thoughts of Frank and Llewellyn, and reveals the historical significance of revealing the movement of legal realism through comparative study and points out that it is true. It is based on the new deal of Roosevelt and is the Keynes doctrine of the legal profession. The author is divided into five chapters:
The first chapter, "Frank, Llewellyn and the American Legal Realism Movement". This article, taking Pound and Llewellyn, Frank's "debate" as clues to explore what is the Legal Realism Movement, launches its special background, and finally compares Frank and Llewellyn's personal experience and ideological origin. The argument of Ke's debate opens the curtain of the Legal Realism Movement. This article will point out that Llewellyn's and Pound's ideas are consistent in many aspects. The "debate" between them is negotiable, while Frank and Pound are more ideological critiques. This can not only be a misunderstanding of the nature of the "controversy" by many of Cheng Qingxu's scholars. The true face of the war, and the clarity of Pound, Llewellyn, Frank's views on the Legal Realism Movement, laid the foundation for further elaboration. The American Legal Realism Movement is the product of a specific era. This article expounds the background of the times with the precedent of the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic, not only because of the Supreme Court's judgment set. The fundamental contradiction in the social and political economy is the best thumbnail in the social background, and the Legal Realism Movement is devoted to revealing the truth of the judicial process. This article looks at the social background behind the verdict in the perspective of the realist. The different experiences of Frank and Llewellyn determine their law to a certain extent. Thinking, it determines Frank's statesman perspective and Llewellyn's scholar's perspective. Although Frank and Llewellyn share the legal ideas of early pragmatism, Frank is more admired and Llewellyn admired Cardoso. In the choice of research methods, it prefers the psychological method and emphasizes the sociological side. The comparison of the ideological origins of Frank and Llewellyn can partly reveal the ideological background of the Legal Realism Movement.
The second chapter, "Frank's factual skepticism is compared with Llewellyn's rule skepticism". Frank and Llewellyn belong to the Legal Realism Movement, sharing the critical attitude of the legal formalism, but the critical methods, contents and conclusions are different. Frank pierced the formalistic basic law by means of psychology. Law mythology, and Llewellyn proves the elastic operating space of rules in linguistic methods. Frank links law with specific judgments, while Llewellyn emphasizes the transition from the center of formalism to the center of behavior. Frank believes that the initial trial process is full of the subjective factors of judges, witnesses, lawyers and jurors, leading to the fact of the first trial. But Llewellyn believes that Frank exaggerates the influence of subjective prejudice. Although the determinism of legal formalism is false, it can still predict the outcome of the judgment through the study of the actual judicial process. Frank's fact skepticism centered on the court of first instance and thinks that the court of first instance is the core of the judicial system and Llewellyn The rule skepticism is the center of the court of appeal, not Llewellyn neglects the important role of the court of first instance, but Llewellyn believes that the main function of the court is not to solve specific disputes, but to participate in the reform of the system through the creation of legal rules. And Frank believes that a fair solution to a specific case is the fundamental goal of judicial justice, from the beginning to the end. Frank is a thorough factual skeptic, and there is no change from the fact skepticism to the rule of doubt. Educational thought is an important part of Frank and Llewellyn's legal thought. It is also one of the tasks of the Legal Realism Movement to criticize the traditional legal education model of Randall. Frank is to save the justice of justice. On the basis of the reform of legal education, it is suggested that by adding psychological courses and participating in the actual trial process (especially the trial of the first trial), the students can cultivate more qualified first instance judges in the case of actual handling cases under the guidance of the teachers with the lawyers' experience, so that the facts of the first instance are closer to the facts of the objective cases, but the fact is closer to the facts of the objective case, but this is the same as that of the facts of the case. Some measures did not really affect the American legal education model. As a professional legal educator, Llewellyn took part in the curriculum reform in Columbia early, and published the teaching material for the sale law to carry out the thought of legal education. Unlike Frank, Llewellyn's legal education aims to cultivate excellent lawyers, they are not only the only ones. The "litigant" only serves the parties, but is a lawyer who is familiar with the social background, the legitimate social needs and their sensitivities, with a sense of justice and rationality, and they provide the most powerful help to the judge to make a fair judgment.
The third chapter, "comparison of the ideological system of Frank and Llewellyn". Frank and Llewellyn's criticism of legal formalism is not isolated, but from their ideological system. Frank's legal thought is only part of its ideological system. In essence, Frank is an excellent politician, Frank points out that the United States should Taking the independent development of national economic policy, isolating Europe, paying more attention to improving domestic purchasing power and opposing all determinism in ideology, he expounded the importance of maintaining and perfecting the American democratic market system from political, economic and philosophical aspects. Legal thought is a tool to realize this ideal of political governance. Llewellyn's legal thought is a whole. The tree structure can be divided into three parts in chronological order, namely, the critical thought of realism, the thought of legal sociology, and the pragmatism thought of the appeals judicial process. The three parts are connected organically. The legal sociology and pragmatism are the continuation of the critique of the legal formalism, and the criticism is the later thought. To construct the premise, the holistic theory is the sociological part of the grand style theory. In 40s, Llewellyn and his student Hobel co operated the work of legal anthropology, Llewellyn took on the task of constructing the theory, and established the legal function theory which is applicable to both modern society and the early people society, hoping to surpass Webb's ideal of construction. The model is the legal sociology at the core of the holistic theory. Although the theoretical model of Llewellyn's Sociology of law has not been finished, he can not ignore his important contribution to the sociology of law. After 50s, Llewellyn shifted the focus to the jurisprudence, and with the phased victory of the legal realism, the lawyer circles produced The crisis of trust in the appeals judicial process, Llewellyn treated this fear with the grand style of "measurability". < ordinary law tradition > is the aggregation of Llewellyn's legal thought. It embodies Llewellyn's pragmatism legal thought. The difference between Frank and Llewellyn's ideological system is finally reflected in the difference of legal demands, Frank is a one. The justice of the case seeks the ideal of equality before the law, thus ensuring the democratic system of the United States for thousands of generations, while Llewellyn wants the legal system to realize the harmonious order of social life, to seek how the legal man understands the society and how the members of the group realize the autonomy under the protection of the law.
The fourth chapter, "comparison of the legal practice between Frank and Llewellyn". Frank, as the judge of the second circuit court of appeals of the United States, his judgment and dissenting opinion is also an important carrier of his legal thought. The study shows that although Frank is a radical in legal thought, it is a strict conservative in judicial practice. Even if Frank grasped the method of psychoanalysis, it could not control his prejudice against the Communists, and the side proved the failure of his educational reform proposal. Llewellyn was not a simple scholar, and through the drafting of the unified commercial code, he put his legal ideas into practice, though As a result of the withdrawal of the merchant jury setting, its theoretical conception was partly frustrated, but the overall framework of the commercial code still retained Llewellyn's original design and still permeated Llewellyn's personal temperament. Both Frank and Llewellyn were supporters of Roosevelt's new deal to build a healthier economy. Social order. Finally, the reasons for the similarities and differences between Frank and Llewellyn's legal thoughts and practices are analyzed. Although these reasons are all involved in the previous discussion, it is helpful to deepen the understanding.
The fifth chapter, "Frank and Llewellyn in the background of the history of American legal thought", explores the relationship between Frank, Llewellyn and early pragmatism, critical jurisprudence and Neo realism, and studies the influence of Frank, Llewellyn and American legal realism in the background of the history of American legal thought. The movement of legal realism and the early reality Sharing the same philosophical basis with the doctrine of doctrine of doctrine, Frank is a disciple of Holmes, and Llewellyn highly esteems Cardoso, but through a specific analysis of their thoughts and practices, it can be shown that Llewellyn is the real pragmatist, and Frank is only the marginal figure of the Legal Realism Movement. In the four or five twentieth Century In the future, the thought of the American legal realism has been widely affirmed. To some extent, the jurisprudential schools of the twentieth Century have been influenced by them. We are all legal realists, but the law and social movement, which rose in 60s and 70s, are more representative of the critical law movement, and they inherit the legal realist. Different aspects of the movement of justice. The American Legal Realism Movement has achieved success in three aspects: breaking the deterministic myth of legal formalism, advocating the law research of interdisciplinary, emphasizing the legal and political connections. After 40s and 50s, the uncertainty of the law was widely accepted as consensus, and almost no one believed the rules. Logical reasoning can draw a judgment. The Legal Realism Movement has pushed the cross subject research into prosperity. Frank analyses the legal phenomena by psychological methods. Llewellyn prefers the sociological / anthropological method, and the Neo Realism (Law and social movement) inherits the legal realism and is committed to completely neutral and objective. Llewellyn points out that the source of law not only includes rules and principles, but also includes policies, politics quietly enters Llewellyn's legal thought, and Frank's legal thought serves its political ideal. The American Legal Realism Movement is the legal reform thought of Roosevelt's new deal, and the critical law inherits the law. On the political aspect of law, the movement of law realism points out that law is a tool for political system. The aim is to protect the market and democracy of capitalism, which presupposes the inequality and intense contradiction between classes.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D90

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 孫笑俠;周婧;;一種政治化的法律方法——對昂格爾法律方法論的解讀[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2007年04期

相關博士學位論文 前3條

1 劉劍;卡爾·盧埃林法律職能理論研究[D];吉林大學;2006年

2 許慶坤;從法律形式主義到法律現(xiàn)實主義[D];山東大學;2007年

3 于曉藝;弗蘭克法律現(xiàn)實主義思想根本訴求之探究[D];吉林大學;2007年

，

本文編號：1968487