本文選題：法律詮釋 + 法律規(guī)則��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：今天的中國(guó)社會(huì)正處在一個(gè)迅速變化的時(shí)期,法律的發(fā)展面臨著新的挑戰(zhàn)。一方面,人們力圖建立一個(gè)盡可能穩(wěn)定的法律體系;但是另一方面,社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)型的現(xiàn)實(shí)又要求法律保有足夠的彈性。這就需要法官在運(yùn)用法律時(shí)對(duì)其進(jìn)行“解釋”,以期與現(xiàn)實(shí)相適應(yīng)。而“法律詮釋”則是廣義的“法律解釋”下一種獨(dú)特的方法。 法律詮釋借哲學(xué)詮釋學(xué)的分析視角,強(qiáng)調(diào)對(duì)法律的意義進(jìn)行理解,而非固化規(guī)則的簡(jiǎn)單套用。其所重視的理解,包括了在規(guī)則空缺條件下的意義追尋,法律原則碰撞時(shí)比較選擇,以及多元社會(huì)中的對(duì)話融合,因而也有了本文所推崇的三大詮釋模式。 第一種模式介紹了在有比較完整的法律規(guī)定條件下,法官如何運(yùn)用法律詮釋思維填補(bǔ)法條空缺結(jié)構(gòu)。第二種是疑難案件中,如何通過(guò)“鏈條思維”進(jìn)行原則立論,又如何在各原則間判斷取舍。第三種強(qiáng)調(diào)在“公共協(xié)商”要求日益高漲的現(xiàn)代社會(huì),法官通過(guò)“對(duì)話商談”的模式,回應(yīng)民眾呼聲,最終得出法律判決。 三大法律詮釋模式雖然主張其“主觀性”,但亦有其“客觀性”,其體現(xiàn)的是相對(duì)客觀的“辨證式”的思維方式。法律詮釋學(xué)未能包辦一切,但可以肯定,它能為法律實(shí)踐提供更加豐富的理論資源和操作指南,引導(dǎo)中國(guó)的法治建設(shè)。
[Abstract]:Today's Chinese society is in a period of rapid change, the development of law is facing new challenges. On the one hand, people try to establish a legal system as stable as possible, but on the other hand, the reality of social transformation requires that the law be flexible enough. This requires the judge to interpret the law in order to adapt to the reality. The interpretation of law is a unique method in the broad sense of interpretation of law. From the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics, legal interpretation emphasizes the understanding of the meaning of law, rather than the simple application of solidified rules. Its understanding includes the pursuit of meaning under the condition of lack of rules, the comparative choice when the legal principles collide, and the integration of dialogue in the pluralistic society, so it also has the three modes of interpretation advocated in this paper. The first model introduces how to use the law interpretation thinking to fill the vacant structure of the law under the condition of relatively complete legal stipulation. The second is how to discuss the principle through chain thinking, and how to judge and choose among the principles in difficult cases. The third emphasizes that in a modern society where "public consultation" is increasingly required, judges respond to popular demands by means of "dialogue and negotiation", and finally reach a legal verdict. Although the three major modes of legal interpretation advocate their subjectivity, they also have their objectivity, which embodies a relatively objective mode of thinking. Legal hermeneutics can not deal with everything, but it can certainly provide more abundant theoretical resources and operational guidelines for legal practice and guide the construction of the rule of law in China.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D90

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 李可;類型思維及其法學(xué)方法論意義——以傳統(tǒng)抽象思維作為參照[J];金陵法律評(píng)論;2003年02期

2 謝暉;解釋法律與法律解釋[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年05期

3 王曉;;法律類型理論和類推方式研究——以考夫曼類型理論為起點(diǎn)的認(rèn)識(shí)論探究[J];浙江學(xué)刊;2009年05期

4 蘇力;解釋的難題:對(duì)幾種法律文本解釋方法的追問(wèn)[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué);1997年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：2074755