發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-03 16:55

【摘要】：自上世紀(jì)九十年代以來(lái),我國(guó)的法律解釋學(xué)圍繞著法律解釋的必要性論題、本質(zhì)論題以及實(shí)踐應(yīng)用論題展開(kāi)研究。經(jīng)多年積累,學(xué)界對(duì)法律解釋學(xué)的諸多基礎(chǔ)理論問(wèn)題已有較為清晰的認(rèn)識(shí)。這是我國(guó)法律解釋學(xué)研究所取得的成就。不過(guò),由于這一階段研究的對(duì)象集中于基礎(chǔ)理論領(lǐng)域,而且,知識(shí)來(lái)源也較多取自西方哲學(xué)。所以,在取得一定成績(jī)的同時(shí)也造成我國(guó)法律解釋學(xué)研究的抽象化、甚至是哲學(xué)化的局面。進(jìn)而,法律解釋學(xué)研究自身的這一狀態(tài)也導(dǎo)致其在實(shí)踐指導(dǎo)能力方面頗顯尷尬。通常認(rèn)為,法律解釋學(xué)是用以指導(dǎo)法律適用這種實(shí)踐問(wèn)題的學(xué)問(wèn)。由此來(lái)看,當(dāng)前的研究存在著對(duì)于法律解釋學(xué)初衷的遺忘,在一定程度上背離了學(xué)界展開(kāi)法律解釋學(xué)研究的初衷。所以,法律解釋學(xué)的研究不能再像以前那樣只是關(guān)注基礎(chǔ)理論問(wèn)題,而應(yīng)該更加關(guān)注法律解釋的操作問(wèn)題。一個(gè)可行的解決方略就是,展開(kāi)法律解釋規(guī)則的研究,將復(fù)雜的法律解釋原理用簡(jiǎn)約的規(guī)則形式表達(dá)出來(lái)。基于如上思考,本文以法律解釋規(guī)則作為研究的主題,意圖從復(fù)雜的法律解釋基本原理之中,提煉出一套可茲適用的法律解釋的操作規(guī)則,用規(guī)則的形式來(lái)表達(dá)法律解釋的操作要求,以此提升法律解釋在司法實(shí)踐中的應(yīng)用價(jià)值。就法律解釋規(guī)則的研究現(xiàn)狀來(lái)看,當(dāng)前我國(guó)法律解釋規(guī)則研究呈現(xiàn)出分散化、簡(jiǎn)單化、數(shù)量少的特征�？梢哉f(shuō),法律解釋規(guī)則研究在我國(guó)并沒(méi)有形成一個(gè)完整的實(shí)踐場(chǎng)域。如何在這種研究現(xiàn)狀基礎(chǔ)上,針對(duì)實(shí)踐的需要展開(kāi)本文的研究,就成為首先要解決的問(wèn)題。對(duì)此,在基本的研究策略上,本文采取以分類為切入點(diǎn)的方式展開(kāi)研究。依據(jù)可行的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),對(duì)不同類型法律解釋規(guī)則進(jìn)行分類,進(jìn)而實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則的體系化把握。在具體的分類策略上,取長(zhǎng)補(bǔ)短,將大陸法系和英美法系的分類合二為一。在整體上,形成了法律解釋的語(yǔ)言學(xué)規(guī)則和法律解釋的實(shí)質(zhì)性規(guī)則兩種基本類型；在細(xì)節(jié)上,以法律解釋規(guī)則的問(wèn)題導(dǎo)向?yàn)榍疤?按照各種解釋要素的不同功能將法律解釋的語(yǔ)言學(xué)規(guī)則劃分為基于語(yǔ)義的法律解釋規(guī)則和基于體系的法律解釋規(guī)則,將法律解釋的實(shí)質(zhì)性規(guī)則劃分為基于法意的法律解釋規(guī)則和基于目的的法律解釋規(guī)則。在選定分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之后,本文首先對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則的一般理論問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了深入地闡述。法律解釋規(guī)則的一般理論是本文的立論之基,是我們準(zhǔn)確理解法律解釋規(guī)則的基本前提。如果對(duì)于什么是法律解釋規(guī)則、法律解釋規(guī)則要解決什么問(wèn)題以及法律解釋規(guī)則是否能夠解決這些問(wèn)題都無(wú)法搞清的話,法律解釋規(guī)則體系就失去了存在的根基。而且,當(dāng)前的法律解釋規(guī)則研究趨于簡(jiǎn)單化,對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則的基本內(nèi)涵、問(wèn)題指向、其所具有的功能、性質(zhì)以及價(jià)值都存在不同程度的認(rèn)識(shí)差別,所以,有必要將法律解釋規(guī)則的一般理論作為本文研究的必要內(nèi)容。此一部分首先對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則所要解決的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了闡明,主張法律解釋規(guī)則所要解決的是解釋要素的恰當(dāng)應(yīng)用問(wèn)題。之所以采取這種問(wèn)題導(dǎo)向的研究方式而沒(méi)有對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則進(jìn)行概念界定,其原因在于一方面學(xué)者們對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則是什么存在著許多的認(rèn)識(shí)上差別,難以簡(jiǎn)單地進(jìn)行歸納總結(jié)；另一方面,對(duì)于理解法律解釋規(guī)則而言,指出其所要解決的問(wèn)題比歸納其概念更有價(jià)值。其后,本文對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了細(xì)化研究,歸納出了法律解釋規(guī)則的兩個(gè)維度。一是法律解釋規(guī)則的應(yīng)用論,這個(gè)維度的法律解釋規(guī)則所要解決的是解釋要素的具體化問(wèn)題；二是法律解釋規(guī)則的位序論,這個(gè)維度的法律解釋規(guī)則所要解決的是各種解釋要素之間的適用順序和效力問(wèn)題。在此基礎(chǔ)上,從司法裁判的角度對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則的可能貢獻(xiàn)進(jìn)行了分析。以“分類”為切入點(diǎn)進(jìn)行研究,決定了本文必須對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則的分類問(wèn)題進(jìn)行集中探討。首先,對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)外的幾種代表性觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了總結(jié),并在此基礎(chǔ)上提出了本文的分類策略。其后,分別從形式和實(shí)質(zhì)兩個(gè)方面,對(duì)法律解釋的要素以及由此衍生而來(lái)的法律解釋規(guī)則進(jìn)行了解析。第三章著力于對(duì)法律解釋的語(yǔ)言學(xué)規(guī)則進(jìn)行體系性建構(gòu)。首先,對(duì)基于語(yǔ)義的法律解釋規(guī)則進(jìn)行了分析。這類解釋規(guī)則主要解決語(yǔ)義要素何時(shí)適用以及如何適用的問(wèn)題。由于語(yǔ)義要素是閱讀法律文本的最初線索,所以語(yǔ)義要素在適用順序上絕對(duì)優(yōu)先；由于語(yǔ)義要素自身的局限性,所以,在適用效力上只具有初步優(yōu)先的效力,由此,總結(jié)出關(guān)于語(yǔ)義要素適用的語(yǔ)義優(yōu)先規(guī)則。在此基礎(chǔ)上,由于語(yǔ)義要素通常表現(xiàn)為通常含義和特殊含義兩種形式,所以應(yīng)該根據(jù)不同的情況依據(jù)通常含義或者是特殊含義進(jìn)行解釋,由此,總結(jié)出依據(jù)通常含義解釋規(guī)則和依據(jù)特殊含義解釋規(guī)則。由于存在通常含義和特殊含義的沖突,所以又衍生出處理語(yǔ)義沖突的特殊含義初步優(yōu)先規(guī)則。在解決了語(yǔ)義要素的應(yīng)用問(wèn)題之后,第三部分主要闡述的是基于體系要素的法律解釋規(guī)則,這類解釋規(guī)則主要解決體系要素何時(shí)使用、如何使用的問(wèn)題。依據(jù)體系要素自身的諸多規(guī)范性要求,總結(jié)出關(guān)于體系要素適用的窮盡語(yǔ)義適用體系規(guī)則以及處理體系要素具體化問(wèn)題的同一解釋規(guī)則、同類解釋規(guī)則、上下文解釋規(guī)則和不贅言解釋規(guī)則。第四章關(guān)注的是從整體上建構(gòu)法律解釋的實(shí)質(zhì)性規(guī)則。首先,對(duì)基于法意的法律解釋規(guī)則進(jìn)行了分析,這類解釋規(guī)則主要解決法意要素何時(shí)適用以及如何適用的問(wèn)題。由于法意要素超越法律文本字面含義,因此只有在文本窮盡之時(shí)方可適用,由此總結(jié)出法意要素的適用規(guī)則。在此基礎(chǔ)上,總結(jié)了處理法意要素具體化問(wèn)題的相關(guān)解釋規(guī)則。這些解釋規(guī)則要求解釋者站在立法者的立場(chǎng)之上,從法律文本或者立法資料當(dāng)中發(fā)現(xiàn)立法者的意圖。以此為基礎(chǔ),還對(duì)依據(jù)法意要素進(jìn)行解釋的相關(guān)操作進(jìn)行了總結(jié)。這些規(guī)則要求依據(jù)法意進(jìn)行解釋不僅要保證解釋結(jié)論與立法者意圖之間的關(guān)聯(lián)性,而且應(yīng)當(dāng)確保解釋結(jié)論能夠促進(jìn)法意的整體和諧。然后,對(duì)基于目的的法律解釋規(guī)則進(jìn)行了分析,這類解釋規(guī)則主要解決目的要素何時(shí)使用以及如何適用的問(wèn)題。由于目的要素超越了法律文本,所以只有在窮盡其他解釋要素仍然無(wú)法得到結(jié)論之時(shí)方可適用；而且,由于目的要素具有規(guī)范性,可以作為評(píng)判法律文本的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),所以在違背個(gè)案正義的情況下,才可以適用目的要素,這就構(gòu)成了目的要素適用應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的解釋規(guī)則。至于目的要素的具體化則應(yīng)當(dāng)在遵循避免主觀目的代替法律目的這一基本原則指導(dǎo)下,通過(guò)閱讀法律文本、或者依據(jù)位階理論來(lái)發(fā)現(xiàn)個(gè)案中具體的法律目的。在此基礎(chǔ)上,依據(jù)目的進(jìn)行解釋則要求解釋者首先確定解釋結(jié)論與法律目的之間的關(guān)聯(lián)性,如果出現(xiàn)多種法律目的時(shí)則要求解釋者依據(jù)比例原則進(jìn)行解釋,從而得出最終的解釋結(jié)論。第五章,對(duì)法律解釋規(guī)則的運(yùn)用問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了分析。首先,總結(jié)歸納了幾種錯(cuò)誤運(yùn)用法律解釋規(guī)則的情形。然后,論證了我們應(yīng)該如何恰當(dāng)?shù)乩斫�、運(yùn)用法律解釋規(guī)則,這不僅有助于我們更加深刻地理解法律解釋規(guī)則,而且,回應(yīng)了對(duì)于法律解釋規(guī)則價(jià)值的諸多質(zhì)疑。最后,對(duì)指出了法律解釋規(guī)則在運(yùn)用過(guò)程中應(yīng)該遵守的幾種具體方法。
[Abstract]:Since the 1990s, legal hermeneutics in China has been focusing on the necessity, essence and practical application of legal interpretation. Over the years, the academic community has a clear understanding of many basic theoretical issues of legal hermeneutics. This is the achievement of legal hermeneutics in China. As the object of this stage is concentrated in the field of basic theory, and the source of knowledge is more from western philosophy, some achievements have been made, and at the same time, the study of legal hermeneutics in China has become abstract, even philosophical. It is generally believed that legal hermeneutics is the knowledge used to guide the practical application of law. From this point of view, the current research has forgotten the original intention of legal hermeneutics, to a certain extent, deviating from the original intention of the academic circles to conduct legal hermeneutics. Therefore, the study of legal hermeneutics can not be similar to that of legal hermeneutics. One possible solution is to study the rules of legal interpretation and express the complicated principles of legal interpretation in the form of simple rules. From the complicated basic principles of legal interpretation, this paper refines a set of applicable operational rules of legal interpretation, expresses the operational requirements of legal interpretation in the form of rules, so as to enhance the application value of legal interpretation in judicial practice. It can be said that the study of rules of law interpretation has not formed a complete field of practice in China. How to carry out this study on the basis of this research status and in view of the needs of practice has become the first problem to be solved. According to the feasible criteria, this paper classifies different types of rules of legal interpretation, and then realizes the systematic grasp of rules of legal interpretation. In detail, the linguistic rules of legal interpretation are divided into semantic-based rules of legal interpretation and system-based rules of legal interpretation according to the different functions of various elements of legal interpretation, and the substantive rules of legal interpretation are divided into two basic types: semantic-based rules of legal interpretation and system-based rules of legal interpretation. After choosing the classification criteria, this paper first expounds the general theoretical issues of the rules of legal interpretation. The general theory of the rules of legal interpretation is the basis of this paper and the basic premise for us to understand the rules of legal interpretation accurately. If it is impossible to find out what the rules of legal interpretation are, what problems the rules of legal interpretation should solve, and whether the rules of legal interpretation can solve these problems, the system of rules of legal interpretation will lose its foundation of existence. Therefore, it is necessary to take the general theory of the rules of law interpretation as the necessary content of this study. This part first clarifies the problems to be solved by the rules of law interpretation, and advocates that the rules of law interpretation should be solved by the solution. On the one hand, scholars have different understandings of what the rules of legal interpretation are, and it is difficult to summarize them simply; on the other hand, they have difficulty in understanding the rules of legal interpretation. In terms of rules, it is more valuable to point out the problems to be solved than to generalize their concepts. After that, this paper makes a detailed study of the problem and concludes two dimensions of the rules of legal interpretation. The order theory of the rules of law interpretation, the dimension of the rules of law interpretation is to solve the problems of the order and effectiveness of the application of various interpretation elements. On this basis, the possible contribution of the rules of law interpretation is analyzed from the perspective of judicial adjudication. The classification of rules of interpretation is discussed in this paper. Firstly, several representative viewpoints at home and abroad are summarized, and on this basis, the classification strategy of this paper is put forward. Then, from two aspects of form and substance, the elements of legal interpretation and the rules of legal interpretation derived therefrom are analyzed. In this paper, the linguistic rules of legal interpretation are systematically constructed. Firstly, the rules of legal interpretation based on semantics are analyzed. These rules mainly solve the problems of when and how to apply semantic elements. Firstly, because of the limitation of semantic elements, they only have the preliminary priority effect in the validity of application, and thus the semantic priority rules for the application of semantic elements are summarized. Meaning or special meaning is interpreted, from which the rules of interpretation based on common meaning and rules of interpretation based on special meaning are summarized. This paper expounds the rules of legal interpretation based on the elements of the system, which mainly solves the problems of when and how to use the elements of the system. Chapter 4 focuses on the construction of substantive rules of legal interpretation as a whole. Firstly, it analyzes the rules of legal interpretation based on legal meaning, which mainly solves the problems of when and how to apply legal elements. Essentials transcend the literal meaning of the legal text, so they can only be applied when the text is exhausted, thus summarizing the applicable rules of the elements of legal meaning. On the basis of this, the author summarizes the relevant operation of interpretation according to the elements of legal meaning. These rules require interpretation based on legal meaning not only to ensure the relevance between the interpretation conclusion and the intention of the legislator, but also to ensure that the interpretation conclusion can promote the overall harmony of legal meaning. The purpose-based rules of legal interpretation are analyzed. These rules mainly solve the problem of when and how to apply the purpose elements. Since the purpose elements go beyond the legal text, they can only be applied when the other elements of interpretation are exhausted and can not be reached a conclusion; moreover, because the purpose elements are normative, It can be used as a criterion for judging legal texts, so the elements of purpose can be applied only when it violates the justice of a case. This constitutes the interpretation rules that should be followed in the application of the elements of purpose. On this basis, the interpreter is required to first determine the relevance between the interpretation conclusion and the legal purpose, and if there are multiple legal purposes, the interpreter is required to interpret according to the principle of proportionality so as to arrive at the final interpretation. Chapter Five analyzes the application of the rules of legal interpretation. Firstly, it summarizes several cases of misapplication of the rules of legal interpretation. Then, it demonstrates how we should properly understand and apply the rules of legal interpretation, which not only helps us to understand the rules of legal interpretation more profoundly, but also responds to the law. Finally, it points out several specific methods that should be followed in the application of the rules of law interpretation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D90
，

本文編號(hào)：2220603