論哈特視野下的“內(nèi)在觀點”
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-06 08:00
【摘要】：“內(nèi)在觀點”是哈特的《法律的概念》一書中的核心概念之一,他之所以提出這一概念目的有三:第一,說明奧斯丁服從理論中主權(quán)者權(quán)威所不具有的連續(xù)性的缺陷,發(fā)現(xiàn)了規(guī)則不同于習(xí)慣的秘密——規(guī)則的內(nèi)在方面;第二,欲使現(xiàn)代規(guī)則體系正常地存續(xù)和發(fā)展,人們尤其是官員必須對法律規(guī)則持內(nèi)在觀點;第三,反駁現(xiàn)實主義法學(xué)派的預(yù)測論,堅決捍衛(wèi)法律實證主義。在梳理該書哈特對于“內(nèi)在觀點”的論述時,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn),“內(nèi)在觀點”可以從三個層面來理解:第一個層面,“內(nèi)在觀點”被表述為規(guī)則的“內(nèi)在面向”,只有規(guī)則具備了“內(nèi)在面向”才被稱為法律規(guī)則;第二個層面,可以將規(guī)則的內(nèi)在面向理解為“有義務(wù)”,人們主動用規(guī)則進行自我約束,于是,承認(rèn)這種面向并自覺適用規(guī)則的參與者所持有的觀點稱為“內(nèi)在觀點”;第三個層面,抱持此觀點的人接受具有事實效力的承認(rèn)規(guī)則的指導(dǎo)所做的陳述,被稱之為“內(nèi)在陳述”,而外在觀點則是不接受規(guī)則的人所持有的觀點。 中西方學(xué)者對“內(nèi)在觀點”皆有不同的解讀方式,夏皮羅對哈特的“內(nèi)在觀點”進行了簡單的修補,賦予內(nèi)在觀點持有者一種“實踐者”的姿態(tài);佩里則反對哈特以語義分析法來解釋“內(nèi)在觀點”,他要跳出這種規(guī)范性束縛,要求對法律把有一種可真可假的信仰;麥考密克和拉茲認(rèn)為哈特的“內(nèi)在觀點”和“外在觀點”的界限模糊,又對其做進一步的劃分,細(xì)化為“三分法”和“四分法”;瑞特盧澤訥超越了內(nèi)在、外在觀點,并試圖消解“內(nèi)在觀點”和“外在觀點”之間的界限;還有其他學(xué)者,如南希、溫德爾指出“內(nèi)在觀點”的作用是為了服務(wù)自身文本;而國內(nèi)學(xué)者多止步于介紹哈特的內(nèi)在觀點。 為了更深入理解哈特的內(nèi)在觀點,筆者對比了哈特和維特根斯坦的問題意識,發(fā)現(xiàn)了二者的共同之處:維特根斯坦用“語言游戲”將哲學(xué)從天上拉回社會生活,使哲學(xué)能夠描述我們在日常生活中所遇到的語言現(xiàn)象,通過參與語言游戲體驗到哲學(xué)的意蘊,通過描述語言游戲呈現(xiàn)其價值,無需解釋和說明。哈特接受了維氏的這種思想,摒除了其他法學(xué)家給“法律”一詞下一個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的定義的做法,把法律規(guī)則視為一種“游戲”。在法律游戲中,哈特更強調(diào)讓官員持有內(nèi)在觀點,以帶動普通公民也持有此種觀點,由此解決權(quán)威的連續(xù)性問題并賦予“內(nèi)在觀點”以法律話語權(quán)。進而,以該觀點為基礎(chǔ)建構(gòu)屬于法律人自身的語言表達,將這種話語權(quán)植入日常生活形式之中,通過“描述”法律現(xiàn)象增進人們的理解。然而,在權(quán)威性的證成問題上,哈特仍然無法用法律規(guī)則體系本身的邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)來說明,不得不指向一個具有法律和事實兩面的承認(rèn)規(guī)則。盡管如此,哈特試圖用“內(nèi)在觀點”解決法律問題的指引性,捍衛(wèi)法律實證主義所做的努力值得我們肯定。
[Abstract]:"Inner View" is one of the core concepts in Hart's book "The Concept of Law". He put forward this concept for three purposes: first, to illustrate the defect of continuity that Austen obeys the authority of sovereign in theory, to discover the secret that rules are different from habits - the inner aspects of rules; second, to make modern rules. In order to survive and develop the system properly, people, especially officials, must hold an internal view of legal rules. Thirdly, people must refute the predictions of realist jurisprudence and firmly defend legal positivism. On the other hand, the internal view is expressed as the "internal orientation" of the rules, which is called legal rules only when the rules have the "internal orientation"; on the other hand, the internal orientation of the rules can be understood as "obligation" and people can voluntarily use the rules to self-restrain themselves, so the participants who face and consciously apply the rules should be recognized. On the third level, statements made by the holder under the guidance of a rule of recognition with factual validity are called "internal statements" while external views are held by those who do not accept the rule.
Scholars in China and the West have different interpretations of "intrinsic viewpoint". Shapiro makes a simple repair to Hart's "intrinsic viewpoint" and endows the holder of the intrinsic viewpoint with a "practitioner" attitude. Perry opposes Hart's interpretation of "intrinsic viewpoint" by means of semantic analysis. He wants to break away from the restriction of norms and demands law. There is a belief that can be true or false; McCormick and Raz think that Hart's "internal view" and "external view" are blurred and further divided into "three-part" and "four-part"; Ritterluzerne transcends the internal and external view and tries to dissolve "internal view" and "external view". There are other scholars, such as Nancy Wendell, who point out that the function of "inner view" is to serve one's own text, while domestic scholars mostly stop at introducing Hart's inner view.
In order to understand Hart's inner view more deeply, the author compares Hart's and Wittgenstein's problem consciousness and finds the similarities between them: Wittgenstein draws philosophy from heaven to social life with "language game", which enables philosophy to describe the language phenomena we encounter in our daily life, and participates in the language game form. Hatter accepted Victor's idea, rejected the standard definition of the word "law" given by other jurists, and regarded the rules of law as a "game." In legal games, Hart placed more emphasis on letting officials hold an inner view. Then, on the basis of this viewpoint, the language expression belonging to the legal person is constructed, and the right of speech is implanted into the form of daily life to promote people's rationality by describing the legal phenomena. Nevertheless, Hart is still unable to explain the authoritative justification by the logical structure of the legal rule system itself and has to point to a rule of recognition with both legal and factual sides. We are sure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D909.1
本文編號：2225726
[Abstract]:"Inner View" is one of the core concepts in Hart's book "The Concept of Law". He put forward this concept for three purposes: first, to illustrate the defect of continuity that Austen obeys the authority of sovereign in theory, to discover the secret that rules are different from habits - the inner aspects of rules; second, to make modern rules. In order to survive and develop the system properly, people, especially officials, must hold an internal view of legal rules. Thirdly, people must refute the predictions of realist jurisprudence and firmly defend legal positivism. On the other hand, the internal view is expressed as the "internal orientation" of the rules, which is called legal rules only when the rules have the "internal orientation"; on the other hand, the internal orientation of the rules can be understood as "obligation" and people can voluntarily use the rules to self-restrain themselves, so the participants who face and consciously apply the rules should be recognized. On the third level, statements made by the holder under the guidance of a rule of recognition with factual validity are called "internal statements" while external views are held by those who do not accept the rule.
Scholars in China and the West have different interpretations of "intrinsic viewpoint". Shapiro makes a simple repair to Hart's "intrinsic viewpoint" and endows the holder of the intrinsic viewpoint with a "practitioner" attitude. Perry opposes Hart's interpretation of "intrinsic viewpoint" by means of semantic analysis. He wants to break away from the restriction of norms and demands law. There is a belief that can be true or false; McCormick and Raz think that Hart's "internal view" and "external view" are blurred and further divided into "three-part" and "four-part"; Ritterluzerne transcends the internal and external view and tries to dissolve "internal view" and "external view". There are other scholars, such as Nancy Wendell, who point out that the function of "inner view" is to serve one's own text, while domestic scholars mostly stop at introducing Hart's inner view.
In order to understand Hart's inner view more deeply, the author compares Hart's and Wittgenstein's problem consciousness and finds the similarities between them: Wittgenstein draws philosophy from heaven to social life with "language game", which enables philosophy to describe the language phenomena we encounter in our daily life, and participates in the language game form. Hatter accepted Victor's idea, rejected the standard definition of the word "law" given by other jurists, and regarded the rules of law as a "game." In legal games, Hart placed more emphasis on letting officials hold an inner view. Then, on the basis of this viewpoint, the language expression belonging to the legal person is constructed, and the right of speech is implanted into the form of daily life to promote people's rationality by describing the legal phenomena. Nevertheless, Hart is still unable to explain the authoritative justification by the logical structure of the legal rule system itself and has to point to a rule of recognition with both legal and factual sides. We are sure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D909.1
【引證文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 金珊;;論哈特法律規(guī)則“內(nèi)在觀點”的創(chuàng)新與局限[J];青春歲月;2013年05期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 潘洪凱;哈特“內(nèi)在觀點”之探析[D];江西師范大學(xué);2012年
，本文編號：2225726
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2225726.html
