【摘要】：現(xiàn)有的類(lèi)推論者往往在不同的指稱意義上使用和論述類(lèi)比推理,而且更重要的是,他們一般只在法律發(fā)現(xiàn)或者法律證成的單一維度上對(duì)案件間相似性判斷采取描述性或規(guī)范性研究,從而造成了關(guān)于類(lèi)比推理的各種表面和實(shí)質(zhì)爭(zhēng)議。 本文在描述、反思現(xiàn)有的認(rèn)識(shí)論對(duì)案件間相似性判斷的可能意義及其限度的基礎(chǔ)上,提出了一種建立在類(lèi)型概念基礎(chǔ)之上的法律類(lèi)型構(gòu)造理論,認(rèn)為案件間的相似性判斷,是一個(gè)案件之間語(yǔ)義屬性上的相似性和案件之間在法律規(guī)則的目的、立法理由、判決理由、法律原則等法律評(píng)價(jià)上的相似性共同作用的結(jié)果,而本文重構(gòu)的法律類(lèi)型可充分滿足這一認(rèn)識(shí)論要求。在證成部分,本文運(yùn)用語(yǔ)義學(xué)論證、原則論證、衡量論證和融貫性論證,對(duì)法律解釋者運(yùn)用法律類(lèi)型進(jìn)行案件間的相似性判斷面臨的某種程度的不確定性依次進(jìn)行了證成,指出法律類(lèi)推中案件間的相似性判斷仍具有相當(dāng)?shù)拇_定性。 本文的結(jié)構(gòu)分為：第一部分在探討圍繞類(lèi)推各種爭(zhēng)議的基礎(chǔ)上,提出相似性判斷爭(zhēng)議及其問(wèn)題；第二部分圍繞第一部分提出的問(wèn)題意識(shí),立足于學(xué)界的相關(guān)研究,對(duì)默會(huì)知識(shí)論、原型范疇論、概念整合論、現(xiàn)代認(rèn)知心理學(xué)以及德國(guó)法學(xué)的類(lèi)型論對(duì)相似性判斷的意義及其可能性限度分別作了歸納與研討。這種歸納構(gòu)成后文構(gòu)造的法律類(lèi)型的理論起點(diǎn)和基礎(chǔ)；第三部分探討了一種全新的建立在類(lèi)型概念語(yǔ)義基礎(chǔ)之上的法律類(lèi)型的構(gòu)造形式、結(jié)構(gòu)形態(tài),并結(jié)合兩個(gè)案件論述了其對(duì)法律類(lèi)推中案件間相似性判斷的認(rèn)識(shí)論意義。這里的探討顯示出,法律類(lèi)型能夠運(yùn)用于相似性判斷中,亦可見(jiàn)本文的類(lèi)型理論對(duì)于法律類(lèi)推中案件間相似性的發(fā)現(xiàn)具有非常重要的意義；第四部分圍繞語(yǔ)義學(xué)論證、原則論證、衡量論證和融貫性論證,分別探討了案件相似性判斷的證成問(wèn)題。
[Abstract]:The existing analogists tend to use and discuss analogical reasoning in different referential senses, and more importantly, They generally take descriptive or normative research on the similarity judgment between cases in a single dimension of legal discovery or legal proof, which leads to various superficial and substantive disputes about analogical reasoning. On the basis of describing and reflecting on the possible significance and limitation of the existing epistemology to the judgment of similarity between cases, this paper puts forward a kind of construction theory of legal types based on the concept of type. It is the result of the similarity between the semantic attributes of a case and the similarity between the legal rules, the legislative reasons, the judgment reasons, the legal principles, and so on. The types of laws reconstructed in this paper can fully meet the epistemological requirements. In the part of proof, this paper uses semantic argument, principle argument, measurement argument and consistency argument to prove the degree of uncertainty faced by legal interpreters in judging the similarity between cases by using legal types. It is pointed out that the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogy still has considerable certainty. The structure of this paper is divided into: the first part of the discussion around the analogy of various disputes on the basis of the similarity judgment dispute and its problems; The second part focuses on the awareness of questions raised in the first part, based on the relevant research in the academic world, the tacit knowledge theory, prototype category theory, conceptual integration theory, The significance and possible limits of similarity judgment in modern cognitive psychology and German jurisprudence are summarized and discussed. This kind of induction constitutes the theoretical starting point and foundation of the legal types of the later texts. The third part discusses a new kind of legal type based on the semantic meaning of the concept of type, and discusses the epistemological significance of the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogies with the combination of two cases. The discussion here shows that the type of law can be applied to the judgment of similarity, and that the type theory in this paper is of great significance to the discovery of the similarity between cases in the legal analogies. The fourth part focuses on semantic argumentation, principle argumentation, measurement argumentation and fusion argumentation, and discusses the evidence of case similarity judgment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D90

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 杜宇;;刑法規(guī)范的形成機(jī)理——以“類(lèi)型”建構(gòu)為視角[J];法商研究;2010年01期

2 郁振華;;范例、規(guī)則和默會(huì)認(rèn)識(shí)[J];華東師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

3 雷磊;;法律推理基本形式的結(jié)構(gòu)分析[J];法學(xué)研究;2009年04期

4 杜宇;再論刑法上之“類(lèi)型化”思維——一種基于“方法論”的擴(kuò)展性思考[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2005年06期

5 陳林林;;裁判上之類(lèi)比推論辨析[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2007年04期

6 埃爾馬·邦德;吳香香;;類(lèi)推:當(dāng)代德國(guó)法中的證立方法[J];求是學(xué)刊;2010年03期

7 杜宇;;刑法上之“類(lèi)推禁止”如何可能? 一個(gè)方法論上的懸疑[J];中外法學(xué);2006年04期

8 郁振華;波蘭尼的默會(huì)認(rèn)識(shí)論[J];自然辯證法研究;2001年08期

，

本文編號(hào)：2395749