本文關鍵詞：哈特權利選擇理論探析　出處：《西南政法大學》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關文章： 哈特 權利 選擇

【摘要】：自啟蒙運動以降，“權利”日益成為人類社會最重要的概念。但什么是權利？人們在該問題上表現(xiàn)出的極度困惑與“權利”概念的流行形成了鮮明對比。邊沁（JeremyBentham1748-1832）使用“語境界定”的方法提出了權利利益理論，該理論認為，享有一項權利就是成為符合法律意圖的通過他人義務獲益的人。哈特（H.L.A. Hart1907-1992）高度贊揚了邊沁在分析“權利”概念方面所作的努力，尤其是對“語境界定”方法的使用；但他認為，“法律意圖通過義務使某主體獲益”既非“該主體享有權利”的充分條件，也非其必要條件；因而，從一定程度上講，權利的本質(zhì)并非某種利益或使某主體獲益，而是為法律所尊重的選擇——這就是哈特的權利選擇理論。 權利選擇理論一經(jīng)問世便在學界引發(fā)了爭論熱潮，眾人對其褒貶不一，該理論的價值也似乎在論戰(zhàn)中被批駁殆盡。但是，許多批判意見曲解了權利選擇理論的本意，學者們提出的替代性方案也因存在嚴重問題而不足以取代該理論。 本文以哈特的權利選擇理論為研究對象，大量參考相關英文著作及學術論文，尤其是國外學界最新的研究成果；對已有中譯文的文獻也盡量參考英文原版，試圖通過對第一手資料的咀嚼消化，更為全面、深刻地解讀和澄清哈特的權利選擇理論。 除引論和結(jié)論外，本文共分為五章： 第一章，概述哈特對“權利”概念歸屬性特征的分析，揭示他沿用邊沁“語境界定”方法進行概念分析的原因。哈特認為，人們對“什么是權利”表現(xiàn)出的困惑很大程度上源于“權利”概念的歸屬性特征，即“權利”概念與單純的描述性概念不同，它是由法律及其他社會規(guī)則歸于人類的東西，它既依賴于規(guī)則，，又具有可辯駁性。因此，“屬+種差”的定義方法在“權利”概念的分析過程中不僅無效，且易導致混亂，而真正有效的分析方法是邊沁的“語境界定”方法，即將“權利”概念放入其被使用的語句和上下文中，整體性考察它所扮演的角色。 第二章，總結(jié)邊沁的權利利益理論以及哈特對該理論的批判，探究哈特沿用“語境界定”方法卻否定權利利益理論的原因。邊沁的權利利益理論認為，享有一項與義務相對應的權利，意味著成為法律意圖使之從義務的履行中獲益的人。但哈特認為，該理論使得“權利”概念在刑法領域的使用淪為“義務”概念的簡單轉(zhuǎn)述，且無力解釋為第三方利益所簽訂合同的權利情形，沒有揭示“權利”概念的真正本質(zhì)。 第三章，在構建哈特式權利類型理論的基礎上，詳細探析權利選擇理論的內(nèi)涵及適用限度。哈特重構了邊沁的權利類型理論，對自由權、權力以及與義務相對應的權利做了新的解讀，并由此提出了權利選擇理論。該理論認為，三種權利的共性在于它們都是為法律所尊重的選擇。但是，權利選擇理論并不能囊括所有權利情形，哈特認為該理論僅適用于一般法律權利，并不適用于憲法性豁免權以及嚴肅的法律批評家及社會理論家們眼中的權利。 第四章，匯總并分析權利選擇理論遭受的批判，澄清權利選擇理論原貌。學界對權利選擇理論提出了諸多批判，或者認為它縮小了權利的范圍，或者認為它縮小了權利主體的范圍，或者認為它脫離了概念分析領域，或者認為它缺乏道德緯度……這些批判意見歸根結(jié)底源于學者們對同一性權利本質(zhì)理論的迫切需要以及他們對哈特貌似“凌亂”的權利本質(zhì)理論的反感。因為預設了權利本質(zhì)具有同一性的假設，忽視了哈特對權利選擇理論適用范圍的限定，混淆了不同權利本質(zhì)理論在邏輯起點及論證進路方面的差異，這些意見在許多方面有失公允。 第五章，概述并簡要評析學界為取代權利選擇理論所提出的諸多替代性理論，指出它們不能替代權利選擇理論的原因。現(xiàn)代權利利益理論、權利的混合理論、權利的多功能理論、權利的證成性約束理論、權利的正直性理論等有助于進一步加深人們對“權利”概念的理解，也有助于進一步澄清權利選擇理論，但因它們自身面臨諸多理論困境，難以替代權利選擇理論。 哈特的權利選擇理論是理解“權利”概念的一個重要視角。該理論有助于保障哈特法理學理論體系的自洽性和連貫性；有助于克服“權利”概念僵化的定義模式，展現(xiàn)權利的開放性特征，拒絕同一性權利本質(zhì)理論不切實際的構想；有助于理解“權利”概念的核心價值及客觀認定標準，契合其自由主義底色；有助于防止“權利”概念的神秘化、平庸化。對權利人自主性的彰揚，應當是“權利”概念的核心，也應該是使用權利話語應秉持的最起碼的準則。
[Abstract]:Since since the enlightenment, the "right" has become the most important concept of human society. But what is right? Extreme confusion and the concept of "rights" show people on the issue of the popular stark contrast. Bentham (JeremyBentham1748-1832) using the method of context defines "put forward the interests of rights theory, the theory of think, have a right is to be with others who benefit obligations legal purpose. Hart (H.L.A. Hart1907-1992) is highly praised by Bentham in the analysis of the concept of" rights "efforts, especially the use of" context definition "method; but he thought," the legal obligation to make a sufficient condition by intention the main benefit "is neither" the rights of the subjects ", nor the necessary conditions; therefore, to a certain extent, the essence of rights is not a benefit or a main benefit, and It is the choice of respect for the law - this is Hart's theory of the choice of rights.
The right choice theory by the advent of the academic controversy on the boom, all mixed, the theory of value seems to be in the debate was refuted completely. However, many critics misinterpreted the right to choose the theory of intention, the alternatives proposed by scholars because of the existence of serious problems but not enough to replace the theory.
Based on Hart's choice theory as the research object, referring to a large number of English related works and papers, especially the research achievements of foreign scholars in the latest of the existing literature in translation; also as reference English original, trying to chew and digest on the first hand data is more comprehensive, profound interpretation and clarification of Hart the right choice theory.
Apart from the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into five chapters.
The first chapter analysis, summarized Hart attributes the concept of "right" to reveal, he used Bentham "context definition" method of concept analysis. Hart believes that people of "what is the attributive characteristics in the concept of" rights "of confusion right" showed largely, the concept of "rights" with the simple descriptive concept is different, it is by law and other social rules as human things, it not only depends on the rules, and can be contested. Therefore, the genus + species difference "method in the definition of the concept of" rights "in the analysis process not only ineffective, and easily lead to confusion, but the real effective analysis of Bentham's" context definition "method, the" right "concept into the context of its statement and is used in the whole study of the role it plays.
The second chapter summarizes Bentham's rights theory and Hart critique of the theory of inquiry, Hart used the "context definition method" denied reason of the interest theory of rights. That the rights and interests of Bentham's theory, have a corresponding obligation, legal means to be the intention to benefit from the obligations of people. But Hart believes that the theory makes the concept of "rights" in the field of criminal law use become "obligation" to the concept of simple reporting, and unable to account for the interests of the third parties signed the contract rights, no rights "concept to reveal the true nature.
The third chapter, in the foundation of the Hart type of right theory, detailed analysis on the right choice theory connotation and scope of application. The reconstruction of the right type of Hart Bentham's theory of freedom, power and rights and obligations should be relatively made a new interpretation, and then puts forward the right choice theory. The theory is that three kinds of rights in common is that they are respect for the choice of law. However, the right choice theory does not include all the rights, Hart believes that this theory is only applicable to general legal rights, constitutional exemption does not apply to the right and the right to serious legal and social theorists in the eyes of the critics.
The fourth chapter summarizes and analyzes the right to choose the theory of criticism from the right to choose, to clarify the theory circles on the right. The original choice theory put forward a lot of criticism, or that it narrows the scope of rights, or that it narrows the scope of the subject of right, or that it is detached from the concept analysis field, or that it lacks moral the latitude. These criticisms after all from scholars of the same rights and the theory of the essence of urgent need. They look like "theory of the essence of right messy" of Hart. Because of the nature of right of presupposition has the same assumptions, ignore the Hart right to choose to limit the application of the theory, confuses the differences between different rights the essence of theory in the logical starting point and the demonstration route, these opinions are unfair in many ways.
The fifth chapter summarizes and briefly comments on the academic theory of the right to choose to replace the many alternative theories, pointed out the reason why they cannot substitute for right choice theory. Modern rights theory, mixed theory of rights, multi function theory of rights, the rights of justification about the integrity of the beam theory, right theory help to further deepen the understanding of the concept of "rights", but also help to further clarify the right choice theory, but because of their own faces many theoretical difficulties, it is difficult to replace the right choice theory.
The choice of Hart's theory is an important perspective understanding of the concept of "rights". The self consistency and coherence of the theory can help to protect Hart's jurisprudence theoretical system; help to overcome the "right" concept definition model of the rigid, show the openness of the rights, the theory of the essence of the idea to unrealistic identity right; concept helps to understand the "rights" of the core values and objective standards, with its liberal background; to help prevent the concept of "rights" of the mysterious, mediocre. On the right of autonomy should be Chang Yang, "the core concept of rights, should also be right to use words uphold the minimum standards.

【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D909.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前8條

1 余涌;邊沁論權利[J];道德與文明;2000年02期

2 吳玉章;論權利[J];法律科學(西北政法學院學報);1991年03期

3 征漢年;章群;;利益:權利的價值維度──權利本原解析之一[J];國家教育行政學院學報;2006年07期

4 林志敏;論法律權利結(jié)構[J];吉林大學社會科學學報;1990年04期

5 夏勇;權利哲學的基本問題[J];法學研究;2004年03期

6 于柏華;;哈特權利理論的分析面向[J];中國政法大學學報;2010年06期

7 申衛(wèi)星;;溯源求本道“權利”[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2006年05期

8 文正邦;;有關權利問題的法哲學思考[J];中國法學;1991年02期

本文編號：1438462