本文選題：法律論證　切入點：普遍實踐論證　出處：《中國政法大學(xué)》2009年碩士論文

【摘要】： 法律論證理論是對傳統(tǒng)司法理論在一定程度上的否定與突破。早已習(xí)慣了以司法三段論為代表的傳統(tǒng)推理形式的人們到了二十世紀(jì)才逐漸的認(rèn)識到,在許多現(xiàn)實案件的場合,傳統(tǒng)司法推理的形式是應(yīng)當(dāng)受到質(zhì)疑的。裁判者并不能從一般的法律規(guī)則與當(dāng)前的具體案件事實之中僅僅依靠遵守邏輯規(guī)則就機械的演繹出裁決。裁判者事實上擁有了自由裁量權(quán),可以對法律規(guī)則進行選擇和解釋。而要想維護法律的權(quán)威性與社會關(guān)系的穩(wěn)定,又必須要求裁判者對這種選擇或解釋說明理由。在這樣的情形下,法律裁決的合法性與正當(dāng)性問題便進入了人們的視野,成為了人們關(guān)注的核心問題。法律論證正是這樣一個對法律裁決的合法性與正當(dāng)性進行證立的過程。 法律論證理論興起之后,對其研究的發(fā)展極為迅速,雖然只有短短幾十年時間,學(xué)術(shù)成果已經(jīng)很豐富。在法律論證理論發(fā)展的過程之中,德國學(xué)者羅伯特·阿列克西(Robert Alexy)法律論證理論的研究引起了學(xué)界較高的關(guān)注和廣泛的討論,很多學(xué)者對阿列克西的法律論證理論予以了肯定,并給予了較高的評價;同時,也有另外一些學(xué)者對阿列克西的法律論證理論提出了質(zhì)疑的意見。但無論如何,作為法律論證理論領(lǐng)域的寶貴研究成果,阿列克西法律論證理論的貢獻與不足都為當(dāng)代學(xué)者進一步研究法律論證理論提供了起點,指引了方向。贊同阿列克西的學(xué)者會因此看清進一步研究的方向,反對的學(xué)者也會因此找到批判的標(biāo)靶,而更多的學(xué)者則會站在中立的立場,以更開闊的視角和創(chuàng)造性的精神去繼續(xù)探究法律論證理論。 正是由于阿列克西的法律論證理論的重要地位,本文擬對這一理論進行簡要的介紹,并對其的貢獻與不足做一簡要評價。 在本文的第一章,筆者對法律論證理論的興起進行了簡要的分析。分析了法律論證理論產(chǎn)生的原因,主要是由于以司法三段論為代表的傳統(tǒng)推理形式受到了質(zhì)疑和司法活動性質(zhì)的要求。自二十世紀(jì)七十年代以來,有關(guān)于法律論證理論的學(xué)說和著作大量涌現(xiàn);不僅如此,在一些國際性重要的法哲學(xué)會議上,法律論證理論都被作為重要議題之一在會議上加以討論。 本文的第二章,對阿列克西的法律論證理論進行了簡要的介紹。為了解決規(guī)范性命題的證立問題,阿列克西在討論了關(guān)于實踐論辯的一些有代表性的理論的基礎(chǔ)之上,提出了普遍實踐論辯理論。普遍實踐論辯理論為規(guī)范性命題的證成設(shè)計了程序化的規(guī)則,但是,普遍實踐論辯理論也存在著局限性。普遍實踐論辯理論為阿列克西的法律論證理論奠定了基礎(chǔ)。由于法律論辯在大多數(shù)的時候,需要得到一個確定的、終局性的結(jié)果,并且受到了時間空間的限制,這就要求法律論辯的程序設(shè)計上比普遍實踐論辯需要有附加的規(guī)則,這些規(guī)則要保證該論辯在現(xiàn)行有效的法律體系下進行。阿列克西接受了波蘭學(xué)者盧勃列夫斯基于1974年提出的關(guān)于在法律裁決的論證中的內(nèi)部證立和外部證立的區(qū)分。同時,阿列克西又進一步指出,外部證成才是法律論證理論的基本點,也是法律論證理論的中心議題,并對內(nèi)部證成與外部證成的規(guī)則與論述形式進行了規(guī)定。 本文的第三章,討論了阿列克西法律論證理論的貢獻與不足。在貢獻方面,筆者認(rèn)為,阿列克西的法律論證理論的證立規(guī)則和論述形式的設(shè)計,有助于接近正確性的結(jié)果;關(guān)于內(nèi)部證成中使用的前提所做的分類,具有開創(chuàng)性的意義;同時,阿列克西進一步的闡述了對前提的證成所應(yīng)遵循的規(guī)則。在學(xué)界中,也有一些學(xué)者對阿列克西的法律論證理論提出了質(zhì)疑意見。綜合討論這些質(zhì)疑意見,有些確實是指出了阿列克西法律論證理論的不足,有些則是對阿列克西法律論證理論的誤讀。筆者認(rèn)為,阿列克西法律論證理論的不足主要體現(xiàn)在以下三個方面:體系上不夠完整、未對法律的不確定性問題加以解決以及不具有保證法律論辯結(jié)論的確定性。
[Abstract]:The theory of legal argumentation is to deny and break the traditional judicial theory in a certain extent. People have long been accustomed to the traditional form of reasoning in the judicial syllogism as the representative to twentieth Century to gradually realize that in many practical cases of the occasion, the traditional form of judicial reasoning should be questioned. The judge is not from the law the general rules and the specific facts of the case. Only rely on the rules to comply with the logic mechanical interpretation of the ruling. In fact the judge has discretion, can choose and interpret the rule of law. And in order to maintain the legal authority and the stability of social relations, and requires the referee to this choice or explain the reason. In such circumstances, the legality and legitimacy of the rule of law has entered people's field of vision, has become the core issue of concern. The legal argumentation is the process of proving the legality and legitimacy of the legal adjudication.
After the rise of the theory of legal argumentation, the research development is very rapid, although only a few decades, academic achievements have been very rich. In the process of development of the theory of legal argumentation, the German scholar Robert Alexis (Robert Alexy) to research the theory of legal argumentation in the academia high attention and extensive discussion, a lot of scholars on Alexy's theory of legal argumentation should be affirmed, and give a higher evaluation; at the same time, there are also some scholars on Alexy's theory of legal argumentation questioned opinion. But no matter how valuable research results as the field of legal argumentation theory, contribution and limitation of Alexy theory of legal argumentation for contemporary scholars further study the legal argumentation theory provides the starting point and direction. The scholars agree that Alexy will therefore see the direction of further research, anti The right scholars will also find the target of criticism. More scholars will stand in a neutral position and explore the theory of legal argumentation in a more open and creative way.
Because of the important position of Alexy's theory of legal argumentation, this paper will briefly introduce this theory and make a brief comment on its contributions and shortcomings.
In the first chapter, the author on the rise of the theory of legal argumentation is briefly analysed. Analysis of the causes of legal argumentation theory, mainly due to the traditional form of reasoning in the judicial syllogism represented by nature question and judicial activities. Since 1970s, there are about the theory of legal argumentation theory and works not only that, in some emerging; an important international conference on philosophy of law, theory of legal argumentation is regarded as an important one of the topics to be discussed at the meeting.
In the second chapter, the theory of legal argumentation on Alexy were briefly introduced. In order to solve the problem of normative propositional justification, Alexy in the discussion about the practical debate some representative theories based on the proposed universal practical argumentation theory. The general practice of argumentation theory as normative propositional justification the design procedure of the rules, but the general practice of argumentation theory has some limitations. The general practice of argumentation theory laid the foundation for Alexy's theory of legal argumentation. Due to legal argumentation in most of the time required to get a definite, final results, and by the time and space constraints, program design this requires legal argumentation than common practice argumentation requires additional rules, these rules to ensure that the argument in the current effective legal system under Alexy. Distinguish the accepted Poland scholar Lou Bo Levski proposed in 1974 on the rule of law in the demonstration of the internal justification and external justification. At the same time, Alexy further pointed out that the external card talent is the basic point of legal argumentation theory, is also the core topic of legal argumentation theory, and the internal justification and discusses the forms and rules external justification was provided.
The third chapter discusses Alexy's theory of legal argumentation contributions and shortcomings. In the aspect, the author believes that Alexy's theory of legal argumentation and the justification of rules on the form of design, is helpful to the correct result; the classification done on the premise to use internal justification in the groundbreaking at the same time, the significance; Alexy further elaborated on the premise of the rules. In academia, there are also some scholars on Alexy's theory of legal argumentation questioned opinion. A comprehensive discussion of these views, some indeed pointed out the deficiencies of Alexy theory of legal argumentation, there is a misreading of Alexy the legal argumentation theory. The author believes that the lack of Alexy's theory of legal argumentation is mainly reflected in the following three aspects: the system is not complete, not on the legal uncertainty question The problem is solved and the certainty of the conclusion of the legal argumentation is not guaranteed.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D90-051

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 王林;裁判可接受性問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

2 王杉;法律推理的可廢止性研究[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：1712539