本文選題：法律邏輯學(xué) + 論辯術(shù)��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 論辯之風(fēng)早在古希臘就已盛行。先賢們不但自發(fā)地把論辯之術(shù)運(yùn)用到社會生活當(dāng)中，而且也進(jìn)行了較為深入的理論探討，尤以亞里士多德等人的論辯術(shù)對后世影響至巨。論辯術(shù)在中西方也曾一度沉淪，幸而在20世紀(jì)后半葉開始復(fù)興。漢布林把論辯術(shù)重新規(guī)定為研究論證的使用語境，并首先使用“形式論辯術(shù)”一詞。凡·愛默倫則提出了更重視實(shí)踐的處理方法，即“語用論辯術(shù)”。道格拉斯·沃爾頓則把漢布林的形式論辯術(shù)和凡·愛默倫的語用論辯術(shù)結(jié)合起來，恢復(fù)了對論證進(jìn)行語形、語義和語用研究的平衡。論辯術(shù)的當(dāng)代復(fù)興，在一定程度上促進(jìn)了邏輯研究更加注重論證實(shí)踐，使邏輯更加關(guān)注社會、關(guān)注生活，使邏輯不僅僅確保正確思維，而且也有助于促進(jìn)成功交際，這深刻地影響到邏輯學(xué)的發(fā)展�，F(xiàn)在法律邏輯的研究領(lǐng)域早已被大大拓寬，再也不是傳統(tǒng)的形式邏輯所能涵蓋的，非形式化已經(jīng)成為法律邏輯研究和發(fā)展的重要方向。論辯術(shù)亦于邏輯的非形式化中日益凸顯其強(qiáng)大的生命力。 論辯在我國也有著深厚的文化土壤，早在春秋戰(zhàn)國時(shí)期，論辯之風(fēng)也已盛行，論辯雙方騁辭競說，唇劍舌槍，已經(jīng)展現(xiàn)出高超的論辯水平，尤以《鬼谷子》和《戰(zhàn)國策》為最杰出的代表。 本文的研究重點(diǎn)——法律論辯術(shù)，是在法律這一特殊領(lǐng)域中運(yùn)用的論辯術(shù)，是研究法律活動中的論辯方法和技巧，無疑也是法律邏輯學(xué)的一個(gè)重要組成部分。法律論辯術(shù)就是在法律這一特殊領(lǐng)域中進(jìn)行的說服法官及陪審團(tuán)認(rèn)可自己主張的論證活動，包括證明和反駁兩種模式；它建立在事實(shí)和規(guī)則基礎(chǔ)之上，是一種使法庭能對爭議或糾紛從事實(shí)上和法律上得出正確的認(rèn)識并獲得正確、合法、公正的判決的說服性論辯；它貫穿于起訴、法庭調(diào)查、法庭論辯、被告人最后陳述等庭審的各個(gè)階段之中，更廣泛一點(diǎn)說，也包括訴訟、仲裁、調(diào)解等其他一切解決爭議或糾紛的法律活動之中。當(dāng)然，法律論辯最激烈的場合是法庭論辯，它是法庭審理案件的一個(gè)重要環(huán)節(jié)，控辯雙方就爭議事實(shí)、性質(zhì)及法律的適用條款等問題在法庭上展開辯論，證明己方主張、反駁對方主張，為裁判者最后做出正確的判決奠定基礎(chǔ)，同時(shí)也起著向旁聽者及社會宣傳法律的作用。 訴訟雙方的論辯雖然是對立的，但其目的卻具有一致性，即充分挖掘案件情況，核查案件事實(shí)，然后選擇適用的法律規(guī)范，推導(dǎo)出可接受的法律結(jié)論，，最終維護(hù)法律的尊嚴(yán)，維護(hù)雙方的合法權(quán)益。法律論辯術(shù)是實(shí)踐性的學(xué)問，對司法實(shí)踐有著重要意義。它不僅有利于查明事實(shí)，分清責(zé)任，促進(jìn)案件公正、合理地解決，也有利于維護(hù)當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益，維護(hù)社會的安定團(tuán)結(jié)。同時(shí)，它也拓展了法律邏輯學(xué)的研究領(lǐng)域并豐富了法律邏輯學(xué)的理論，促進(jìn)了法律邏輯學(xué)理論向司法實(shí)踐的轉(zhuǎn)化和關(guān)聯(lián)，使得法律邏輯學(xué)熔入了法律的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容。
[Abstract]:The wind of debate prevailed in ancient Greece. The sages not only spontaneously applied the art of argument to the social life, but also carried out a more in-depth theoretical discussion, especially with the argument of Aristotle and others on the later generations. Lin redefined the argumentation as the context of the use of argumentation, and first used the word "formal argument". Van emolen proposed a more practical approach to practice, namely, "pragmatic argument". Douglas Walton combined the form argument of Han brin and van emolen's pragmatic argumentation. In a certain degree, the revival of argumentation has promoted logical research to pay more attention to the practice of argument, to make logic pay more attention to society, to focus on life, to make logic not only to ensure correct thinking, but also to promote successful communication, which profoundly affects the development of logic. The research field of legal logic has been greatly widened, and it is no longer covered by traditional formal logic. Non formalization has become an important direction of the research and development of legal logic. Argumentation is also becoming more and more powerful in the non formalization of logic.
Debate in our country also has a profound cultural soil, as early as the spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period, the debate of the wind has also prevailed. The debate between the two sides of the debate, lips sword tongue gun, has shown superb argumentation level, especially the "ghost millet >" and "national policy >" as the most outstanding representative.
The key point of this paper - legal argumentation is the argumentation used in the special field of law, the argumentative method and skill in the study of legal activities, and is undoubtedly an important part of the legal logic. The legal debate is to persuade the judges and the jury to recognize their own owners in the special field of law. The argumentation of Zhang, which includes two modes of proof and refutation; based on facts and rules, is a persuasive argument that allows a court to get a correct understanding of a dispute or dispute from the fact and the law, and to obtain a correct, legitimate, and fair judgment; it runs through prosecution, court investigation, court argument, and the defendant's last. In the various stages of the trial, a more extensive point is made, including litigation, arbitration, mediation, and other legal activities to resolve disputes or disputes. Of course, the most intense legal debate is court debate. It is an important link in the trial of a case, and the two sides argue the disputed facts, the nature and the application of the law. Issues such as money and other issues are debated in the court to prove that the party's opinion is to refute the opponent's opinion and lay the foundation for the referee to make the final decision, and also to play the role of the side listener and the social propaganda law.
Although the argument between the two sides of the lawsuit is opposite, the purpose of the two sides is consistent, that is, to fully excavate the case situation, to check the facts of the case, and then choose the applicable legal norms, to deduce the acceptable legal conclusion, to safeguard the dignity of the law and to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of both sides. It is of great significance. It not only helps to find out the facts, distinguish the responsibility, promote the fair and reasonable solution of the cases, but also helps to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the parties and safeguard the stability and unity of the society. At the same time, it also expands the research field of legal logic and enriches the theory of legal logic, and promotes the legal logic theory to the judicial reality. The transformation and relevance of practice make legal logic melt into the substance of law.
【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】：2010
【分類號】：D90-051

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉方榮;基于多學(xué)科視域的案件事實(shí)認(rèn)定邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)模型研究[D];西南大學(xué);2013年

本文編號：1913322