本文選題：法之確定性 + 法之不確定性　； 參考：《吉林大學》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：自19世紀末20世紀初以來，“法是確定的”作為人們長期以來的基本信仰和無須論證與闡釋的元初命題，受到了來自實證主義、感性主義、相對主義乃至后現(xiàn)代主義的質(zhì)疑、批判甚至顛覆式的攻伐。特別是哈特與德沃金圍繞案件是否存在“唯一正解”展開的論戰(zhàn)，不僅標志著法之確定論與法之不確定論的正面短兵相接，而且使之從此成為法哲學中重要的可爭辯性基礎(chǔ)論題。然而，相關(guān)理論都只是從某個單一的維度對法的某個部分的屬性進行單向度的考察，獲得的只是千面廬山之一面，自然跳不出摸象盲人式的爭論，可能給人們造成“法既可以（能）是確定的，也可以（能）是不確定的”的模棱兩可式的錯覺，這是有害的。法之確定論或者不確定論相關(guān)命題成立與否，具有嚴格的語境限定性，切不可以隨意使（套）用。 有關(guān)法之確定性的爭論實際上是圍繞傳統(tǒng)司法公式“法律規(guī)則（R，Rule）×案件事實（F，F(xiàn)act）=司法判決（D，Decision）”展開的，主要表現(xiàn)為法律規(guī)則、案件事實、司法推理的確定論與不確定論并且具有多種表現(xiàn)形式，論爭的深刻根源在于雙方哲學思維層面的客觀世界的確定論與不確定論、知識的個體認知論與群體約定論、語言與對象的統(tǒng)攝論與對應(yīng)論的對立，具有闡明客觀事實與法律事實的非同一性、闡明個案正義與秩序正義的非等值性、價值共識與客觀真理的非重疊性提供了新思路。借助“分段切割+重疊共識”、“客觀同質(zhì)+約定共識”、“性狀描述+性狀規(guī)范”、“形式邏輯+概率邏輯”的方法實現(xiàn)法之確定論與法之不確定論方法論的通約，并且在此基礎(chǔ)上界定和論證法之確定性是可能。 界定法之確定性的概念應(yīng)當把握其根本。既有的有關(guān)法之確定性概念的界定，諸如“唯一正解論”、“客觀標準論”、“明確要求論”、“明確語義論”、“邏輯自洽論”等，不同程度將原本有機統(tǒng)一的主觀與客觀、整體與部分、本體與表象之間的關(guān)系割裂開來并使之對立起來，難免片面、殘缺和膚淺。準確且清楚揭示法的確定性概念應(yīng)當從形式和實體兩個方面來進行：就法的確定性形式意義而言，是指人的主觀認知與客觀對象是否存在某種確定的聯(lián)系，最好是準確揭示客觀對象的確定屬性，同時亦是社會對于何種客觀見諸主觀的觀念是真理的約定的結(jié)果，以及在涉及“國家事務(wù)”領(lǐng)域由國家規(guī)定的結(jié)果。就法的確定性的實體意義而言，指司法裁判者所認定法律事實與客觀的案件事實之間有無一致性，有無某種最終可以準確評價法律事實以法的形式表現(xiàn)出來的價值準則，以及將兩者結(jié)合起來能否獲得一個唯一正解的推理結(jié)論，并使這種唯一正解轉(zhuǎn)化人們的實際行動。 關(guān)于法的確定性根據(jù)可以從認知論、價值論與表達論三個方面論證和說明。自認知論角度而言，法自根本上應(yīng)當歸于客觀見諸主觀的哲學范疇，作為“法”所統(tǒng)攝的全部客觀對象，“法自體”具有自在性與客觀性、質(zhì)定性與量定性、穩(wěn)定性與延續(xù)性；作為“法自體”表現(xiàn)形式的“法表象”，具有主體對之進行考察時的限定性、不同“法自體”表象的可區(qū)分性以及根據(jù)“法表象”逆向推斷“法自體”的可還原性；作為主體認知結(jié)果的“法觀念”，具有實體指向性、形成規(guī)律性以及約定共識性。自價值論角度而言，法作為人類的重要知識與技能，應(yīng)當為人類認知并且把握、適應(yīng)并且改造自然和社會提供確定指引，即向個體和群體提供明確目標、行為方式以及協(xié)調(diào)集體行動的公共權(quán)威；作為社會秩序建構(gòu)手段，應(yīng)當通過某種社會力量實現(xiàn)對社會的有效控制，通過確定的利益分配、交換、矯正活動保持社會交往的有序進行，通過“國家意志”保持社會價值準則與行為規(guī)則的統(tǒng)一及其貫徹；作為社會沖突裁判方式，應(yīng)當將自己確立為絕對的裁判權(quán)威，為全部社會沖突的裁判提供一種規(guī)范化的“批處理”流程和機制，并且使一切訴求終于自身。自表達論角度而言，法主要通過語言的形式表達出來并且以之作為發(fā)揮作用的基本媒介，，具有根源于語言本身的確定性：其實體確定性表現(xiàn)為概念或者命題實體指向的唯一性、事實判斷或者價值判斷的非此即彼性以及命題的通性；形式確定性表現(xiàn)為語言文本的固定性、穩(wěn)定性以及生成規(guī)律性；其語境限定性主要源自于語言自然限定性、法律專業(yè)限定性以及歷史文化的限定性。 法乃是服務(wù)社會實踐生活的。既需要由立法者將其對人們行為的具體要求準確揭示出來并且公之于眾，為人們的行為提供規(guī)范的指引，而且要以此為標準評價和處斷人們之間的爭議，并矯正被違法行為破壞的社會關(guān)系。兩者構(gòu)成了法之確定性實現(xiàn)的基本途徑和方式： 立法的本質(zhì)是選擇特定主體特定行為作為自己的評價對象，賦予此種行為特定法律意義及與之對應(yīng)的法律制裁的種類和量度，迫使理性的人們?yōu)榛虿粸樘囟ㄐ袨�。某個法律規(guī)則的確定，應(yīng)當有其質(zhì)地根據(jù)——社會危害性、量度根據(jù)——規(guī)制必要性和有效性、向度根據(jù)——將行為人引導向立法者所預期的方向，并且以“假定＋處理＋制裁”或者“行為模式＋法律后果”作為基本結(jié)構(gòu)的法律命題表達出來。為適應(yīng)法律規(guī)則的公共性要求，應(yīng)當從形式上采用普遍選舉立法者并且貫徹多數(shù)決原則來凸顯社會公眾的“普遍共識”或者“重疊共識”；為適應(yīng)法律規(guī)則的正義要求，應(yīng)當貫徹羅爾斯的“兩個正義原則”，以在社會公平的基礎(chǔ)之上努力促進社會整體利益的最大化。同時，為了在立法的環(huán)節(jié)即避免和消除由立法主體多元化以及立法事項多樣化所必然導致法律規(guī)則之間的競合或者沖突，無論是立法權(quán)體系還是法律規(guī)則體系，都應(yīng)當具有橫向協(xié)調(diào)、縱向統(tǒng)一的合理結(jié)構(gòu)，并且有相應(yīng)的法律規(guī)則競合與沖突消除機制，以使整個法律規(guī)則體系始終保持統(tǒng)一性和協(xié)調(diào)性。 司法的本質(zhì)是將立法規(guī)則與具體的案件事實結(jié)合形成并且彰顯確定性法律評價結(jié)論的過程。司法裁判確定性實現(xiàn)的基礎(chǔ)和直接表現(xiàn)是個案司法裁判的“唯一正解”。個案的“唯一正解”的求獲，必須以對案件事實作出并無二致的判定和固定、確定“唯一”的裁判規(guī)則及其“唯一”意謂為基礎(chǔ)，以使客觀案件的實然要素可以從邏輯上從屬于法律規(guī)則的應(yīng)然要件為前提，按照演繹推理的邏輯法則推斷出來。此一機理推廣及于全部訟爭案件的關(guān)鍵，在于司法裁判者按照相同的證據(jù)搜集與采信規(guī)則，以及中立于案件事實、中立于訟爭利益、中立于他人評價與異議的要求，對案件事實進行“標準化”的認定、剪裁和裁判。當然，司法的確定性最終必須使法律糾紛歸于事實上和現(xiàn)實生活的終結(jié)，需要建立合理的司法裁判權(quán)威維護機制和執(zhí)行機制，不僅維護和捍衛(wèi)司法裁判者對案件事實的認定和評價在所有可能的其他認定和評價中權(quán)威性和終極性，而且要使司法裁判對訟爭雙方利益關(guān)系的重新安排和矯正得到切實的貫徹執(zhí)行。
[Abstract]:Since the end of the nineteenth Century and early twentieth Century, the "law is determined" as the basic belief of people for a long time and the primitive proposition without argument and interpretation. It has been questioned by positivism, sensibility, relativism and even postmodernism, critical and even subversive attack, especially whether Hart and Dworkin exist around the case. The argument of "only positive solution" is not only a symbol of the positive connection between the determinism of law and the theory of law, but also the important arguable basic topic in the philosophy of law. However, the relevant theories are only one way to investigate the attributes of some part of the law from a single dimension. On the one side of the Mount Lu, it is not possible to jump out of the argument of the blind man, which may cause the illusion that the law can be defined and (can) be uncertain, which is harmful. Make use of (a set).
The argument about the certainty of law is actually centered around the traditional judicial formula (R, Rule) * case fact (F, Fact) = judicial decision (D, Decision). It is mainly manifested by the legal rules, case facts, the determinism and uncertainty of judicial reasoning and various forms of expression, and the profound root of the argument lies in the philosophy of both sides. The determinism and uncertainty of the objective world of thinking, the individual cognition theory and the group agreement of knowledge, the opposition between the theory of language and the object and the theory of correspondence, have the non identity of clarifying the objective facts and the legal facts, clarifying the non equivalence of the case justice and the Order Justice, and providing the non overlapping of the value consensus and the objective truth. With the help of "segmented cutting + overlapping consensus", "objective homogeneity + agreed consensus", "character description + character norm", "formal logic + probability logic" method, the general agreement between the determinism of law and the uncertainty theory of law is realized, and on this basis it is possible to define and demonstrate the certainty of the method.
The concept of defining the certainty of the law should be grasped at its root. The definition of the definitive concepts of the relevant laws, such as "the only positive solution theory", "objective standard theory", "clear requirement theory", "clear semantics", "logic self consistency", etc., are the subjective and objective, the whole and the part, the noumenon and the table of the original unity of the machine. The relationship between images separates and makes it antagonistic. It is unavoidable to be one-sided, incomplete and superficial. The determinacy concept of the exact and clear revelation method should be carried out from two aspects of form and entity: as far as the determinacy of law is concerned, it means that there is certain definite connection between the subjective cognition of man and the objective object, and the best is to uncover it accurately. The attribution of the objective object is also the result of the agreement of the society on what objectivity is perceived as the truth, as well as the result stipulated in the state in the field of "state affairs". In terms of the substantive meaning of the determinacy of the law, there is no one between the judicial facts and the objective case facts. There is no certain value criterion in the form of the law in which the legal facts can be evaluated in a certain way, as well as the combination of the two to obtain a unique positive conclusion, and to make this unique positive solution transform the actual action of the people.
The certainty of the law can be demonstrated and explained in three aspects: the theory of cognition, the theory of value and the theory of expression. As far as the theory of cognition is concerned, the law should be fundamentally attributed to the objective philosophical category which is objectively visible to the objective object of "law", and the "law autologous" has the nature of freedom and objectivity, qualitative and qualitative, and stable. Sex and continuity; the "legal representation", as the form of "law autologous", has the limitation of the subject, the distinguishability of the different "law autologous" imagery and the reducibility of the "law autologous" according to the "legal representation", and the "legal concept", as the subject of cognition, has physical directivity and shape. As an important knowledge and skill of human beings, law, as the important knowledge and skill of human beings, should be recognized and grasped for human beings, to adapt and remould nature and society to provide definite guidance, that is to provide a clear goal, a way of conduct and a public authority to coordinate collective action to the individual and the group; as a social order. The construction means should realize the effective control of the society through certain social forces, maintain the orderly conduct of social communication through the determination of the distribution of interests, exchange and correction activities, and maintain the unity and implementation of the social values and rules of behavior through "state will", and should establish themselves as the way of judging social conflicts. The absolute authority of the referee provides a standardized "batch" process and mechanism for the referees of all social conflicts, and makes all appeals themselves at last. From the perspective of expression, the law is mainly expressed in the form of language and is used as the basic medium to play its role, which is rooted in the certainty of the language itself: The definiteness of entity certainty is the uniqueness of the point of concept or propositional entity, the non - or or the other of the fact judgment or the judgment of value, and the generality of the propositions; the form certainty shows the fixity, the stability and the regularity of the creation of the language text; its context restricts mainly from the natural limitation of the language and the limitation of the legal profession. And the limitation of history and culture.
Law is to serve the life of the society. It is not only necessary for the legislator to reveal the specific requirements of people's behavior, but also to provide normative guidance for people's behavior. It also needs to be used as a standard to evaluate and disagree between people and to rectify the social relations that are violated by illegal acts. Both constitute the law. The basic ways and means for deterministic realization:
The essence of legislation is to choose specific subject specific behavior as its own evaluation object, give the specific legal meaning and the kind and measure of the corresponding legal sanctions, force the rational people to be or not be specific behavior. The determination of a legal rule should have its quality basis - social harmfulness and measure - It is necessary and effective to regulate the necessity and effectiveness, to guide the actor to the direction expected by the legislator, and to express the legal proposition of "hypothesis + treatment + sanctions" or "behavior pattern + legal consequences" as the basic structure. In order to meet the public requirements of the legal rules, the general election should be adopted in the form of general elections. In order to adapt to the justice requirements of the legal rules, Rawls's "two principles of justice" should be carried out in order to maximize the overall interests of the society on the basis of social fairness. The avoidance and elimination of the pluralism of the legislative subject and the diversification of legislative matters inevitably lead to competition or conflict between the legal rules, whether the legislative system or the legal rules system, which should have a horizontal coordination, a vertical and rational structure, and a corresponding mechanism of legal rules competing and conflict elimination, so as to make the whole law The rules of law always maintain unity and coordination.
The essence of judicature is the process of combining the legislative rules with the specific case facts and showing the conclusion of the deterministic legal evaluation. The basis and direct representation of the determination of the judiciary is the "only positive solution" of the case judicature. The "only positive solution" of the case must be judged by the facts of the case. Fixed and fixed, determine the "only" rule of judgment and its "unique" meaning as the basis, so that the actual elements of an objective case can be logically deduced from the prerequisite of the legal rules and the logical rules of deductive reasoning. This mechanism promotes the key to all cases of litigation, and the judicial judges press The same evidence collection and information collection and information acquisition rules, as well as the facts of the case, stand in the litigation interests, stand on the requirements of other people's evaluation and dissenting, and "standardize" the facts of the case, tailoring and referee. Of course, the judicial certainty must eventually make the legal dispute come to the end of the fact and the real life, and need to be established. The Authority maintenance mechanism and implementation mechanism of the judicial referee not only maintain and defend the authority and ultimate nature of the judicial judges' identification and evaluation of the case facts in all possible other cognizance and evaluation, but also make the judicial referee rearrange and rectify the interests of the two parties.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D90

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 季衛(wèi)東;程序比較論[J];比較法研究;1993年01期

2 姚劍波;終局性規(guī)則下的利益平衡——關(guān)于刑事訴訟一事不再理原則的比較研究[J];比較法研究;2000年04期

3 沈敏榮;論法律的確定性之演變[J];甘肅理論學刊;2000年02期

4 李琦;法的確定性及其相對性——從人類生活的基本事實出發(fā)[J];法學研究;2002年05期

5 沈敏榮;論法律的不確定性[J];南京社會科學;1998年03期

6 蔣傳光;孫建偉;;法律確定性的探尋——一個法學方法論的視角[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2008年02期

7 沈敏榮;法律不確定性的思想淵源[J];社會科學;1999年12期

8 公丕祥;中國法制現(xiàn)代化面臨的四大矛盾[J];探索與爭鳴;1995年03期

9 王學成;朱國平;;論我國檢察權(quán)能的優(yōu)化配置[J];政法學刊;2010年05期

10 王洪;;法的不確定性與可推導性[J];政法論叢;2013年01期

本文編號：2106559