【摘要】： 漢斯·凱爾森和H.L.A.哈特作為分析實(shí)證主義法學(xué)派的重要代表人物,以各具特色的法學(xué)理論為二十世紀(jì)的西方法學(xué)界的發(fā)展帶來(lái)了活力,而他們的理論也成為在他們之后世界各國(guó)法學(xué)理論發(fā)展的重要源泉。在兩位分析法學(xué)家的理論體系中,最值得我們關(guān)注的一個(gè)問(wèn)題就是,他們關(guān)于法律的概念的不同理解。法律的概念是法學(xué)理論的一個(gè)基本問(wèn)題,對(duì)法律的概念的基本認(rèn)識(shí)是研究其他法學(xué)問(wèn)題的基礎(chǔ)。作為純粹法學(xué)派創(chuàng)始人的凱爾森將法律規(guī)范作為其法學(xué)理論的基本概念,而新分析實(shí)證主義法學(xué)派創(chuàng)始人哈特則是把法律規(guī)則作為他法學(xué)理論的基本概念。凱爾森通過(guò)規(guī)范的觀念強(qiáng)調(diào)了法律作為一個(gè)獨(dú)立的邏輯體系的存在,為法律科學(xué)奠定了獨(dú)立的基礎(chǔ)；哈特則是通過(guò)對(duì)規(guī)則觀念的強(qiáng)調(diào),把法律同現(xiàn)實(shí)生活密切聯(lián)系在一起,使法哲學(xué)在西方法學(xué)界重新恢復(fù)了活力。本文試圖從凱爾森和哈特對(duì)法律概念的定位入手,通過(guò)對(duì)法律規(guī)范與法律規(guī)則的概念進(jìn)行比較與分析,以期能夠把握兩位法學(xué)家理論體系的特點(diǎn),并對(duì)兩位分析法學(xué)家的理論可以有進(jìn)一步的理解。全文分為三個(gè)部分： 第一部分,主要闡述凱爾森“法律規(guī)范”理論與哈特“法律規(guī)則”理論的基本內(nèi)容。在這一部分以凱爾森的《法與國(guó)家的一般理論》和哈特的《法律的概念》這兩本書(shū)為藍(lán)本,提煉出有關(guān)凱爾森“法律規(guī)范”理論和哈特“法律規(guī)則”理論的基本內(nèi)容。首先,論述兩位法學(xué)家理論產(chǎn)生的思想根源。其次,分別詳細(xì)地介紹凱爾森“法律規(guī)范”理論和哈特“法律規(guī)則”理論的主要內(nèi)容。 第二部分,論述規(guī)范與法律規(guī)范及規(guī)則與法律規(guī)則的區(qū)別。在這一部分首先以規(guī)范和規(guī)則兩個(gè)概念為基礎(chǔ)作比較,并在此基礎(chǔ)上引導(dǎo)出凱爾森對(duì)于“法律規(guī)范”與“法律規(guī)則”區(qū)別。其次,論述哈特關(guān)于規(guī)則與法律規(guī)則所做的區(qū)別。再次,從不同的哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)；不同的理論任務(wù)；是否具有“不可違背性”、“主觀性”、“系統(tǒng)性”等幾個(gè)方面來(lái)比較凱爾森“法律規(guī)范”理論與哈特“法律規(guī)則”理論的差異。最后,論述兩位法學(xué)家理論的相似之處。主要表現(xiàn)在：具有相同的理論基礎(chǔ)和思想根源,都強(qiáng)調(diào)了法律科學(xué)的研究對(duì)象是“實(shí)際上是這樣的法律”,都主張法律與道德的相分離等方面。 第三部分,評(píng)論凱爾森“法律規(guī)范”理論和哈特的“法律規(guī)則”理論的作用。由于兩位分析法學(xué)家面對(duì)著不同的理論任務(wù),要解決的問(wèn)題也不同,因此,他們的法律思想對(duì)以后的研究和實(shí)踐將產(chǎn)生不同的影響。作為享譽(yù)世界的兩位分析法學(xué)家,學(xué)習(xí)和繼承他們思想理論中的精華,同樣也會(huì)對(duì)我國(guó)的法學(xué)研究和法治建設(shè)產(chǎn)生深刻的影響。
[Abstract]:Hans Kelsen and H. L. A. As an important representative of positivism and law school, Hart brought vitality to the development of western legal circles in the 20th century with different legal theories. Their theory has become an important source of the development of legal theory in the world after them. In the theoretical system of two analytic jurists, one of the most noteworthy problems is their different understanding of the concept of law. The concept of law is a basic problem in the theory of law, and the basic understanding of the concept of law is the basis of studying other legal problems. Kelsen, as the founder of the pure school of law, regards legal norms as the basic concept of his legal theory, while Hart, the founder of the New Analytical positivist School of Law, regards the rule of law as the basic concept of his theory of law. Kelsen emphasizes the existence of law as an independent logical system through the concept of norms, which lays an independent foundation for the science of law, while Hart, by emphasizing the concept of rules, closely links law with real life. It reinvigorated the philosophy of law in the western legal circles. This paper attempts to begin with Kelsen and Hart's orientation of the concept of law, through the comparison and analysis of the concepts of legal norms and legal rules, in order to grasp the characteristics of the theoretical system of the two jurists. And the two analytic jurists can have a further understanding of the theory. The full text is divided into three parts: the first part mainly expounds the basic contents of Kelsen's "legal norms" theory and Hart's "legal rules" theory. In this part, based on Kelsen's General Theory of Law and State and Hart's concept of Law, the author abstracts the basic contents of Kelsen's theory of legal norms and Hart's theory of legal rules. First of all, it discusses the ideological origin of the two jurists' theories. Secondly, the main contents of Kelsen's legal norms theory and Hart's legal rules theory are introduced in detail. The second part discusses the differences between norms and legal norms and rules and legal rules. In this part, the author makes a comparison based on the concepts of norms and rules, and leads Kelsen to distinguish between "legal norms" and "legal rules". Secondly, it discusses the difference between the rules and the rules of law. Thirdly, the differences between Kelsen's theory of legal norms and Hart's theory of rules of law are compared from different philosophical bases, different theoretical tasks, whether they have "inviolability", "subjectivity", "systematicness" and so on. Finally, the similarities between the two jurists' theories are discussed. It is mainly manifested in the following aspects: it has the same theoretical basis and ideological roots, and both emphasize that the research object of legal science is "such law in practice", and both advocate the separation of law and morality. The third part, comments on the role of Kelsen's legal norms theory and Hart's legal rules theory. Because the two analytic jurists are faced with different theoretical tasks and have different problems to solve, their legal thoughts will have different influences on the research and practice in the future. As two famous analysts in the world, studying and inheriting the essence of their thoughts and theories will also have a profound impact on the legal research and the construction of the rule of law in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D90

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉星;哈特法律概念分析的模式建構(gòu)及其歷史定位[J];比較法研究;1996年04期

2 舒國(guó)瀅;赫伯特·L·A·哈特——一代法哲學(xué)大師的隕落[J];比較法研究;1996年04期

3 諶洪果;;通過(guò)語(yǔ)言體察法律現(xiàn)象:哈特與日常語(yǔ)言分析哲學(xué)[J];比較法研究;2006年05期

4 楊春福;論法律效力[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1997年01期

5 古祖雪;國(guó)際法的法律性質(zhì)再認(rèn)識(shí)——哈特國(guó)際法學(xué)思想述評(píng)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1998年01期

6 梁曉儉,宮燕明;哈特法律規(guī)則說(shuō)的解釋學(xué)研究[J];法學(xué);2003年03期

7 沈宗靈;評(píng)介哈特《法律的概念》一書(shū)的“附錄”——哈特與德沃金在法學(xué)理論上的主要分歧[J];法學(xué);1998年10期

8 周永生;凱爾森純粹法學(xué)的基本概念研究[J];河北師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年01期

9 謝暉;論法律效力[J];江蘇社會(huì)科學(xué);2003年05期

10 覃陽(yáng);試論哈特對(duì)奧斯丁法律思想的繼承與超越[J];開(kāi)放時(shí)代;2001年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：2220950