本文選題：社科法學 + 法教義學��； 參考：《吉林大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文分為三個部分:第一部分選擇以社科法學為切入點分析社科法學的可能性之前提及其理論邊界,此部分涉及社科法學與法教義學的關系;接著分析社科法學的理論缺陷及其發(fā)展,此部分涉及自然法學開始能否介入、如何介入社科法學和法教義學之爭;最終回答社科法學的范式總結及其對中國法理學的理論更新有何種啟示。針對第一個問題,本文認為社科法學在司法裁判中可以作為法教義學的輔助性力量;作為規(guī)范科學的法學,是一門理解的學問,社科法學可以作為法律前理解必要構成。但是鑒于規(guī)范與事實二分的法哲學原理以及法律系統(tǒng)和社會系統(tǒng)作為兩個獨立的系統(tǒng)的法社會學原理,社科法學必須恪守自己的理論邊界,即在法教義學的框架內(nèi)進行。針對第二個問題,本文認為社科法學迷失在社會科學的“叢林”中,而罔顧法學的“家園”;更確切地說,社科法學已經(jīng)遭受到科學宰制,無力回家。社科法學如何才能科學宰制,本文的結論是,重視人文的向度,邁向文化研究;社科法學如何回歸法學的家園,本文的觀點是,回歸自然法學的傳統(tǒng),面向立法。在第三部分,本文試圖解決的理論問題是:社科法學重構中國法理學是否必要與何以可能。本文首先分析了政治化與西方化之間的中國法理學,去意識形態(tài)化與法律知識之科學性的尋求以及中國問題意識與法律知識之本土化的需求是中國社科法學運動興起的外在動因。社科法學的法哲學基礎之后,本文以既有的權利本位范式為理論參照,試圖解決在既有的法哲學范疇體系內(nèi)社科法學的理論重構何以可能。本文提出來規(guī)范范式與事實范式兩個核心概念,分析了其對立與統(tǒng)一,為了實現(xiàn)規(guī)范與事實范式的統(tǒng)合,本文選取“法律關系”的概念作為切入點,以法律關系的事實面向的研究重點被稱為事實范式,與之相應的則是規(guī)范范式,規(guī)范與事實范式之間尋求平衡,法律關系范疇研究的進一步推進便是權利交互性理論。本文通過對中國社科法學的哲學反思,得出如下結論。本文認為,對于法學而言,社科法學研究在兩種意義上成為可能:第一是,在疑難案件裁判中的應用和作為理解法律必需的背景知識的社科法學研究;第二是,對作為社會現(xiàn)象的法律運作的社科法學研究,構成了立法的必不可缺的事實性前提。第一種意義上的社科法學研究是在法教義學框架體系之內(nèi)的;第二種意義上的社科法學研究則突破了既有法教義學框架體系,涉及立法理論。第一種意義上的研究主要涉及社會科學知識應用;第二種意義上的研究則涉及社會科學方法的應用,即通過對法律實施的社會科學研究,揭露實施中的問題,分析問題的原因,并進一步通過某種方式提供法律制度完善的方案。在第一種意義上,社科法學的理論邊界是規(guī)范與事實的二分,在第二種意義上,社科法學的理論邊界在于事實與價值的二分,其對于規(guī)范之域和價值之域的不可說的東西必須保持沉默,不容置喙。在法學學術上,必須進行社科法學立場與法教義學立場的二元區(qū)分:社科法學面向法律制定場域,法律制定場域中應堅持開放的研究立場,面對法律在實施中暴露出的問題,用社會學、經(jīng)濟學、心理學、人文、歷史等多學科的方法去解決;法教義學應面向法律實施場域,法律實施場域應恪守法律規(guī)范的文本界限,嚴格法律實施,以規(guī)范作為基本立場,在規(guī)范、事實和價值之間往復流轉,以求得最接近正確的法律判斷。在第一種意義上,我們主張邁向文化研究的社科法學,作為理解法律必需的背景知識的跨學科研究,這種研究包括自然科學、社會科學和人文學的研究;在第二種意義上,我們主張邁向立法法理學的社科法學:為了避免實證主義的偏頗與自以為是的積習,社科法學研究有待擴展為法律文化研究,把人文學(文化科學)納入自己的研究視野,并與自然法學共謀立法大業(yè),撐起立法法理學的另外半邊天。在本體論上,社科法學的興起在對于中國法治實踐的微觀具體問題上的分析上很有見地,但是其意欲參與中國法理學的重構,就必須提升自身的理論高度,而如果僅停留在口號式的宣講和立場的申明,那么其在宏觀理論層面是沒有知識上的貢獻的。本文認為,中國的社科法學必須完成蘇格拉底式的“認識你自己”的自我反思,回歸本體論層面在法律關系這一基本范疇的統(tǒng)籌之下完成規(guī)范范式與事實范式的整合,并深入到權利交互研究,最終完成中國法理學理論重構與知識更新。
[Abstract]:This article is divided into three parts: the first part chooses the premise and the theoretical boundary of the possibility of social science law by choosing the social science law as the breakthrough point. This part involves the relationship between social science law and the jurisprudence of law, and then analyzes the theoretical defects and development of social science law. This part involves the involvement of natural law and how to intervene in social science law. The final answer to the summary of the paradigm of social science and the enlightenment to the renewal of the theory of Chinese jurisprudence in the final answer is that the social science jurisprudence can be used as an auxiliary force in the jurisprudence of the judiciary; as a normative science of law, it is an understanding and social science Jurisprudence As the necessary constitution of understanding before the law, but in view of the philosophical principles of two points of standard and fact and the legal system and social system as two independent systems of legal sociology, social science law must abide by its own theoretical boundary, that is, within the framework of the jurisprudence of law. For the second questions, this article believes that social science law is a fan of law. It is lost in the "Jungle" of social science, rather than the "home" of law; to be more exact, social science jurisprudence has been subject to scientific domination and can not be able to go home. The conclusion of this article is to pay attention to the humanities and to the cultural research. The view of the social science law is to return to the home of law. The view of this article is to return to the law. In the third part, the theoretical question that this article tries to solve is: whether it is necessary and possible to reconstruct Chinese jurisprudence in social science law. This article first analyzes the Chinese jurisprudence between politicization and westernization, the search for the scientific nature of ideology and the knowledge of law, and the consciousness of Chinese problems. The demand of the localization of legal knowledge is the external cause of the rise of the Chinese social science law movement. After the legal philosophy foundation of social science law, this paper attempts to solve the possibility of the theoretical reconstruction of social science law in the existing legal philosophy category system. In order to realize the combination of the opposition and the unity of the two core concepts, in order to realize the integration of the norm and the fact paradigm, this article selects the concept of "legal relationship" as the breakthrough point, and the research focus of the factual orientation of the legal relationship is called the fact paradigm, and the corresponding is the standard model, the norm and the fact paradigm, the balance between the law and the law. The further advance of the study of category category is the theory of right interaction. Through the philosophical reflection on Chinese social science law, this paper draws the following conclusions. This article holds that, for jurisprudence, the study of social science law is possible in two meanings: first, the application of the referees in difficult cases and the necessary background knowledge for the understanding of the law. The research of social science law; second, the social science law research which is the legal operation of the social phenomenon constitutes the indispensable factual premise of the legislation. The first sense of social science law studies is within the framework of the jurisprudence of law; the second sense of social law study breaks through the framework of the existing legal doctrines, The first kind of research involves the application of social science knowledge, and the second meaning of the study involves the application of the social science method, that is, through the social science research on the law, it reveals the problems in the implementation, analyzes the causes of the problem, and further provides the legal system through some way. In the first sense, the theoretical boundary of social science jurisprudence is two points of standard and fact. In the second sense, the theoretical boundary of social science jurisprudence lies in the two points of fact and value. The unspeakable things in the domain of standard and the domain of value must be kept silent and incompatible. In law academia, social science jurisprudence must be established. The two yuan distinction between the field and the legal doctrinal position: Social Science jurisprudence faces the legal formulation of the field, and the legal formulation field should adhere to the open research position, face the problems exposed in the implementation of the law, and solve the problems in the fields of sociology, economics, psychology, humanities and history. Legal doctrines should be applied to the field of law and the law is true. The application field should abide by the text boundaries of the legal norms, strictly enforce the law, take the standard as the basic position, transfer between the standard, the fact and the value, in order to get the closest and correct legal judgment. In the first sense, we advocate the social science law of the cultural research as the interdisciplinary research for understanding the necessary background knowledge of the law. The study includes the study of natural science, social science and human literature. In the second sense, we advocate the social science law of legislative jurisprudence. In order to avoid the biased and self righteous accumulation of positivism, the research of social science law needs to be extended to the study of legal culture and the study of human Literature (Culture Science) into its own research. The field of vision, and conspiring with the natural law to conspire with the legislature, supports the other half of the legislative jurisprudence. In noumenon, the rise of social science jurisprudence is very insightful in the analysis of the microcosmic specific problems of the practice of the rule of law in China, but its desire to participate in the reconstruction of Chinese jurisprudence must improve its own theoretical height, and if it only stops In this paper, the Chinese social science law must complete the self reflection of the Socratic "know yourself", and return to the ontological level to complete the normative paradigm and the fact under the basis of the basic scope of the legal relationship. The integration of paradigms and in-depth study of rights interaction will ultimately accomplish the reconstruction of Chinese jurisprudence theory and knowledge renewal.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D90-05;D926
，

本文編號：2111509