本文關(guān)鍵詞： 刑法解釋 立法者 立法原意 主觀解釋　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：近年來，隨著大陸法系國家若干刑法理論的引入及介紹的不斷深入，在中國刑法學(xué)界的相應(yīng)領(lǐng)域也開始出現(xiàn)了種種學(xué)說論戰(zhàn)以及學(xué)派之爭。而在學(xué)界關(guān)于刑法解釋問題的現(xiàn)有討論中，“立法原意”是一個使用率極高的詞匯。然而，在研讀運用這一概念進行論戰(zhàn)的若干篇代表性論文后，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)，討論者們不僅在運用“立法原意”這一多意詞匯的方式上不一致，而且對這一概念的定義似乎存在歧義——換言之，雖然看似彼此在圍繞著同一概念進行討論，但不同論者筆下的“立法原意”的含義卻并非完全相同。并且，對上述討論稍加分析便不難看出，這一前問題的存在可能直接導(dǎo)致了學(xué)界的若干討論流于文字形式變換而無法深入。 有鑒于此，筆者試圖通過對概念進行語義分析及對代表性文獻(xiàn)進行文本分析等方法，明確“立法原意”這一概念在圍繞刑法解釋進行的若干討論中究竟在何種領(lǐng)域扮演了怎樣的角色，在此基礎(chǔ)上通過分類討論的方法解構(gòu)“立法原意”這一概念，并將其轉(zhuǎn)換為“立法”及“原意”的若干不同組合，最終得到“立法原意”一詞在刑法解釋這一領(lǐng)域中的若干種不同含義并以圖例形式闡述，以為刑法學(xué)界的討論提供一個明確的概念基礎(chǔ)，避免討論者因概念誤用或指代不明而陷入討論混亂。 在文章體例上筆者將全文分為五個部分進行論述： 在第一部分中，以文獻(xiàn)資料的廣泛搜集與精確解讀為基礎(chǔ)，筆者明確了在刑法解釋這一領(lǐng)域中“立法原意”一詞在學(xué)界討論中的應(yīng)用范圍實際上是限于若干特定領(lǐng)域的，，即這一概念基本只被學(xué)者們在刑法解釋的分類、刑法解釋的方法及刑法解釋的目標(biāo)這三個論題中主要運用； 在第二部分中，筆者通過對學(xué)者應(yīng)用此概念的文字范例進行分析，得出兩個具體結(jié)論：（1）雖然學(xué)界討論中對立法原意一詞用法不同，但應(yīng)用差異與學(xué)者個人所屬刑法解釋論立場直接相關(guān)；（2）分析上述討論文本后可以推測，該語詞在學(xué)界大致存在一共識性指稱，但其具體內(nèi)容有待明確。 在第三部分中，筆者通過對刑法解釋中“立法原意”進行整體與部分的比較分析，得出立法原意的隱藏因素為“立法者”、立法原意中隱含了不同時間定位、立法原意可以分解為“立法者”及“原意”且分解后出現(xiàn)的三種“立法者”及兩種“原意”的含義各自不同等若干結(jié)論，并在本章末尾將上述概念進行重新排列組合，繼而以圖例形式得出了刑法解釋中學(xué)者應(yīng)用“立法原意”四字的具體所指范圍。 在第四部分中，筆者將在上文分解出的“立法原意”的構(gòu)成要素還原回當(dāng)代中國這一特定大背景下進行討論，并通過具體分析明確了在當(dāng)代中國刑法解釋領(lǐng)域三種“立法者”及其彼此關(guān)系的實際內(nèi)容。 在第五部分中，筆者以上述分析結(jié)論為基礎(chǔ)，提出了以立法原意為刑法解釋目標(biāo)的“主觀解釋論”若在學(xué)界復(fù)興所需兩大假設(shè)條件——刑法細(xì)密化與經(jīng)典學(xué)者之出現(xiàn)——這一猜想，并對其具體展開加以闡述。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the introduction and the introduction of some civil law countries criminal law theory deeply, in the corresponding field Chinese criminal law scholars began to appear all sorts of theory controversy and thought dispute. While in the academic circles on the existing problems of interpretation of criminal law, "intent" is the use of a high rate of vocabulary. However, in the study of the application of this concept between several typical pieces of paper, the author found that the researchers discussed not only in the use of "intent" of the multi meaning words on the way is not the same, and the definition of this concept seems ambiguous -- in other words, although it looks around with each other a concept is discussed, but different on the writing of "intent" meaning is not completely the same. And an analysis of the above discussion is not difficult to see that the former problems may lead directly to the school A number of discussions in the boundary are flowing through the form of words and cannot be deepened.
In view of this, the author attempts to analyze the semantics of conceptual and textual analysis method of representative literatures, the clear "intent" of this concept in discussions around the interpretation of the criminal law is in the field of how to play the role, through the classification method based on the discussion of deconstruction of the concept of "intent" a number of different combinations, and convert it to "legislation" and "intent", finally obtained the "legislative intent" in the criminal law interpretation of several different kinds of meaning in this field and to the legend in the form of paper, provide a clear concept on the basis of discussion for the field of criminal law, to avoid discussing into discuss the chaotic due to misuse of the concept of or refer to the unknown.
In the style of the article, the author divides the full text into five parts.
In the first part, with extensive collection and precise interpretation of literature as the basis, the author points out that in the interpretation of criminal law application in this field "legislative intent" in the academic discussion is actually limited to some specific areas, namely the concept only by scholars in the classification of the criminal law interpretation. Mainly using the method of interpretation of criminal law and criminal law interpretation of the objectives of the three topics;
In the second part, the author through the analysis of language using the concept of scholars, obtained two specific conclusions: (1) although the academic discussion of the legislative intent of the word usage is different, but the difference with the application interpretation of criminal law scholars is directly related to the position; (2) analysis of the text can be discussed that the words are of referential consensus in academic circles, but the specific content needs to be clear.
In the third part, the author through the comparative analysis of the whole and the part of the interpretation of criminal law in the "intent", the factors that hide the legislative intent of the "legislation", the legislative intent implied different time orientation, legislative intent can be divided into "legislators" and "intent" and after the decomposition of the three "legislators" and two "intent" of the meaning of different number of conclusions, and in the end of this chapter the concept of permutation and combination, and then to the legend in the form of interpretation of criminal law scholars in the application of "intent" four words of specific meaning.
In the fourth part, the author will be above the decomposition of "intent" elements back to the contemporary Chinese this specific background is discussed, and through the analysis of the actual content of the field clearly explain the three "legislators" and the relationship between Chinese in contemporary criminal law.
鍦ㄧ浜旈儴鍒嗕腑,絎旇

本文編號：1538075