本文選題：法律沖突　切入點(diǎn)：方法論　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2017年博士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：法律沖突解決的方法論是一個(gè)細(xì)小卻至關(guān)重要的問(wèn)題,但一直未能引起學(xué)界的足夠關(guān)注。傳統(tǒng)理論認(rèn)為,法律沖突是一種"效力沖突",因此試圖以"上位法優(yōu)于下位法"、"新法優(yōu)于舊法"和"特別法優(yōu)于一般法"等沖突規(guī)則簡(jiǎn)單化處理。德沃金的原則理論揭示出:法律沖突的理解應(yīng)超越傳統(tǒng)法實(shí)證主義所予的框架,并應(yīng)從價(jià)值的層面重新審視不同規(guī)范之間的內(nèi)在關(guān)系。伴隨著法學(xué)理論從"正確性理論"向"正當(dāng)性理論"的轉(zhuǎn)向,法律沖突解決的方法論問(wèn)題逐漸成為一個(gè)新的研究命題。這一命題強(qiáng)調(diào)了實(shí)證法的開(kāi)放領(lǐng)域及其不確定性,但卻將法律沖突的客觀樣態(tài)展現(xiàn)出來(lái)。隨著理論法學(xué)對(duì)法律規(guī)范的構(gòu)造及其內(nèi)在關(guān)系的揭示不斷深入,法律沖突解決的內(nèi)在機(jī)理、方法類(lèi)型與具體技術(shù)等問(wèn)題遽成為研究的重要議題。法律沖突解決的方法論是我們用來(lái)認(rèn)識(shí)法律沖突和解決法律沖突的根本方法。一般而言,法律沖突的認(rèn)識(shí)既有客觀的一面,同時(shí)有主觀判斷的價(jià)值空間,從而導(dǎo)致人們的理解在結(jié)構(gòu)上具有開(kāi)放性。從法學(xué)的視角來(lái)看,法律沖突在效力上的展示所表現(xiàn)的只是不同規(guī)范在法律文本上的"形式"不一致,而不是它們?cè)?實(shí)質(zhì)"意義上的不一致。"實(shí)質(zhì)"意義上的不一致涉及到對(duì)相沖突法律規(guī)定背后所隱藏的各個(gè)立法目的的考察,因此需要從價(jià)值上進(jìn)行判斷并進(jìn)行法益衡量。傳統(tǒng)法學(xué)關(guān)于法律沖突的理解僅限于規(guī)則的層次,將法律沖突簡(jiǎn)單地約化理解為一種效力邏輯沖突,由此帶來(lái)的結(jié)果是實(shí)質(zhì)正義的忽視或喪失。原則理論將法律沖突區(qū)分為規(guī)則沖突與原則沖突:前者主要考察不同規(guī)定在構(gòu)成要件要素上的差異,具有簡(jiǎn)便易適用的特征,因此可以較好兼顧效益與公平;而后者則側(cè)重于不同規(guī)定在法益保護(hù)上的不同,具有主觀判斷的特征,因此更有利于實(shí)現(xiàn)實(shí)質(zhì)正義。原則理論在法律沖突中的運(yùn)用由此就具有特殊價(jià)值。排除法律沖突在規(guī)范意義尋求過(guò)程中的復(fù)雜性,原則理論的引入并不會(huì)破壞(反而增強(qiáng)了)法律適用的平等性和一致性(體系正義)。倘若法律沖突的解決完全依賴(lài)于法實(shí)證主義的方式,法律的思考將會(huì)變成一種概念式的運(yùn)作。面對(duì)社會(huì)變遷背景下利益不斷分化的挑戰(zhàn),法律的正當(dāng)性和權(quán)威性將會(huì)嚴(yán)重受到影響。從這個(gè)意義上說(shuō),原則理論在法律沖突解決中的引入不僅有助于實(shí)現(xiàn)法律體系的實(shí)踐理性,而且也有利于維護(hù)實(shí)證法向道德領(lǐng)域的開(kāi)放性。原則理論為法律沖突的解決提供了一個(gè)新的方法論框架。法律的思考于此必須要考慮到規(guī)則與原則的區(qū)別,并據(jù)與各種法倫理價(jià)值及一般的正義觀念相連。法律沖突的解決需要考慮到各自規(guī)范的意圖、正義以及合目的性的問(wèn)題,而這些問(wèn)題又是最后作出判斷的基礎(chǔ)。因此,要"正當(dāng)"解決法律沖突就必須發(fā)掘出各該規(guī)范背后所隱含的評(píng)價(jià)以及各自評(píng)價(jià)的作用范圍,并以此來(lái)為法律沖突的解決提供指引和支撐。法律之間的沖突存在著三種類(lèi)型,即"規(guī)則v.規(guī)則"沖突、"原則v.原則"沖突以及"原則v.規(guī)則"沖突。與此相對(duì)應(yīng)的法學(xué)理論就必須反映出此種類(lèi)型差異,并著重于從兩個(gè)方面來(lái)建構(gòu)自己的方法論體系:一個(gè)是剛性的方法論體系,其著眼于通過(guò)規(guī)則與規(guī)則的碰撞來(lái)解決法律沖突。另一個(gè)是柔性的方法論體系,主要用于指導(dǎo)"原則v.原則"沖突和"原則v.規(guī)則"沖突的解決。在法律規(guī)范區(qū)分為規(guī)則與原則的基礎(chǔ)上,異位階規(guī)則沖突的解決就是一個(gè)重要的議題。從理論上言,異位階規(guī)則沖突的解決仍可在傳統(tǒng)的"上位法優(yōu)于下位法"規(guī)則之下來(lái)進(jìn)行處理,只是其內(nèi)涵和思考框架應(yīng)作不同的理解:首先,從內(nèi)涵上看,傳統(tǒng)的"上位法優(yōu)于下位法"規(guī)則是一個(gè)絕對(duì)適用規(guī)則,只要兩個(gè)法律規(guī)則之間存在著異位階關(guān)系,則上位階規(guī)則就必定會(huì)優(yōu)先適用。在新的方法論體系下,"上位法優(yōu)于下位法"規(guī)則仍然可以適用,但僅可適用于規(guī)則沖突層次。在涉及到原則沖突的情況下,即使下位法所規(guī)定的原則可能相對(duì)較為具體明確,亦不可斷言上位法原則就一定會(huì)優(yōu)先。原則之間的沖突需要通過(guò)衡量來(lái)解決,而原則之間的優(yōu)先順位關(guān)系并不固定。"上位法優(yōu)于下位法"規(guī)則的適用有一些條件,同時(shí)也存在著例外。從憲法審查和規(guī)范監(jiān)督的角度上看,異位階規(guī)則沖突的解決并非一定就要讓上位階規(guī)則優(yōu)先。通過(guò)法律解釋和論證融貫性說(shuō)理的方式,異位階規(guī)則沖突也可能得到消解。至于同位階規(guī)則沖突的解決,方法論則主要圍繞兩種規(guī)則而展開(kāi):其一是"特別法優(yōu)于一般法";其二是"新法優(yōu)于舊法"。"特別法優(yōu)于一般法"(又稱(chēng)為"特別法優(yōu)先")適用的關(guān)鍵在于找到最密切聯(lián)系的規(guī)則,而為了找到此種隱匿的指示,法官必須要借助價(jià)值判斷和功能分析。"特別法優(yōu)于一般法"規(guī)則的適用前提在于認(rèn)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)可以確定。從效力范圍和邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)等形式認(rèn)知的層面上來(lái)識(shí)別特別法,其標(biāo)準(zhǔn)仍有缺陷。特別法與一般法之間關(guān)系的認(rèn)定應(yīng)從本質(zhì)的層面上進(jìn)行。在"特別法優(yōu)于一般法"規(guī)則的適用中,規(guī)范層面上的適用前提主要涉及到對(duì)"同一機(jī)關(guān)"、"同一事項(xiàng)"以及規(guī)范之間規(guī)定"不一致"的理解。從實(shí)踐上看,"對(duì)于一般法的根本違反"、"沖突解決規(guī)則的交叉"、"指向性條款的存在"、"補(bǔ)充性法律后果的特別考量"以及"價(jià)值衡量方法的引入"等情形出現(xiàn)時(shí),特別法優(yōu)于規(guī)則的適用就有可能出現(xiàn)特別例外。"新法優(yōu)于舊法"(又稱(chēng)為"新法優(yōu)先")是同位階法律沖突處理的另一個(gè)重要規(guī)則。其功能主要在于平衡法穩(wěn)定性與法變動(dòng)性之間的價(jià)值沖突。"新法優(yōu)于舊法"規(guī)則適用的關(guān)鍵在于明確其中新法的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與適用前提。從既得利益保護(hù)與法律秩序穩(wěn)定等方面上看,"新法優(yōu)于舊法"規(guī)則的著眼點(diǎn)應(yīng)在于新的社會(huì)事實(shí)。對(duì)于新法生效之前既有事實(shí)的法律調(diào)整應(yīng)該突出既得利益的保護(hù)。在例外的情形下,"新法優(yōu)于舊法"規(guī)則的適用當(dāng)然可以允許新法溯及既往,但應(yīng)該作嚴(yán)格的限定。從法律適用的實(shí)踐上看,新法溯及既往的情形主要有有利溯及(從輕溯及)、不純粹溯及、可預(yù)見(jiàn)性溯及、填補(bǔ)性溯及、程序性溯及、重要公益保護(hù)性溯及、澄清性溯及、合理性溯及以及從舊性溯及。上述兩類(lèi)規(guī)則所針對(duì)的情形也有可能會(huì)交叉,出現(xiàn)"新特別法與舊一般法沖突"及"舊特別法與新一般法沖突"的復(fù)雜場(chǎng)景。另外,同位階規(guī)則沖突的法律處理還存在一些特別規(guī)則,如從重規(guī)則、從輕規(guī)則、"實(shí)體從舊、程序從新"規(guī)則、"從舊兼從輕"規(guī)則、"行為時(shí)法優(yōu)于裁判時(shí)法"規(guī)則以及"行為地法優(yōu)于人地法"規(guī)則等。在"原則v.原則"沖突的解決中,價(jià)值衡量是基本方法。憲法作為最高位階的國(guó)內(nèi)法,不僅規(guī)定著整個(gè)法律秩序的"基本價(jià)值",同時(shí)也規(guī)定了它(這些基本價(jià)值)對(duì)一切法律秩序領(lǐng)域的效力和作用強(qiáng)度。除此之外,其他各種各樣的法律也會(huì)包含一些價(jià)值標(biāo)準(zhǔn),它們同樣會(huì)凝結(jié)成各種法律原則。探究和實(shí)現(xiàn)整個(gè)法律秩序的各種法律原則,就必須從價(jià)值的層面上進(jìn)行衡量。在德國(guó),聯(lián)邦憲法法院的判決往往以這個(gè)前提作為出發(fā)點(diǎn):憲法的秩序是一個(gè)意義整體,因此必須基于此種價(jià)值一致性來(lái)處理各種法益沖突。這樣的觀點(diǎn)表明,原則沖突解決的最崇高原則在于實(shí)現(xiàn)憲法統(tǒng)一,其依托于邏輯-目的論層面上的意義整體,而憲法的本質(zhì)就在于,它可以為整個(gè)國(guó)家和社會(huì)生活提供統(tǒng)一的秩序。對(duì)于"原則v.規(guī)則"之間的交叉沖突,在理解上可將其還原為原則沖突,即:一個(gè)法律原則與另一個(gè)隱藏在法律規(guī)則之后起支撐性基礎(chǔ)作用的法律原則之間的沖突。原則與規(guī)則之間出現(xiàn)沖突時(shí)究竟應(yīng)以何者為先,這在本質(zhì)上屬于自由裁量的范疇,但此實(shí)非意味著該種沖突的解決就可以全憑恣意。規(guī)則與原則之間沖突解決的關(guān)鍵是重新審視相沖突規(guī)范之間的關(guān)系,使得規(guī)則與原則在統(tǒng)一的法秩序內(nèi)獲得一致。自由裁量從本質(zhì)上看是一種價(jià)值選擇,而此種選擇又必須在統(tǒng)一的法秩序框架內(nèi)進(jìn)行。無(wú)論是何種法律沖突的解決,其基本的思路都應(yīng)當(dāng)是一種"價(jià)值論"。"價(jià)值論"在法律沖突的解決中只提供一種"框架性路徑"。法律實(shí)踐可基于"個(gè)體主觀"的理性判斷來(lái)確定法律之間的優(yōu)先性。于此意義上言,關(guān)于法律沖突解決結(jié)果正當(dāng)性問(wèn)題的討論實(shí)質(zhì)上就是在探究以"論證"代替"證明"的必要性及可行性。誠(chéng)如阿列克西所言,法律論證是普遍實(shí)踐論證的一種特殊形式。因此,從法律論證的角度來(lái)考察法律沖突的解決過(guò)程,將會(huì)更有利于獲得可接受性的結(jié)果。通觀法律沖突解決的三種類(lèi)型,并結(jié)合原則理論的商談性特征,我們會(huì)看到法律沖突的解決在正當(dāng)性上證立的基本要求是融貫性說(shuō)理,具體的方法則有兩種類(lèi)型:形式主義方法和實(shí)質(zhì)主義方法。形式主義方法主要包括語(yǔ)詞和構(gòu)成要件上的邏輯方法,而實(shí)質(zhì)主義方法則有修辭、法益衡量和實(shí)質(zhì)論證。
[Abstract]:The method is to solve the conflict of laws is critical to a small problem, but has not caused enough attention in academic circles. In traditional theory, conflict of laws is a "validity conflict", so the author tries to "the law is superior to lower level law", "simple method is better than the old law" and "special law is superior to the general law" the rules of conflict processing. The principle of Dworkin's theory shows that the framework of the conflict of laws should be understood to go beyond the traditional legal positivism, and should re-examine the value of the level of internal relations between different norms. With the theory of "right from the theory of" turning to "legitimacy" theory, the problem of the method to solve the conflict of laws has gradually become a new research topic. This topic emphasizes the empirical method of open field and uncertainty, but the objective state of the conflict of laws show. With the theory of law of law The structure reveals the intrinsic relationship between the fan and deepening the internal mechanism to solve the conflict of laws, methods types and specific technical problems had become an important research issue. To solve the conflict of laws is the fundamental theory that we used to understand and solve the conflict of law of conflict of laws. In general, understanding the conflict of laws are not only the objective at the same time a valuable space, subjective judgment, resulting in people's understanding is open in structure. From a legal perspective, the legal conflict in show on the effect of the performance of different specifications in the law only on the text of the "form" is not the same, rather than their "essence" in the sense of not investigation on the "substance". The sense of inconsistency relates to the conflict law hidden behind the legislative purpose, therefore needs to be judged from the value and the traditional legal measure. Understanding the law of conflict of laws rules is limited to the level, will be the conflict of laws simply reduced understood as a force of logical conflict, the result is the essence of justice neglected or lost. The principle of theory of conflict of laws between the conflict rules and principles of conflict: the former mainly inspects the different provisions in the composition of different elements. Has the characteristics of simple and easy to apply, so it can be a better balance between efficiency and fairness; while the latter focuses on the different provisions on the protection of legal interests of the different characteristics of the subjective judgment, and therefore more conducive to substantial justice. Applying the principle of theory in the conflict of laws which have special value. Eliminate the conflict of laws for complex process in the normative meaning, principle theory and will not damage (but strengthened) legal equality and consistency (system of Justice). If the law at The solution process is completely dependent on the method of positivism, legal thinking will become a concept of operation. The face under the background of social transformation and differentiation of interests continue to challenge the legitimacy of the law and authority will be seriously affected. In this sense, the principle of legal theory in conflict not only help in the practice of rational implementation of legal system, but also conducive to the maintenance of open empirical method to the moral field. To solve the conflict of laws principles theory provides a new way of thinking in the legal framework. This must take into account the difference between rule and principle, and according to the law linked with various ethical justice values and general. To resolve the conflict of laws need to consider their own norms intention, justice and purposeful problems, and these problems are the last judgment basis. Therefore, the "right when" To solve the conflict of laws must discover the scope behind each of the evaluation rules and their evaluation, and thus to solve the conflict of laws to provide guidance and support. The conflict between the law there are three types, namely "rule v. rule" conflict, "v. principle" and "principle of conflict rules of V." conflict. Law and corresponding theories must reflect this kind of difference, and focuses on system to construct their own methods from two aspects: one is the theory system of rigid method, its focus on rules and rules of the collision to solve the conflict of laws. The other is a system of flexible the method is used to solve the "guiding principles of conflict of the principle of V." and "v. rules" conflict. Based on legal norms between rule and principle, to solve the conflict of ectopic order rules is an important topic theoretically, In order to resolve the conflict rules of ectopic still in the traditional "the law is superior to inferior" rules of conduct down processing, but its connotation and frame of thinking should be different understanding: first, from the view of connotation, the traditional "the law is superior to inferior law" rules is an absolute rule, as long as the two law the rules have ectopic order relations, is the order rules will prevail. In the new methodology, "the law is superior to inferior" rule still applies, but can only be applied to rule conflict level. In relation to the principle of conflict situations, even if required under the law of the principle of the relatively specific, nor will the law principle assert priority. Conflict between the principles need to be solved by measure, and between the principles of priority relationship is not fixed. "Under the law is superior to a law rule There are some conditions, there are also exceptions. From the constitutional review and standardize the supervision point of view, solving the conflict between the ectopic order rules do not necessarily make the order rule priority. Through legal interpretation and demonstration of the coherence of reasoning way, order rules may be ectopic conflict resolution. As for the same class conflict rules the methodology is mainly focus on two kinds of rules: one is "the special law is superior to the general law"; the other is "the new law is better than the old law." "the special law is superior to the common law" (also known as the "priority of special law") for the key to find the most closely linked to the rules. Find this hidden instructions, the judge must be analyzed with value judgment and function. "For the premise of the special law is superior to the common law" rules is that the standard can be determined. From the scope of validity of logical structure and cognitive level special recognition The standard method, there are still some defects. That relationship between the special law and general law of nature should be level. In the application of special law is superior to the common law "rules, the applicable premise of the specification level mainly refers to the" same authority "," the same matters "as well as the specification" "understanding. From a practical point of view," the fundamental general law violations "," cross "conflict resolution rules," point to the existence of the terms "," special consideration "supplement of legal consequences and the value measure of the introduction of" cases, apply special law is superior to the rules of the there may be a special exception. "The new law is superior to the old" (also known as "the first") is another important rule in order legal conflict processing. Its main function is the conflict of value balance between stability and change of law law. "The law is superior to the old law" rules applicable in In the clear standards and applicable law premise. From the aspect of law and order and protect the stability of vested interest point of view, "the new law is superior to the old" rules should focus on new social facts. The legal adjustment both for the fact that before the entry into force of the new law should highlight the protection of vested interest. In exceptional circumstances. "For the new law is superior to the old" rules of course allows the retroactivity, but it should be strictly limited. From the practice of law on the law, retroactive case are favorable retroactivity (light, not retroactive) pure retroactivity, predictability of retroactivity, fill the retroactivity, procedure of retroactivity, important public welfare protective retroactivity, clarify the retroactivity, rationality and retroactive retroactivity. From the old of the above two kinds of rules for the situation is likely to cross, "the new special law and general law of old conflict" and "old and new special law A method of conflict "in the complex scene. In addition, the legal order processing parity rule conflicts still exist some special rules, such as heavier rules, lighter rules," the entity from the old program, from the new "rules" from the old and lighter "rules," the behavior method is better than the referee method "rules and behavior of people to act" method is better than the rules. In the "v. principle" to solve the conflict of value is the basic measure method. The constitution as the domestic law of the highest order, not only provides the legal order of "fundamental values", but also provides it (the basic value) effect strength of all legal order field. In addition, a variety of other laws also contain a standard of value, they will also be condensed into a variety of legal principles. To explore and realize the whole legal order of various legal principles, it must be measured from the value level. In Germany, the Federal Constitution Law court often as a starting point in this premise: the constitutional order is a whole, and therefore must be the value based consistency method to deal with all kinds of conflicts of interest. This view shows that the highest principle of conflict resolution is to realize the constitutional unity, depending on the logic level on the significance of the overall objective however, the essence of the constitution is that it can provide a unified order for the whole country and social life. The conflict between the principle of cross v. rules ", in understanding can restore the principles of conflict, namely: a law principle and another hidden in the rule of law after the conflict between legal principles the supporting role based. Conflicts between principles and rules when it should be whichcomesfirst, which belongs to the discretion in essence category, but this is not meant to solve this kind of conflict can be all by Wanton. Conflict resolution between the key rules and principles is to re-examine the relationship between conflict norms, the rules and principles agreed in a unified law order. Discretion in essence is a kind of value selection, the selection must be done in order to frame in a uniform. Whether it is solved what kind of legal conflicts, the basic idea should be a "value theory". The "value theory" in solving the conflict of laws only provide a framework of "path". The practice of law to determine the priority of the law based on the rational judgment of individual subjective ". In this sense words to solve the problem of conflict of laws, the legitimate discussion is essentially necessary inquiry to" demonstrate "instead of" proof "and feasibility. As Alexy said, the legal argumentation is a special form of universal practical argumentation. Therefore, from the legal theory To solve the process perspective of conflict of laws, will be more conducive to obtain acceptable results. Three types of law throughout the conflict resolution, and the principle of combining theory to discuss the characteristics of the basic requirements in the legitimacy of the Shanghai Li solution we will see the conflict of laws is the coherence of reasoning, specific methods there are two types of methods: formalism and substantive method. The main methods include the formalism of words and constitute elements of the logic method, and substantive methods have rhetoric, legal measure and substantive argument.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D90

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 胡君;原則裁判論[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1648850