【作者】 焦海博；

【导师】 范进学；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 为了回应理论上“法律是工具还是目的”的争论,更为了回应中国实践中法律要“服务大局”的社会主义法治理念这种新法律工具主义,本文选取了最为发达同时也最为典型的美国工具主义法律观作为主题进行研究,以期透过美国工具主义法律观的历史与现状,得出一些对中国法律而言有益的启示。本文包括导论、正文两部分,正文部分分为六章,主要内容和观点如下：导论部分。介绍了选题的缘由、研究现状、研究意义和论文的写作思路。所谓美国工具主义法律观,首先,它是一种法律观点的统称；其次,它更多的是一种对待法律的态度而非法律理论。从历史过程上讲,美国工具主义法律观经历了起源、早期、衰落、复兴、当代新发展几个阶段,且未完结。正文部分。第一章,论述了美国工具主义法律观的缘起。美国早期法律文化的主流是非工具主义法律观。18世纪,美国人对普通法的理解是一种传统性理解,到19世纪,对普通法的科学性理解占有主导地位。在法院对从英国继受而来的普通法进行改造时,一种功能性对待法律态度开始出现,使得法官面对因迥然异于英国的美国独特环境产生的新奇问题进行了有效处理。但是,伴随着19世纪末、20世纪初美国社会的急剧变革,人们对普通法的固有理解使得普通法遇到了危机：不仅表现在普通法变得难以有效处理社会出现的新问题,更表现在之前为推动美国社会发展作出巨大贡献的法院系统频频对立法工具宣布无效而成为阻碍社会进步的反面力量。为了重新拉近法律与社会的距离,一种法律的工具主义改革率先从立法领域中兴起,它主张将立法作为处理社会新问题的工具。第二章,论述了美国早期的工具主义法律观。继立法领域兴起工具主义法律观之后,普通法领域陆续展开了对形式主义法律观的批判,工具主义法律观得以在美国20世纪上半叶逐渐兴起。以古典实用主义哲学作为智识来源,早期法律工具主义者以霍姆斯为开创者,以卡多佐、庞德、卢埃林等为跟随者。虽然他们的法律思想是有区别的,但是他们都主张将法律视为达到一定目标的工具。此外,伴随着联邦最高法院对罗斯福新政立法立场的改变,联邦最高法院的工具主义审判观也确立了起来,且一直持续了下去,进而影响到整个司法界。第三章,论述了美国工具主义法律观的衰落与复兴。由于二战的影响,早期工具主义法律观受到人们的广泛谴责而陷于了短期的衰落。法律过程学派兴起并成为美国20世纪50年代主流的法律理论,它对法律现实主义进行了回应,试图在形式主义法律观与工具主义法律观之间作出调和。可是,这种调适最终失败了,它的信条受到了沃伦法院的致命打击。在20世纪60、70年代社会动荡的时代背景下,在法律精英由团结走向破裂的法律界背景下,在相对主义盛行、广泛质疑气氛浓厚的思想背景下,之前处于衰落状态的工具主义法律观得到了复兴,并从20世纪70年代开始盛行于整个法律界。那一时代受到工具主义法律观训练的法学院学生,成为了当代美国社会中各式各样的法律人。当代美国主流法律理论和法律实践都深深受到了这一时代的影响而带有此时代持久的印记。第四章,论述了工具主义法律观在当代美国法律理论中的体现。法律的经济分析、批判法律研究运动、法律与社会发展运动、法律实用主义、形式法治理论等等,在根本上都对法律持有工具性的视角：法律的经济分析将法律视为社会财富最大化的工具；批判法律研究运动将法律视为政治统治的工具,其两个延续性流派种族主义批判运动和女权主义批判运动分别将法律视为种族压迫的工具和男性统治的工具；法律与社会发展运动以工具主义法律观作为经验研究的假定前提,自治型法向回应型的转变是为了更好的发挥法律工具的作用；法律实用主义其实并不是什么新鲜的东西,它对法律同样持有工具性的观点；形式法治理论的两大代表人物富勒和拉兹都对法律持有工具性的观点：富勒将法律视为空洞的容器,是可以用来服务于任何目标的工具；拉兹将法律看做是中立性的工具,就像刀子一样既可以用来切菜也可以用来杀人。此外,即使不属于上述任一阵营的法律学者,也基本上都持有工具主义法律观。当然,非工具主义法律观也继续存在着,但对于以无穷尽怀疑为特征的现代社会来讲已经太晚了。第五章,论述了工具主义法律观在当代美国法律实践中的表现。工具主义法律观已经在法律实践中完全释放了,为了控制、影响法律工具以增进自己的利益,法律的每一个竞技场上都在上演着激烈的斗争。司法实践中,由于法官个人的意识形态往往决定着司法判决,法官的意识形态因素受到重视。为了确保与己方意识形态一致的法官作出对己方有利的判决,围绕法官选任的斗争无论是在联邦层面还是在州层面都在激烈的进行着。律师实践中,法律职业危机与工具主义法律观关系紧密,两种意义上的工具主义法律观处处体现在律师执业中：第一种意义上,律师是达成当事人目标的工具；第二种意义上,律师工具性的操作法律。立法与行政实践中,工具性质的公共选择理论大行其道,各利益群体积极通过金钱赞助、游说渗透等手段试图影响立法者制定对己方利益有利的法案、行政官员采取对己方利益有利的规制。作为最具野心、最典型的工具主义法律观表现形式,公益诉讼试图通过法院的判决来实现社会改革。众多代表各利益群体的公益诉讼组织基本上都采取同样的战略来实现其改革目标。这些组织都声称自己是为了公共利益,但实际上它们是在致力于为实现自己所代表的利益。第六章,论述了美国工具主义法律观之评价与启示。美国工具主义法律观的核心观点就是视法律为达成一定目标的工具,而非目的本身。其具有三大特征：首要特征是重实质而轻形式；第二个特征超越主客二分、自然法与实在法之争的价值理论；第三个特征是对法律后果的关注。它对美国法律产生了重大影响,成为美国法律文化的显著特色。美国工具主义法律观是一把双刃剑,有其优点,亦有其负面作用。中国法律工具主义与美国工具主义法律观相比较而言,既有共同之处,又有显著区别。无论你赞成还是反对,对待法律的工具主义态度俨然已成为现代法律的命运。从没有“高级法背景”的中国法律实际出发,我们的选择只能是：以世俗的眼光看待法律,以经世致用的态度运用法律,以民主的方法制约法律；其次,工具主义法律观也是以维护法治而非瓦解法治为出发点,中国新法律工具主义的出现与运用已成为主导法治建设进程的重要事实,我们对待它的立场应该是大力开发、有效限制,而非一味批判。更多还原

【Abstract】 In response to the debate of "The law is a means or an end "in the theory, more a response to the new legal instrumentalism of the law should to serve the overall interests in China’s practice, In order to draw some useful inspiration in to the Chinese law through the history and current status of the American legal instrumentalism, we selected American legal instrumentalism as the theme which is the most developed, but also the most typical. This article includes introduction and text, the text part is divided into six chapters, and the main content and perspectives are as follows:The section of introduction. This patr introduces the cause,research status, significance and writing ideas of the topic.The so-called American legal instrumentalistm, first of all, it is collectively referred to as a point of law; Secondly, it is more of an attitude towards law rather than legal theory. From the sense of the historical process, the legal concept of instrumental experience several stages and it’s not end.The section of text. Chapter I discusses the origian of the American legal instrumentalism.Following the transformation of the common law which come from England, a legal attitude of functional treatment began to appear, making the judge deal the novely problems effectively when facing the unique environment of the United States which different from the England.But, face of the rapid changes of American society in the late19th, early20th century,the common law suffered a serious crisis, and even became an obstacle to social progress.To solve this crisis, an instrumental reform of law broke out in the United States,which advocated that innovative the concept of commom law and used instrumental view of law to replace the formalistic view of law. This reform narrowed the distance between law and society,it’s is the first to rise from the area of legislation, arguing that the legislation as a tool to deal with social problems.Chapter Ⅱ discusses the early American legal instrumentalism. Following the rise of the instrumental view of law in the area of legislation, common law field has been launched criticism of the legal formalism, the instrumental view of law to be rised gradually in the last half of the20th century in the United States. Classical philosophy of pragmatism as an intellectual source of the early advocates of legal instrumentalists to Holmes for the pioneers, Cardoso,Pound, Llewellyn, the follower. Although there are differences between their legal thinking, they all advocated the view that the law as a means to achieve certain goals. In addition, along with the Federal Supreme Court to change the position on Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation, the instrumental view of trial established, and continued down, thereby affecting the entire judiciary.Chapter Ⅲ discusses the decline and revival of the American legal instrumentalism.Due to the impact of World War II, the early instrumental view of law trapped in short-term decline because of the widespread condemnation by people. Legal process thought represented the mainstream consensus view of law within the legal academy in the period from the Realists through the1970s. The legal process tried to mediate the debate between legal formalism and legal instrumentalism,which approach accepted many of the insights of Legal Realism while offering answers to its most threatening implications.Unfortunately,the decisions of the Warren Court could not be squared with basic legal process tenets. In the background of a massive social upheaval in the United States,the absence of objective moral foundations and the popular of moral relativism,and a widening schism among the legalelite-the leaders of the bar,judges,and legal academics,which uesd to be enjoyed a bond of solidarity. by the1970s, the view that law is in essence an instrument had won ov er the legal academy. Since the1970s,when the instrumental view of law infused the legal academy,law students have been trained to see law as purely an instrument.These are the lawyers of today.The main theories of law circulating today within the U.S.legal culture,the views of law professors,judges,and practicing lawyers,took root in this period of turmoil, formulated by law students or new law professors in the1960s and1970s.Chapter Ⅳ discusses the American legal instrumentalism in theories.Almost all of the major theoretical and empirical perspectives toward law that circulate today characterize law in fundamentally instrumental terms. The economic analysis of law,critical legal studies and the irprogeny,the law and society movement,legal pragmatism,and the formal version of the rule of law,each in central respects builds its understanding around the proposition that law is a means to an end. The economic analysis of law argued that law is an efficient means to designated ends which can maximizing wealth. CLS portrayed law in thoroughly instrumental terms that law is politics. Critical feminists paint law as an instrument that enforces and maintains a male supremacist social order,and Critical race theorists emphasized that law is an instrument that reproduced the structures and practices of racial domination. Sociolegals cholars adopt a thoroughly instrumental understanding of law that showed up in different forms. They argued that modern law is in the process of evolving to a higher legal form through a greater orientation toward instrumentally achieving social purposes. Legal pragmatism is noting more fresh that its insights had long ago been absorbed by the legal culture. Most legal theorists adopt the "formal" version of rule of law. Law,according to Fuller, is an empty vessel,a tool that can serve any ends. Joseph Raz argued that like other instruments,the law has a specific virtue which is morally neutral in being neutral as to the end to which it the instrument is put. The law is a tool like a knife,which can be used to slice vegetables or to kill people.The non-instrumental view of law still remained,but it is late in the day of the exhausted skeptical modern age. A majority of legal academics do not identify with any one of the the oretical approaches to law discussed above.,but they share a common component:All construe law in fundamentally instrumental terms.Chapter V discusses the American legal instrumentalism in practices.The instrumental view of law has been fully unleashed in the practice of law which is everywhere reflected in the legal profession and legal education.In judicial practice, judges wield inordinate power to shape social life and have decisive say over major political and economic issues,and a judge has substantial scope to inject personal views into legal decisions,then it is imperative to populate the judiciary within dividuals who share your ideological views.Because of ideology determines how judges interpret the content of law,so fight to ensure that the judges share your ideology is very important,the battles surrounding the appointment or election of judges is precisely what we see today at all levels of federal and state courts. In lawyering practice,the cirsis of the legal profession is related to the instrumental view of law,which is reflected in the legal profession in two ways:First of all, the core of lawyering is a means(lawyer)-ends(client) relationship;Secondly,many lawyers see the practice of law instrumentally as a means to their own enrichment and wield and manipulate legal rules and processes to further their personal ends. In legislative and administrative practice,a school of though tcalled "public choice" theory swept through political science and law in the1980s and1990s,to become the leading framework for analyzing legislative and administrative activities. Needless to say,this is a purely instrumental view of law.A sophisticated and hugely expensive effortis made by private interests to influence the legislative and administrative apparatuses of the government for their own benefit through money,lobbying,and so on. Cause litigation which represents a commitment to litigation as a tool for social change. The attempt to change society through court rulings is among the most ambitious forms of legal instrumentalism.The propensity of interest groups to utilize litigation to advance their agenda,and they are merely making this claim to cover the pursuit of selfish interests.Every claim to be acting to further the public interest is as good as any other.Chapter Ⅵ discusses the evaluation and enlightenment of the American legal instrumentalism. has three characteristics:first, the weight of the substance rather than form; beyond subject and object, the value theory of natural law and positive law dispute; third, the concern on the legal consequences.The U.S. legal instrumentalism has three characteristics:first of all, the weight of the substance rather than form; secondly, the value theory beyond subject and object, and natural law and positive law dispute; last, it concerns on the legal consequences. It laid the foundation for the substantive feature of American law,and became the important characteristic of the contemporary U.S. legal culture. At the same time, it also had a profound impact on the contemporary legal theory and legal practice of America. The U.S. legal instrumentalism is a double-edged sword.It has some advantages,but also has negative effects. There are similarities and differences between China legal instrumentalism and U.S. legal instrumentalism. Whether you agree or not,an instrumentalism attitude to the law has become the fate of the morden law. Because of the reality that there’s no higher law background in China,our choice can only be:with Secular vision towards the law,practical statecraft attitude to the law,and democratic method to restricting the law. In addition, the instrumental view of law is to uphold the rule of law rather than collapse of the rule of law as a starting point. The new China legal instrumentalism has become an important fact that it dominants the process of legal constructionwe, we should advocate vigorously and limit effectively rather than critical blindly.更多还原