【作者】 戴津伟；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 第一章阐释了论题学思维含义及其在法律领域的复兴。论题学思维是体系性思维弊端逐渐暴露的情形下发展起来的,按照体系性思维,既有的法律体系已将各类概念和规则都排好了秩序,我们在应用法律时只需按图索骥,找到相应的法律规范,对号入座,就能得出结果。体系性思维隐含着如下前提：首先,法律体系毫无遗漏地涵盖了所调整领域的全部问题,所有案件都能在法律体系中找到答案,其次,法律体系内部不存在相互冲突现象,每个问题都对应单一明确的法律规定,无需再求助体系外的社会目的和法律后果等考量因素。法律体系不可能完整无遗,势必得运用类推等方法解决法律没有直接规定的问题。法律规范之间的冲突需要运用解释和辩证推理予以协调,这都涉及到理解和论证,这就涉及到理解和论证的方向问题,论题亦随之进入法律领域。总之,法律体系的不完美性必然会导向论题的应用。1953年,德国法学家菲韦格发表了《论题与法律》一书,提出了“论题学思维”这一概念,第一次将论题方法提升到思维方式的高度。论题学思维是以问题为导向的思维,当一个提问有两个以上的可能性答案时,便构成了一个问题。在这种情形下,论题学思维意在帮助我们如何在进退两难的情况下做出妥当选择。由于面对的是可能性质的选择,我们很难找到确定无疑的公理作为依据,而只能寻求被普遍接受的观点作为论证的前提,论题也由此引入问题思考程序。然而,论题学思维并不绝对排斥体系,不管从哪个角度思考,都需要引入意义关联对问题予以定位,当这种意义关联被排列成一定秩序后,体系随之产生。即使是论题学思维,也不可避免地使用体系性因素。在明确了体系性思维和论题学思维的关系后,我们面临着如何对体系和论题两种因素进行融合,法学家力图从以下两个方面做出努力,即在开放的体系中论证和从概念到类型转变。第二章阐述了西方的论题思想传统。在古希腊,亚里士多德提出论题是被公众普遍接受或少数智者认可的意见,从而可以作为辩证推理的大前提。在古罗马,西塞罗认为论题是发现论证的位置所在,能提示我们从哪些方面展开论证,因果、类比、定义和正反等常见的关系类型都能起到提示论证方向的作用,因而也是生活中最常见的论题。在中世纪,论题通过经院辩证法得以流传下来。近代以来,随着科学主义思潮的兴盛,作为或然性论证方法的论题逐渐式微,进入二十世纪,随着修辞学的复兴,论题理论也重新引起了人们的重视。在佩雷尔曼的新修辞学理论中,论题通过两种方式发挥作用,一方面作为共同接受的价值判断命题,发挥着推理论证起点的作用,另一方面,佩雷尔曼以论题为基础,提炼了一系列论证型式,作为论辩说服的逻辑工具。金泡因特和沃尔顿等非形式逻辑专家从日常论辩实践出发,将常见的论题用逻辑模式予以表述,并配以相应的批判性问题,形成了系统的论证型式理论。第三章阐释了论题学视野下的法律解释。在本体诠释学中,我们的理解都是以前理解或者说前见为基础,前理解赋予了事物以问题意义,指引出我们将从哪些方面着手进行理解,本质上具有论题的属性。每种法律解释方法,比如文义、历史和体系,提示一个解释视角,对应一种类型的解释论据,我们能据以展开理性论证来证成自己的解释观点。从这个角度看,解释方法也具有论题的功能。正是论题在前理解和解释方法之间起到沟通作用,从尚不清晰的前理解出发,不断地在事实与前理解之间来回观照,最后形成确定性的理解,并通过解释方法予以正当性证成。第四章论述了论题在法律论证中的功能。与推理相比,论证意在使人们认可特定观点是正当的,对当前问题而言是妥当,可以说,论证都围绕着特定的问题展开,具有明显的论题学思维属性。总体而言,论题在法律论证中的功能体现在两个方面,在法律论证实践中,论题是构建法律论证的重要方法,能提供法律论证的大前提、论证的模式和据以展开对话论辩的框架。在法律论证的重构中,由于外部证成处理的是大前提的正当性问题,不可避免地涉及到合理性判断,具有不确定性,无法通过演绎三段论予以重述,而论题作为可能如此但并不必然这样的或然性论证方法,恰好能契合上述要求,能作为重构外部证成的有效手段。第五阐释了判例法的论题属性。判例法是依据司法裁判逐步演进的法律,具有很强的个案裁决色彩,体现了以问题为中心的论题学思维。判例法体现为法官意见的形式,一条判例规则在大多数情况下具有合情理性,但并不必然如此,能否得以适用还得接受具体案件的检验,这样的或然性意见本质上就是论题。由于判例法没有统一的构成要件理论,什么样的案件构成实质相似,人们难免从不同的层次和角度出发展开论证,意见分歧比大陆法系国家更为显著,需要通过论辩达成共识,论辩也因此成为判例法的重要传统。从深层次而言,这与判例法的或然性意见属性是分不开的,正是其作为可能性质的大前提,给法律论辩留下了充足的空间。遵循先例到底遵循的是什么一直是判例法中争论不休的问题,一直没有确定的答案。遵循先例有时遵循的是确定的判例规则,有时会对判例规则做适当的变通甚至规避,先例所提供的只是推理论证的进路,有时则兼具这两方面的功能。如果将判例法视为论题,当论题作为合理的普遍接受意见时,所起到的就是提供规则作为推理前提的作用,当论题作为论证型式时,又能起到提供分析论证进路的功能,因此,从论题的视角考察判例法的运作,能够展现遵循先例原则的完整内涵。第六章以欧陆的法律发展史为线索,阐释了论题和体系如何相互交替,在法律演进中发挥作用。在古希腊,受思辨传统的影响,人们更关注抽象的正义问题,而欠缺对法律的专业性思考,加之修辞演说风气的兴盛,智者学派们通过摆弄诡辩技巧颠倒黑白,混淆是非,诉讼的成败经常不在于在法律上是否站得住脚,而是看法庭演说是否成功地控制公众的情绪。为了扭转修辞论辩的风气,亚里士多德发展出了内容严谨、逻辑性强的辩证论题,以此展开论证便能提升论辩的理性内涵。遗憾的是,亚里士多德的论题理论并没有在当时产生多大影响。古罗马的法律实践具有浓厚的个案裁决色彩,彰显了论题学思维属性。然而,这并不意味着论题方法在古罗马得到了充分应用,古罗马的法律欠缺统一的概念和明确的规则,司法活动是极具灵活性的裁判艺术。西塞罗试图通过定义和类比等论题规范法律适用,增强逻辑内涵,然而,西塞罗的论题思想在那个时代也没有得到应有的重视。到了中世纪,欧陆的法学家们在复兴罗马法的基础上,利用经院辩证法中的论题技术对当时混乱的法律进行了系统整理,形成了统一的法律概念。正是中世纪的法学家们通过论题方法对法律进行规范化和系统化的整理,给后世的法律体系构建打下了坚实的基础。近代以来,受理性思潮的影响,法学家们开始以科学方法处理法律问题,用数学方法构建法律体系。这一时期的法学家们提炼出为数不多的第一性原则,以此为基础,层层演绎,推导出相应的法律规则,到了《德国民法典》,体系化的方法达到了极致。事实上,再精深严谨的法律体系,未经解释,很难直接应用,而一旦涉及到法律解释,立法者的目的、法律概念的含义、法律后果等内容都将成为考虑因素,目的论题、定义论题和因果论题也随之加入进来,利益体系和价值体系正是在法律演绎体系走到极端的情况下为了寻求“开放性”思考而发展起来的。第七章阐释论题方法在部门法中的应用,论题学思维学围绕问题展开全方位的探讨,只要是与问题有关的,都有可能被考虑在内,这样的思考难免具有分散性,不可避免对法律的规范性造成冲击。类型方法和动态系统论恰好能解决这方面的矛盾,类型在理解法律概念基础上,侧重整体直观的规范性评价,既能开放性地考虑相关的要素,又不至于无所限制而陷入随意。动态系统论则打破传统的构成要件理论,确定一类法律问题所需考虑的因素,每个因素背后都有对应的评价原理,这些因素之间具有互补和可替换性,遇到具体问题时需要对这些因素予以综合权衡,关键还在于整体性评价。这一理论试图构建涵盖原理与评价标准的动态协调系统,多少又有向体系回归的味道,只是这里的体系绝非完整的演绎法律体系,而是类型体系与价值体系,且局限于层次很少的灵活系统,整体而言仍属于以问题为中心的论题学思维。更多还原

【Abstract】 Chapter One deals with the content of the topic thinking mode and its renaissance in law. The topic thinking mode developed after realizing the defects of thinking based on the system. According to the later thinking mode, the legal system has make proper orders for all concepts and rules within it, what we have to do in applying law is to find laws related and make reference from it. There are premises implied in the thinking mode based on the system:first, the legal system has covered all the problems in the field without missing anything. Second, there is no conflicts within legal systems, every problem has a single corresponding rule, it is no need for us to resort to social purposes and legal consequences as deciding factors. There are inevitable loopholes in legal system which we should by methods such as analogy inference to solve the problems that the law has not stipulated directly. The conflicts of legal norms can be resolved by interpretation and dialectic inference which are inevitably related to topics. In a word,the imperfectness of legal system leads to the use of topics.The Germany jurist Theodor Viehwegwrote the book named "Topics and Law" in1953, he promoted topic as a mode of thinking for the first time. Topic is an art of thinking which takes its orientation from a problem. Then, what makes a problem? When there are plural probable answers for a question, a problem arises. Topics makes their function in helping us make suitable choices in dilemma situation. For the choices we are in confront of are probable, it is hard for us to find absolutely true axioms as foundation, so we should makes views which are generally accepted as the starting points of argumentation, then, topics are involved in the thinking process.However, the topic thinking mode does not absolutely reject learning thought system, no matter thinking from which angle, we all need meaning association to take orientation of problems, when these meaning association arranged as certain order, legal system arises. Even the topic thinking mode cannot get out of the systems. After make the relationships between the topic thinking mode and the thinking based on system, we are in confront of the problem on how to integrate the two thinking mode, the jurists have make great effects on argument in open systems and make turn from concept to type.Chapter Two expounds the topical tradition in western countries. Aristotle raised topics as opinions accepted by the public or the wise which could be taken as premise of dialectical inference. Cicero considered topic as the position where we could find argumentation that would tell us from which directions argumentation came, cause and effect, analogy, definition along with positive and negative are all relationships which can tell the directions of argumentation, so they are common topics in our life. In the Middle Ages, topics went down through canonist dialectics. Since the modern times, with the development of the thoughts of scientism, as probability reasoning method, topic gradually declined. In the twentieth Century, along with the revival of rhetoric theory, the topic also aroused people’s attention. Topics worked through two modes in Perelman’s new rhetoric theory, on one hand, as commonly accepted value propositions, topics make starting points in reasoning, on the other hand, Perelman refined a series of argument schemes on the base of topics, as the logic tools of argumentation and conviction. Informal logicians such as Kienpointner and Walton expressed the common topics in the logic form from daily dialectical practice, then matched them with the corresponding critical questions,which formed the systemic theory of argument schemes.Chapter Three explains legal interpretation the perspective of topic. In the ontology of hermeneutics, we understand on the basis of pre-understanding, which signs significance to object and guides out the respect from which we will understand, essentially has the topic of the property. Each legal interpretation methods, for example, the context requires, history and system, suggests a explain perspective, corresponding to a type of argument, which we can open rational argument to justify his explanation viewpoint. From this perspective, explain method also has the function of the topic. It is the topic plays a role in communication between pre-understanding and the explanation methods, the pre-understanding is not clear at the start, we constantly make adjustment according to fact and former understanding back and forth, eventually it forms the certain understanding, and through the interpretation method to make it legitimate.Chapter Four expounds the functions of topics in legal argumentation. Comparing with inference, argumentation aims at make conclusions accepted with proper reasons which sound reasonable to the problem involved, so it always carried out around particular problems that reflects the characteristic of the topic thinking mode. Overall, the function of topics in legal argumentation is reflected in two aspects, first, the topic makes important methods in constructing legal argumentation, it provides major premise and argumentation schemes and the frame of dialogue and debate. In the reconstruction of the legal argumentation, for the external justification deals with the legitimacy of major premises that inevitably involves rational judgement which makes its uncertainty, so it is impossible to restate by syllogism. The argumentation based on topics is a presumable method which stands probably to be but not necessary that meets the demands above, so it makes effective means to reconstruct external justification.Chapter Five explains the topical character of the case law. The case law system developed along with the judicial activity, which has strong characteristic of individual decision, so it typically represents properties of the topic thinking mode. The case law embodies in opinions of judges that sound reasonable in most cases but not necessarily so, whether a precedent would be applied depends on checks in particular cases, these probable opinions lie in precedents have the character of topics. In lack of uniform component theory, what elements can make two cases essential similar is sill uncertain, it is inevitable for them to make argumentations from different angles and levels, thus, dialectic becomes an important tradition of the case law system.Making a deep analysis, it is tightly related to probable character of the case law system which has left rich space for legal argumentation.What means "stare decisis" is full of controversy in case law system which has no definitive answer for long time. Sometimes, it means to follow the rules supplied in precedents, while, the precedents only provide approaches for inference and argumentation at other times,then it still has two functions above in some cases. If we take precedents as topics, when topics are generally accepted opinions, they can function as major premises for inference which were taken as rules in legal cases, when topics are argument schemes, they can provide analysis approaches for us. In a word,considering the working of precedents from the perspective of topics can expound the complete meaning of the "stare decisis" principle.Chapter Six explains how topics and systems functioned in the evolution of law alternatively while taking continental European legal history as a clue. In ancient Greece, affected by the speculative tradition, people are keen on issues such as what makes justice, lacking of professional consideration on law. Along with flouring of rhetoric, the Sophists made confusions on purpose by using sophisticated skills. Under this circumstance, the result of a lawsuit was not based on law, but depended on whether one could manipulate the emotion of audiences. In order to convert such situation, Aristotle developed his topic theory that had rigorous contents, so that the argumentation basing on it would getadequate rational connotation. Unfortunately, this theory did not have enough effect on rhetoric practice including judicial speech. The judicial practice in Rome has deep characteristic of individual case decision which embodied the topical thinking mode fully. While this did not mean that topical methods were used amply in that period, for the Rome law was in lack of unified concepts and clear rules which led to flexible judicial art. Cicero tried to developed topics such as definition and analogy to regulate legal method and improve its logical content, but his topic theory was also not gained due attention.During the middle ages, the European jurists used the scholastic dialectics especially topical methods to make systematic arrangement and form unified legal concept from the legal confusion in the Renaissance of Rome law, It is the standardized and systematic treatment of legal material done by the medieval jurists that lay a solid foundation for later legal system construction. Since the modern times, influence by rational thoughts, jurists started to use scientific methods to deal with legal material, especially using mathematical method to construct the legal system. The jurist in this period extracted a few primary principles, then made deduction step by step to derive corresponding legal rules, the German civil code makes the extreme of the systemized way. In fact, no matter how rigorous and profound a law system is, it is difficult to apply it directly without explanation, and once legal interpretation is involved, the purpose of lawmakers, the meaning of the legal concept, legal consequences will be considered factors for us, the purpose, definition and causal topics are then added, while the interests system and value system were developed in the background of extreme deducing system in order to seek "open" thinking.Chapter Seven expounds the application of topic in the departments of law, for the topical thinking mode take consideration revolving round certain problems, what relating to the problem all may be taken into consideration, so it is hard to avoid dispersed in such thinking, which inevitably in confronts of legal regulatory impact. The type method and dynamic system theory are just developed tocan solve suchcontradiction, in the understanding of the legal concept, the type method focuses on the overall intuitive normative appraisal, which can open to related factors, preventing unscrupulous consideration. The dynamic systems theory breaks the traditional elements method, determing factors that should be take into consideration in certain type of legal issues, each factor embodies corresponding evaluation principle, these factors are complementary and alternative with each other, we should make balance between them when we are in confront of certain legal issue,the key still depends on the overall evaluation.This theory attempts to construct the coordinated control system which covers principles and evaluation standards, then,it will have to return to the system to some degree, but the system is not complete deduction system, but the type system and value system, which limited to rare hierarchy flexible system, overall still belongs to the problem centered topical thinking.更多还原