【作者】 沈寨；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 当前的法律方法研究都是围绕如何在现有的法律秩序内妥当地进行价值判断以实现裁判的合理性这一问题而展开的。修辞学因其在价值判断上“心证公开”的独特优势而被诸多法学家视为实现裁判合理性的一种可能进路或方法。然而,修辞学对于实现裁判的合理性到底具有多大的意义?它的功能和限度何在?它在法律方法论中究竟处于什么样的地位?我们应该秉持什么样的立场和态度来运用它?等等,这需要我们深入到修辞学的具体理论中来进行细致分析和探讨。虽然我国当前的法律修辞学研究是在西方的影响下开启的,但以修辞学为视角来研究裁判合理性问题并非缺乏中国问题意识。尽管我国与西方法治处于不同的发展阶段,但是我国司法裁判也同样面临着如何实现裁判合理性这一棘手问题。近年来,随着我国社会、经济和文化的发展,我国司法实践中涌现出越来越多的疑难案件,而处理疑难案件的关键是如何妥当地进行价值判断,在我国司法传统缺乏理性思维而惯于直觉思维的背景条件下,从修辞学视角来研究司法裁判问题对于限制司法恣意、规范我国司法价值推理具有重要意义。本文的思路和内容安排如下：导论部分交代了本文的研究缘起和研究意义,介绍了与本文论题相关的研究现状,并说明了本文的研究思路和论述框架。第一章是对裁判合理性的相关基本问题的阐释。近代司法裁判对形式逻辑的三段论推理的极度推崇所导致法律实质正义的缺失促使现代司法裁判转向了对合理性的目标寻求。与传统理性主义裁判观不同,裁判合理性理论非常关注情感、激情和道德等人之主观性因素在裁判中的作用,从而将司法价值判断纳入到了裁判活动之中。正因为对司法价值判断的正视和关注,裁判合理性在对法的确定性诉求的基础上增加了对法的正确性诉求,也就是说,裁判必须在能实现个案正义的同时又能符合现行法。既能实现个案正义,又能符合现行法,这是裁判合理性的内涵,也是裁判合理性所包含的两个基本要求。实现裁判合理性的关键在于妥当地进行价值判断。从价值判断的视角来看,裁判合理性寻求的内在理路可以归纳为：价值判断的客观性——限制主体恣意——给出理由。而以此理路为基准来分析法律现实主义、哈特的自由裁量权理论、德沃金司法整体性原则和法律诠释学等以往寻求裁判合理性的理论进路和方法,我们发现它们虽然都注意到了人之主体性在裁判中的作用,但它们都将实现裁判合理性的希望都寄托在法官一人的“良心”和“理性”这个外界无从知晓的心理“暗箱”上,这是难于保证价值判断的客观性和正确性的。修辞学因强调主体间的论辩而正好将独白式法官进行价值判断的心理“暗箱”彻底打开,从而对裁判合理性的实现具有独特的意义。第二章对运用司法领域里修辞学的相关知识和理论进行了探讨。通过梳理修辞学在司法裁判领域里的嬗变历史,我们发现修辞中的论辩因素对于修辞学和司法裁判具有重要意义,因此在面向司法裁判的修辞学中,修辞的内涵应被理解为“作为论辩的修辞”。根据修辞学在司法裁判领域的历史嬗变来看,面向司法裁判的论辩修辞学,其理论主要包括争议点理论、论题学、图尔敏论辩模式和佩雷尔曼新修辞学。第一章和第二章为本文的基础性内容。裁判的合理性包括了实现个案正义和符合现行法的双重要求,而论辩意义上的修辞学理论主要涉及争议点理论、论题学、图尔敏论辩模式和佩雷尔曼的新修辞学。基于此,下面四章以裁判合理性的两个要求(实现个案正义和符合现行法)为基准分别探讨了争议点理论、菲韦格的论题学、图尔敏论辩模式和佩雷尔曼新修辞学这四种修辞学理论和方法在解决裁判合理性问题上的意义及限度。第三章聚焦于争议点理论的分析和探讨。争议点理论是寻找争辩焦点以进行修辞发明的一种技术。虽然它起源于古典庭辩修辞,但它在当今司法裁判中仍被广泛使用。作为一种论辩框架和论辩技术,争议点理论在裁判合理性寻求上的优势在于它具有论辩性、个案径直适用性、论辩方向和顺序上的指引性以及通过给出理由进行争议等。然而它所具有的描述性特征和只关注于原被告双方之间论辩的特征,使得它在适用于现代司法裁判时表现出一定的缺陷。第四章着力于论题学及其思维的阐释和讨论。论题学思维是个案思维,它强调对个案具体情形的关注,主张在情境理解中寻求问题的定位和解决,这种以个案为意识的问题性思维非常有助于个案正义的实现。然而,论题学把前提作为证立个别判断的基础和依据以及主张通过对所有有助于问题解决的主张和理由进行讨论和争辩之后再来做出解决问题的结论,这在技术和实践上并不能担保裁判合理性的实现。而论题学在裁判中的运用还面临另外一个关键问题,即它如何与体系性思维相融合。从目前存在的解决此问题的三种路径和方法——在开放的体系下论证、类型思维和“动态系统论”——来看,论题学思维与体系性思维的融合虽然可能,但也存在诸多技术性问题,这说明论题学思维的运用对现行法的约束力存在着一定程度的消解,它在保证裁判合理性的实现功能上具有一定的限度。第五章是对图尔敏论辩模式的分析和探讨。图尔敏论辩模式是将评价性因素融入到三段论推理中的一种“程序性”论辩模式。从评价性推论角度来看,“正当理由”、“支援”“反驳”和“论辩场域”等概念的提出,为价值判断进入司法裁判提供了一种具体路径和方法,从而非常有助于个案正义的实现,然而它自身理论和概念的模糊性却使得它所构建的方法和路径存在着很多问题。从裁判适用角度来看,图尔敏论辩模式将注意力主要集中于它的6大构成要素,并将这6个构成要素都当作可以扩充的变量,以此来应对任何复杂程度的法律论辩,这一构想对于理清论辩思路具有重要意义,但是它仅仅是对论辩过程的静态描述,缺乏一套体现、分析和评价论辩动态性、论辩结构以及论辩结论的方法、标准和工具,从而在技术上对解决疑难案件和保证裁判合理性的实现没有太大的实质性意义。第六章是对佩雷尔曼新修辞学的阐释和分析。佩雷尔曼新修辞学把说服论辩作为实现正义和合理性的一种逻辑和手段,并从听众、论辩的出发点和论辩技术三个方面阐释了如何通过说服论辩来保证合理性的实现。从表面看来,新修辞学满足了人们对合理性裁判的所有想象,然而在实际上,新修辞学是一种描述性而非规范性理论,一方面,听众理论在实践上难于保证裁判合理性的实现；另一方面,其论辩方法因为缺乏分析性工具并不完全适合用来解决裁判合理性问题。第三章到第七章是本文的核心内容。第七章从整体角度对修辞学在裁判合理性寻求上的功能和限度进行总结性阐释,并对修辞学运用于司法裁判的条件及其在我国司法裁判中的运用和未来发展进行了分析和展望。通过对争议点理论、论题学、图尔敏论辩模式以及佩雷尔曼新修辞学的细致分析和探讨,我们可以得出,将修辞学引入司法裁判为司法价值判断寻找到了一条可行路径,但因其对情境性因素的强调和缺乏一套评价与分析的工具从而在保证现行法约束和实现个案正义方面表现出相当大的缺陷。由于上述缺陷,修辞学运用于司法裁判时应注重发挥逻辑方法的基础性作用。此外,它在司法裁判中的运用还需以公平、民主的法律制度为条件,因为只有在这样的制度环境下,它才有运用的空间和机会,从而担负起实现裁判合理性的功能和作用。由于在合理性寻求上的独特优势,修辞学在我国也被用来作为解决裁判合理性问题的一种进路或方法。然而,我国在解决裁判合理性问题上所面临的困境与西方不同,这导致修辞学在我国司法裁判中的运用不能像西方那样以反形式主义的姿态来出现,而应特别强调其在价值判断上对裁判主体的任意进行限制和约束的能力。鉴于修辞学在司法价值判断上的独特优势以及对于限制我国法官恣意的特殊意义,在修辞学的未来发展中,我们可使其在法律方法论中处于与逻辑方法相并列的核心地位。而要使修辞学真正成为与逻辑方法相并列的核心地位,面向司法裁判的修辞学理论应由描述性向规范性方向来发展。从我国当前法律修辞学研究的现状来看,要想发展出规范性的修辞学理论,一方面,应注重对论辩过程的程序性探讨；另一方面,应结合我国法律文化的特征,构建出适宜我国的对论辩结构和论辩观点进行合理分析和评价的标准。更多还原

【Abstract】 The study of contemporary legal methodology focus on seeking for a good way of value judgment under the existing legal order which can make the juridical reasonableness achieved. Because of its unique advantages of "make the free valuation open", the rhetoric is taken as a proper approach to achieve the juridical reasonableness. However, how much significance does the rhetoric exactly has for realizing the juridical reasonableness? What is its function and limit? What is its position in the system of legal methodology? What kind of attitude we should uphold when we use it? In order to answer such questions as below, we need to explore the specific rhetoric theories deeply.Although it is under the influence of the western study that we start to engage in China’s current legal rhetoric research, studying the problem of juridical reasonableness from the perspective of rhetoric is not lack of problem consciousness in China. However the levels of rule of law in our country and western countries are in the different stages of development, we also face the hard problem of how to realize the juridical reasonableness. In recent years, with the social, economic and cultural development in our country, more and more hard cases emerge in the judicial practice, and the key to dealing with the hard cases is finding a good way of value judgment. Under the context of lacking rational thinking and favoring intuitive thinking, it is useful for us to limit the arbitrary value and standardize our judicial value inference if we study the problem of juridical reasonableness from the perspective of rhetoric.The framework and content of this article is as follows:The introduction narrates the research origin and the significance of this article, shows the research present situation of this topic, and tells the research train of thought and framework of this paper. The first chapter discusses the basic problems relating to the juridical reasonableness. The high esteem of the syllogism in judicial inference led to the missing of the substantial justice in modern time which promoted the juridical purpose turning to seeking the reasonableness. Unlike traditional activities, the notion of juridical reasonableness pays attentions to the role of subjective factors such as emotion, passion and morals in the juridical activities, which introduces the value judgment into the juridical activities successfully. Because it pays attention to the value judgment, the theory of juridical reasonableness takes the correctness as its fundamentals as well as the certainty, namely, the juridical activities should not only achieve the case justice, but also conforming to the positive law. Not only achieving the case justice, but also conforming to the positive is the connotation and the basic requirements of juridical reasonableness.Seeing from the connotation and the basic requirements of the juridical reasonableness, we found that the key to solving the problem of juridical reasonableness is value judgment. From the perspective of value judgment, the inner logic of searching juridical reasonableness can be described as follows:Judging value objectively——limiting the arbitrary of subjects——Giving reasons. And if we take this inner logic as a benchmark for analyzing the theories appeared before such as the legal realism, Hart’s discretion theory, Dworkin’s judicial integrity principle and legal hermeneutics, we can find that although they have noticed the role of subjectivity in the juridical activities, all of them took the judge’s "conscience" and "rational" which is an "black box" to the others as an approach to realizing the objectivity of value judgment, however, it is difficult to ensure the objectivity and correctness of the value judgment. Rhetoric emphasizes the debate between the subjects, so that it can open the "black box", and can be looked as an alternative of the judge monologue model. Seen from this point, it plays great role in seeing for the juridical reasonableness.The second chapter discusses the knowledge of rhetoric used in the judicial field. After sorting out the historical change of rhetoric which used in the judicial field, I found that the argument factor is of great significance for rhetoric and judicial judgment, therefore rhetoric in the judicial judgment should be understood as "rhetoric" as an argument. According to the historical change of rhetoric in the judicial field, the theories of rhetoric as an argument mainly includes the stasis theory, topic, Toulmin’s argument model, and Perelman’s new rhetoric.The first two chapters are the basic content of this article.The juridical reasonableness covers double requirements of case justice and conforming to the current law, and rhetoric theories in the sense of argument mainly relates to the stasis theory, topics, Toulmin’s argument model and Perelman’s new rhetoric. Based on this, this article will take the two requirements of the juridical reasonableness (case justice and conforming to current law) as the benchmark to explore the significance and limits of those four theories to solving the problem of the juridical reasonableness.The third chapter focuses on analyzing and discussing the stasis theory. Although it originated from the classical court debate rhetoric, it is still widely used in today’s judicial judgment. As a kind of argumentation framework, the advantage of the stasis theory lies in the characteristic of argument, application in the case, the guidance on the order and direction of argument, and debate by giving reasons, etc. But its main shortcoming lies in its descriptive characteristics and only focusing on debates between plaintiffs and defendants, which makes have difficulties in seeking the juridical reasonableness.The fourth chapter focuses on the interpretation and discussion of topic. I firstly illustrate its historical origin and characteristics, as well as its thinking process, and then I analyze its strength and weakness in seeking the juridical reasonableness from the angle of realizing case justice. Finally I study the probability and limit of the merit of topics thinking and the systematic thinking. The topic thinking is a kind of case thinking emphasizing the context of a certain case and advocates seeking for the location and solution of problems, which is helpful to the achievement of case justice. However, it takes premise as foundation and basis of an individual judgment and it seeks to solve a certain problem after discussing all factors related to the problem, which cannot guarantee the achievement of juridical reasonableness. The application of topic on judicial fields also faces another key problem, namely how it integrates with the systematic thinking. Seen from the perspective of the existing three paths and methods to solve this problem——argumentation in the open system, analogy thinking, and "the dynamic system "——it is possible for them to integrate, but there are still many technical problems for them to integrate in practice, which shows that the application of topic will destroy the binding of the positive law,as to cannot guarantee the achievement of juridical reasonableness.The fifth chapter is an analysis of Toulmn’s argument model. It is a "procedural" argument model which brings evaluative factors into the judicial syllogism. Seeing from the perspective of value judgment, the concepts of "warrant","backing""refuting" and the "argument fields" make the value judgment into the judicial judgment, so as to help to the realization of case justice. However, the confusion of its theory and the concepts of makes it appear much weakness. Seeing from the perspective of its application, Toulmin’s argument model focuses on its six elements, and takes the six elements as expanded variables in an attempt to deal with any complicated legal argument, but it is only a descriptive theory. Because of its lacking of a set of analytical and evaluative criteria, it has no much of substantial significance to ensure the realization of juridical reasonableness from the perspective of technology. The sixth chapter deals with the interpretation and analysis of Perelman’s new rhetoric. Perelman’s new rhetoric takes argument and persuasion as a tool for realizing justice and reasonableness, and interprets how to ensure the realization of justice from the perspectives of audience, the starting points and the argument technology. Outwardly, Perelman’s new rhetoric satisfies all the imagination of the juridical reasonableness, however, the new rhetoric is a kind of descriptive rather than a normative theory in practice. It is not suitable for solving the problem of the juridical reasonableness because of the lack of analytical tools.The content of from the third chapter to the sixth chapter is the core of this chapter.The seventh chapter summarizes the whole text. In order to make us have a comprehensive understanding of rhetoric, I discuss the contribution and restriction of rhetoric in seeking the juridical reasonableness on the base of above discussion. As a whole, introducing rhetoric to the judicial judgment is benefit to realizing case justice, but in is not helpful for keeping the binding of the positive law because it lacks of analytical tools. Then I analsize the necessity of logic method to the usage of rhetoric according to its shortcoming in keeping the binding of the positive law. This chapter put forward that logical method pay a essential role in juridical field, and it still has foundational status in the legal methodology. Then I explain the institutional conditions which the rhetoric needs, and point out that the application of rhetoric in the judicial field should take a fair, democratic and legal system as the prerequisite. Finally, I show the usage of rhetoric in our country judicial field, and look forward to its future development.Due to its unique advantages on seeking the juridical reasonableness, rhetoric has also been used as a approach to solving the problem of juridical reasonableness in our country. However, the difficulties which we are facing in dealing with the problem of the juridical reasonableness are from those in western countries, which leads the application of rhetoric in our country cannot appears with the attitude of the anti-formalism like the west. We should strengthen its funciton on the value judgment and restrictions of arbitrary specially. In view of its unique advantages in the value judgment and the special significance to the limit of arbitrary in our country, we can make it stay in the core position of legal methodology as well as the logic method in its future development. But if we really want to make it stay in the core position of legal methodology, the rhetoric theory should transform from the descriptive theory to the normative theory. From the point of the current status of the legal rhetoric studies in our country, in order to develop a normative theory of rhetoric*on the one hand, we should pay attention to explore the process of argumentation; On the other hand, we should set out a set of reasonable analytical tool and evaluative standard for argument on the ground of our legal culture.更多还原