【作者】 刘翀；

【导师】 龚廷泰；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 法学理论， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 美国传统上是一个以普通法为主要法源的国家,大概从19世纪中后期起,制定法开始发展,经过进步运动、新政和“权利革命”时期,制定法不仅在数量上已臻汗牛充栋之势,而且在地位上也成了比普通法更为重要的法源。制定法的发展同样带来了制定法解释方法的演变。从19世纪中后期到20世纪末,美国现代制定法的解释方法大致经历了从早期平义论到意图论和目的论,再到新文本论的变迁。之后,学者们在理论上建构的制定法解释方法受解释学的本论转向、实用主义哲学思想的影响十分明显,而动态论是这其中的代表。平义论在美国主要指平白意义规则这一解释准则,该准则认为当制定法文字的意义平白时,应拒绝再考虑文本外的其它解释帮助。平白意义规则在美国制定法发展之初曾一度非常流行,其原因既包括它在理论上对解释价值的维护,更涉及到当时对立法能力与司法者角色的认知、主流法学思潮以及普通法与制定法关系等因素的交互影响和作用。平白意义规则存在许多理论与实践上的难题,包括平白意义无法确定,背景无涉的平白意义不存在,荒谬结果的主观性太强,扭曲了法律适用过程,误读了“解释”的性质,无法维护宣称的解释价值等。意图论与平义论相竞争,认为制定法解释的目标在于发现并实施立法者意图。意图论维护并促进着民主、法治与分权等解释价值,在现代语用学兴起后又获得了“言说行为”和“会话含义”等理论的支持。在具体解释技术上,意图论主张运用立法史来发现或推导立法者意图,或者通过搭建法律制定时的背景平台来想象性地重构出历史上的立法者对系争问题将要如何处理的主观思想状态。意图论在解释目标、正当性和解释技术上遭到了许多批判。由于作为主观思想状态的立法者意图概念面临着来自理论上的指责和实践操作上的难题,因而产生了以一般、客观和动态的“目的”概念来取而代之的努力,于是目的论的制定法解释方法兴起。系统完整的目的论解释方法在美国主要是由法律过程学派的哈特和萨克斯提出的。该理论反对传统制定法解释中的平义论和意图论,强调目的在制定法解释中的优先地位及解释者对制定法目的的建构,要求以能最佳实现目的的方式来确定制定法文本的意义,并对解释施加文本规约意义和“清楚陈述的既定政策”的限制。目的论的吸引力在于既赋予解释者更新、发展制定法的任务,以合作者的姿态参与公共政策的生产过程,又竭力避免非民选的司法机关作出争议性的价值判断和政策选择。但新文本论对意图论、目的论允许文本外的材料进入解释过程、解释者的自由裁量权不断扩张的现象十分不满,并在理论与实践两个层面给予了最强烈的反击。新文本论立基于公共选择理论和形式主义的宪政法治观来反对立法史成为解释的对象,反对把发现、实施立法者意图和法律的目的作为制定法解释的目标,认为制定法解释的任务是要确定文字的通常意义并实现文本的融贯。在解释技术上,新文本论者主张根据“普通说英语者标准”,运用语境分析、词典释义、语法帮助和解释准则等语义学方面的手段并考虑制定法文本的体系、结构与制定法的整体等方面的因素来实现其解释目标。新文本论以文本为中心的制定法解释理论在当下的司法实践中颇有声势,是意图论和目的论最重要的竞争者。而无论是平义论、还是意图论和目的论,抑或是新文本论都可以看成是某种基础主义的制定法解释方法,即把制定法的意义与某个单一的基础勾连起来。而以埃斯克里奇为代表的动态论则认为,制定法的解释涉及到解释者随时间经过和情境转换而对政策所作的选择与自由裁量,解释者要回应现实的变化和当下流行的价值观所提出的要求。动态论认为制定法解释需要考虑、权衡广泛范围内的因素,这些因素按照从具体到抽象的次序,分别是文本性的、历史性的和演变性的,它们按照不同的但并非固定的权重存在于解释者的信念之网上,每种因素都会吸引或牵拉着问题朝着符合自身要求的方向去解决,而最终的解释结果只能是各因素合力所产生的结果。动态论的解释方法深受解释学本体论转向、论证理论、实用主义理论等思想的影响,带有明显的实践理性的气质。美国现代制定法解释方法的发展受到多种因素的影响,普通法传统,包括普通法与制定法关系的变迁以及普通法传统中的法官形象及其思维方式等,对理解美国现代制定法解释方法的发展十分关键,而从宏观上看,美国的制定法解释方法呈现出从基础主义到实践理性的变化。更多还原

【Abstract】 Traditionally, common law is the primary source of American law. The movement away from common law and toward statutory law began in the late nineteenth century. After the Progressive era, the New Deal and the "rights revolution", statutes gain dominant position not only in quantity but also as the source of American law. One of results of this shift is the evolution of the methods of statutory interpretation, which has become a hot topic in both academic and judicial circles. From the late nineteenth century to the end of twentieth century, the theories of statutory interpretation went through early plain meaning approach to intentionalism and purposivism, and then to new textualism. Later, the methods of statutory interpretation constructed by scholars in the theoretical level were influenced by thoughts from pragmatism and hermeneutics greatly and the dynamic theory is the most important one among them.Plain meaning approach is mainly about the canon of plain meaning rule in American statutory interpretation, which holds that extrinsic aids should not be considered when the statutory language is plain. The canon had been very popular. Its formation is firstly related with its maintenance of interpretive values and secondly with the interaction among those factors of legislative competence, judicial role, dominant legal thoughts and the relationship between common law and statutes. The plain meaning rule is encountered with many difficult problems, including the plain meaning is hard to ascertain, context-free plain meaning doesn’t exist, absurd result is too subjective, the process of judicial application is distorted and interpretive values asserted is hard to strengthen. Intentionalism is a rival of the plain meaning approach, which holds that the goal of interpretation is to seek and effectuate legislative intent. As a method of statutory interpretation, intentionalism is justified for its maintenance and promotion of the interpretative values, such as democracy, rule of law and separation of powers and underpinned by modern pragmatics. Intentionalism divines actual legislative intent through legislative history and fictional mental state by imaginative reconstruction. Intentionalism is susceptible to critical criticism on its goal, legitimacy and technologies. The consideration of legislative intent should not be developed into a foundational method in statutory interpretation and only a factor worthy of giving weight under the background of practical reasoning. For legislative intent as a mental state facing difficulties hard to resolve, it is necessary to substitute it with the conception of "purpose", which is general, objective and dynamic, so is the rising of modern purposivism interpretation. Purposivism is mainly put forward by Henry Hart and Albert Sacks who are known as leading persons of the Legal process school. This theory criticized the traditional meaning theory and intentionalism in statutory interpretation, emphasized statute’s purpose’s principal position and it’s "attribution" by interpreter, required interpreter to make statute’s meaning certain in a way that would carry out the purpose as possible as he can and exerted restrictions of conventional meaning and "established policy of clear statement" on interpreter. Purposivism is attractive because it allows interpreter to assume the task of updating and developing statutes, participating in the process of public policy production as a cooperator, but without making controversial value judgments and policy choices by the non-elected deciding courts. But new textualism is dissatisfied with the phenomena that extra-textual sources coming into interpretive process and the expansion of judicial discretion. New textualists refuse legislative histories strictly and find theoretical basis for this from the theory of public choice and constitutional formalism and legal formalism. New textualists believe that the goals of statutory interpretation were not seeking and effectuating legislative intent but ascertaining the ordinary meaning and realizing textual coherence. For these goals, the interpreter should put himself into the position of an ordinary English speaker, engage in context analysis, employ semantic tools of dictionary, grammar and interpretative canons and consider the structure and system of the whole statutes. Plain meaning approach, Intentionalis, purposivism and new tetualism are all "foundationalism" in statutory interpretation, which means a theory that identifies a single primary legitimate source of interpretation and adheres to the statutory meaning that source suggests. But dynamic method which is represented by William Eskridge insistes that statutory interpretation involves policy choice and judicial discretion to meet changing circumstance and interpretation should be responsive to current values. According to Dynamic theory, it is necessary to inquire textual considerations, historical considerations and evolutive considerations. Each of them is in our "web of beliefs" and each exercised an important gravitational pull in statutory cases. Dynamic theory are influenced greatly by those thoughts from pragmatism and hermeneutics.The evolution of modern methods of American statutory interpretation are influenced by many factors, common law tradition, especially the changing relationship between common law and statute and the mind-set of common law judges, is the most important one. On the whole, from foundationalism to practical reason is a major trend of the methodology of American statutory interpretation.更多还原