正当性刑法解释路径研究

【作者】 杨艳霞；

【导师】 何秉松；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2004， 博士

【摘要】 本文通过对我国刑法法律解释过程的实证考察，使用加达默尔哲学阐释学、维特根斯坦语言分析哲学、哈贝马斯的沟通与对话理论等哲学理论作为分析工具，指出了制约获得正当的法律解释结论的各种因素，提出应从方法和程序两个方面保证正当结论的获得。论文对具体的方法和程序进行了深入研究。 本文的写作目的是希望能在承认解释主体性的前提下，为达致解释的客观性提供技术支持，包括解释方法与规则的支持和程序的支持，以提高解释者解释法律的能力，使法律解释结论获得更高的可接受度。本文希望这种支持适用于所有进行刑法法律解释的主体，而不仅仅是最高人民法院。 论文包括导论和论文主体五章，共六个部分。 导论介绍了选题的原因，选题的意义，本文的创新。 第一章“哲学诠释学与法律诠释学”。本章首先系统梳理了哲学诠释学的发展过程，介绍了各代表学者的主要观点，然后介绍了在哲学诠释学影响下法律解释学发生的变化。本章还讨论了法律诠释学与法律解释学的关系，认为二者互相不可替代。本章重点介绍了哈贝马斯的沟通行动理论，提出应当在法律解释研究中引入哈氏的沟通行动理论。 第二章“刑法解释概论。”本章首先讨论了法律解释的基本问题，包括法律解释的客观性，法律解释的概念、主体、对象、目标等。本文认为法律解释具有客观性，其客观性是一种建立在交谈合理性基础上的相对客观性。对法律解释的主体不应进行限制，任何人都有解释的权利。刑法解释目标问题的实质是刑法解释观，笔者认为解释者应持折衷解释观，即法律客观性与法官主体性相结合，以法律客观性为主的解释观。 根据对正当性法律解释概念的讨论，本文认为刑法解释的研究重点应放在如何中国政法大学博士学位论文正当性刑法解释路径研究保证结论的正当，即合法又合理，而不仅仅是合法上。要获得正当的法律解释，也应当构建理想的对话情境，保证所有参与者的发言权和决定权，并提出应从方法和程序两方面进行细致的研究。 第三章“罪刑法定原则对刑法解释的指导与制约。”本章在深入、仔细地分析罪刑法定原则的内容的基础上，对罪刑法定原则的价值观进行了探讨，并结合对罪刑法定原则与法治的关系的讨论，对刑法解释中几个重要问题进行了初步分析.本章的核心观点是罪刑法定原则兼具保护社会与保障自由双重价值，对刑法的解释也应同时考虑保护社会与保障自由，以实现刑法的目的为最高标准，而不能以“有利于被告”为最高标准.在形式法治与实质法治出现冲突时，应选择形式法治优先. 第四章“正当性刑法解释的方法保证.”本章结合刑法的特殊问题，深入讨论了各种解释方法在刑法解释中的运用.为了获得最正当的法律解释，解释者必须不怀偏见地尝试各种方法，对各种解释结论进行充分的论证，根据个案情况寻觅最妥当、最符合正义理念的解释结论.以此原则为出发点，本章讨论了文理解释方法、历史解释方法、体系解释方法、目的解释方法在刑法解释中的运用，并对文理解释方法与目的解释方法给与了特别关注. 本章讨论了刑法解释中的特殊问题，对刑法解释中长期流行的一些格言提出了自己的看法.本章反驳了“有利于被告”和“只能进行有利于被告的限制解释”的观点，认为不仅应该允许扩张解释，而且法内类推解释也是刑法解释无法避免的.本文还从形式逻辑的角度讨论了反对解释的有效性问题，并提出了不同于传统观点的看法. 本章还讨论了刑法解释中的价值补充和漏洞补充问题. 第五章:“正当性刑法解释的程序保证。”本章从程序方面对如何保证获得正当的刑法解释结论进行了初步研究。本章的研究以哈贝马斯沟通行动理论中理想对话情境的建构为理论支撑，从审判程序、普适性法律解释程序两个方面讨论了具体的程序建构.更多还原

【Abstract】 By studying the process of interpreting Chinese criminal law, this dissertation, based on the philosophical theories such as Philosophical Hermeneutics of Gadamer, Analytic and Linguistic Philosophy of Wittgenstein, the Theory of Communicative Action of Habermas, reviews the factors that confine the finding of appropriate conclusions in law interpretation, it concludes that the approach of getting appropriate conclusions should be ensured both by methods and procedures, which are studied intensively in this dissertation.The aim of this dissertation is trying to offer some technological supports in law interpretation, so as to improve the quality of law interpretation and make it more objective, more widely accepted.This dissertation comprises introduction and main body which consists of five parts.The introduction sets forth why the author ch’ose such a topic and the significance of such a topic as well as the innovation of this dissertation.The first chapter is Philosophical Hermeneutics and legal Hermeneutics. It begins with a systematic exposition of the developing process of Philosophical Hermeneutics and the viewpoint of the representative scholars ,then it presents the changes occurred in legal Hermeneutics.In the light of the viewpoint that there is no law with only one correct explanation, and explanation has the characteristics of subjective and creative, the author attempts to introduce the Theory of Communicative Action of Habermas. This dissertation upholds the view that criminal law explanation should focus on guarantee legitimate but also reasonable . In order to obtain appropriate legal explanation, we should construct an "ideal speech situation" , in which no participator is bereft of rights to speak or decide, and studying from aspects of method and process are indispensable.The second chapter is The General Studying Of Legal Explanation. It discusses the basic problems concerning legal hermeneutics ,such as the objectivity, definition, subject, object and aim of legal explanation. The viewpoints concerning these problems hold by this dissertation are as follows: the legal explanation has the feature of objectivity kind of relative objectivity based on the rationality of communication, the subjects of legalexplanation should not be confined to certain group of people, because everyone should be authorized the right to explain, the answer to the question of the aim of legal explanation actually depends on the philosophy of the outlook which means the combination of the legal objectivity and the judge’s subjectivity, what more the legal objectivity as the leading factor.The third chapter is The guiding and restricting of the principle of "legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime(the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege) " in criminal law explanation. Thoroughly and deeply analyzed the contents of the principle of "legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime ", this dissertation probes into the value of principle of "legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime". The core viewpoint of this dissertation is admitting that principle of "legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime" owns both values of protecting society and freedom. Criminal law interpretation should be set considering both values of safeguarding society and guaranteeing freedom, and be set in aim of carrying out the aim of criminal law itself, not of favoring the defendant.The fourth chapter is The methodical studying on how to find a appropriate conclusion in criminal law interpretation. Combining characteristic issues in criminal law, this chapter deeply studies the operation of various explanation methods in criminal law explanation. To obtain the most appropriate explanation, the explainer must try various methods for each case without bias. Based on the principle mentioned above, this chapter studies the application of literal interpretation, systematic interpretation, teleological interpretation.The fifth chapter is The procedural studying on ho更多还原