法律解释：服从抑或创造

【作者】 武飞；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 司法过程是法学史上一个备受关注的领域，它的复杂性使得法官在裁判的过程中会遇到很多难题，法律解释中“服从”与“创造”矛盾便是其一。法官在法律解释过程中应该扮演一个什么样的角色?法官应严格服从法律还是可以创造性地解释法律，这是长久以来困扰我们的问题。 在司法过程中，对法官而言，服从法律是其职责所在，法治的一些基本原则都从不同角度多方面地表达了对法官服从法律的要求。与此相适应，传统的法律解释客观性理论也要求法官在解释过程中严格服从法律，并为此提供了一系列解释方法，如文义解释、体系解释、历史解释、法意解释等等，以此来约束法官，避免司法的臆断。这种理论随着概念法学的发展走到了到极端。然而，随着时间的推移，传统的客观性理论自身的机械、僵化等局限性逐渐暴露出来。 面对纷繁复杂的社会现实，实在法存在着缺漏已经被司法实践所证实。面对法律的漏洞，法官不能选择拒绝审判，因此法官想要胜任裁判的职责就必须通过创造性的解释对法律漏洞进行弥补。其实，人们对法律漏洞的承认也就等于认可了法官创造性解释法律的权力。对于漏洞的填补，法官通常可以借助于类推、目的性扩张与限缩以及价值衡量等方法来实现，对于纯粹的“超越法律”的“造法”笔者认为不应该属于法律解释的权限。进一步说，在哲学诠释学那里，理解过程中的创造性得到了更充分的肯定。以现代哲学诠释学的观点看来，所有的解释都包含了创造性的因素，被理解对象的意义是要通过理解的过程才得以完成，因此创造性的存在不是个别的，而是普遍地存在于一切理解之中。在司法过程中，法官的创造性解释实现了个案正义也发展了法律。但是，创造性解释大大增加了司法过程中不确定因素，如果这种权力不受限制而任意发展，就可能造成司法专断，法律解释的结果完全依赖于法官的主观因素，这对于法治理论将是彻底的颠覆。 由此，便产生了法律解释中“服从”与“创造”的矛盾。在理论上，“服从”与“创造”的矛盾是源于哲学诠释学与严格法治理论及传统客观性理论的冲突，它是自始存在的；而在司法实践中，这种矛盾主要体现于疑难案件中；而且，具体案件的法律解释中，有时很难划分“服从”与“创造”，因此与其说两者性质不同不如说是程度不同。在普遍意义上，“服从”与“创造”的矛盾也是无法从根本上消除的，但是法律作为一种实更多还原

【Abstract】 In the history of jurisprudence, judicial process draws much attention. There are many difficulties in the judicial process because of its complexities, the antinomy between "obedience" and "creation" is one of them. What part the judge should be? Whether the judge should obey the law absolutely or they can create the law by interpretation, which is our puzzle for long.Judges are required to obey the law in the judicial process, and the principles of the rule of law express the need of obedience in many ways. Accordingly, the conventional objectivity theory requires judges obey the law strictly, providing a series of method, such as literal interpretation, context ,interpretation, historical interpretation, objective meaning interpretation, and so on, to avoid the random decision. However, the limitation of the conventional objectivity theory is exposed with the passage of time. In the face of the complexity of social reality, the inevitability of gaps in law is already substantiated by practice. In spite of the gaps, the judge cannot reject making-decision, the judge have to fill the gaps by creating. In fact, the acceptance of the gaps means the validity of the power of creative interpretation. Judges usually fill the gaps by the application of analogy, teleologic extension and reduction, balance of values. In my opinion, the "gesetze-subersteigende" should not be part of the legal interpretation. In addition, the creativity of legal interpretation is affirmed by philosophical hermeneutics well. In the eyes of philosophical hermeneutics, all the processes of interpretation hold the creativity, the meaning of object come into being by right of comprehending, so, the being of creativity is not only peculiar but also universal. The creative interpretation brings the justice and the growth of law. Meanwhile, the creativity brings lots of uncertainty, if the judge gets the discretion, in all probability he can make the decision arbitrary. It is an overthrow to the rule of law that the result of interpretation depends on the judge’s mind.That is the contradiction between "obedience" and "creation". In the abstract, the root of the conflict is the contradiction between philosophical hermeneutics and the conventional objectivity theory, which is from start to finish. However in the practice, the conflict is更多还原