德沃金法律阐释理论研究

【作者】 邓巍；

【导师】 贺卫方； 文正邦；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 面对二十世纪中叶美国社会因为主流道德遭受冲击,政府统治与法律所陷入的正当性危机,德沃金重新思考“法律是什么”的问题,试图通过重塑主流道德,维护自由主义作为美国主流政治思想的地位。应当看到,“法律是什么”在西方法律思想史上是一个基础性的理论问题,对于它的不同回答展示了不同的历史背景和不同的理论逻辑。作为一个当代的自由主义者,德沃金要解答的“法律是什么”问题是由自由主义的内在逻辑困境所导致的法律与道德之关系问题。这便不能不涉及古典与现代政治哲学的对比。通过对比可以发现,由于古典政治哲学致力于为实现善这一最高目标而设计最佳政治制度,所以,关于政治与法律的讨论也是在这种最佳意义上进行的,远远高于是否正当这一层次。现代自由主义开创了全新的权利话语,以正当取代善,关涉行为正当的道德成为个人自主的事务。因此,人们可以凭借自身的道德信念质疑国家政治活动的正当性,包括法律。法律与道德之关系问题归根结底在于法律的正当性基础问题。在这一问题上实证主义法学的观点在英美占据着主导地位,他们坚持法律是价值无涉的,主张法律与道德相分离,而仅以由立法程序或惯例所确认的承认规则作为法律的基础。实证主义法学所讨论的这种意义上的法律基础更多地只涉及到了形式正当的问题,严格说来,还不能等同于法律的正当性基础。事实上,现实之中的人们无法将法律的形式正当,即有效性与实质正当等而视之,也很难如实证主义法学所鼓励的那样做到一边严格守法,一边自由批判。黑人民权运动明确提出个人拥有基于自身道德信念不服从法律的道德权利,便是最好的例证。因此,法律的正当性基础无论从理论上讲还是从实践上看,都要依赖于道德。这构成了德沃金整个理论建构的基点。相比于这一基本观点的确立而言,如何实现为法律赋予正当基础的问题便成为关系该主张能否确立的前提。德沃金的法律阐释理论所要解决的正是这一前提问题。德沃金在建构法律阐释理论的过程中受到了两个方面的启发。一方面,受古代经典中的理念说以及基督教垄断神圣经典诠释权的历史事实的启发,德沃金将阐释的关注点集中在了如何将抽象理念的形式结构在具体语境中加以落实,从而建构一条现实化雕。由此,他希望为整日争论不休却又浑然盲目的现代人送去方法论的指导。另一方面,自由主义所面临的巨大现实危机促使德沃金深入思考道德多元格局如何保持平衡与稳定的问题。从中他选择通过主流道德的重塑作为化解危机的关键。因为主流道德可以抵抗道德虚无,维护道德多元格局的稳定。有了主流道德所提供的共识作支撑,法律即可获得坚实的正当性基础。因此,可以说,面对特定历史条件下的古老问题,德沃金以一个自由主义者的立场,既挖掘古典,同时又努力在自由主义的框架中解答着自由主义自身的困境。德沃金的法律阐释理论以概念与概念观为基本理论工具。概念即共识,它可以作为人们继续深入讨论的平台。概念观则是在这一平台上生发出的更加具体的观点。尽管概念观可以各不相同,但其论证说服力却有一个判定标准。德沃金认为,对于政治概念与法律而言,最佳的概念观是最具有道德说服力的。就此而言,每一个法律争论都有一个唯一正确答案。为了防止出现阐释对象不统一的情形,德沃金为阐释方案的成立设置了一道门槛检验,即符合检验。同时,又为这些合格方案之间的竞争设计了一个最佳者得以胜出的检验,即证立检验。这两项检验既保证了阐释对象的统一,又使阐释始终都在沿着越来越好的方向发展。通过这种阐释,德沃金将人们的道德追求活动引向了主流道德的塑造之上。当然,德沃金的这套法律阐释理论离不开人们积极进行的包含有道德因素的法律争论。只有这种争论所证明的人们尚未完全放弃、且仍在继续的道德追求,才可使德沃金的这套关注于如何正确进行法律争论、如何实现道德目标现实化的理论获得用武之地。因此,德沃金眼中的法律实践是由人们的这种法律争论所构成的,它的焦点在于法律的正当性基础。通过对关键问题的把握,德沃金驱散了一直迷惑人们视线的错误问题,即某些学者与公众一直纠缠不休的法官发现还是发明法律的问题。当把德沃金的法律阐释理论适用于关于宪法问题的讨论时,所涉及到的便是整个政制的正当性问题。对于自由主义的民主国家而言,这种正当性意味着在国家权力与个人权利之间划定正当的分界线。德沃金对此问题的处理体现了他中间偏左的自由主义立场,即一方面强调个人权利优先于国家权力,另一方面也主张国家权力为了维护国家整体利益可适当干预公民个人生活。德沃金关于堕胎问题的讨论可算作一个对此的示范。此外,国家凭借强力施予个人以义务的正当性问题也是法律正当性问题当中的应有之义。在德沃金的阐释框架内,阐释性的角色义务证成了法律强制的正当性。最后,德沃金通过他对于民主的新型理解,既回应了人们有关法官职能与地位的质疑,又为法律的争论设置起了大的政制背景。这种民主观强调每一个公民的道德成员资格,以此作为构建整体的人民的前提,进而最终实现国家之所欲即人民之所欲。因此,在这种人民广泛同意基础上所进行的政治法律活动都是正当的。德沃金的整体性法律阐释理论从属于美国当代自由主义的理论工程,这一工程试图在多元道德并存与冲突的世界里寻找对立各方的共处之道。德沃金不能求助于任何形式的道德独断与道德权威,他只能在达至人们道德共识的方法上做文章,以此作为解决法律正当性问题的唯一可能途径。就德沃金所处的特定时代来看,他的这一理论目标及其具体的建构成果都具有相当的问题针对性与实践指导意义。德沃金本人对此充满自信。本文以自由主义的理论困境,即法律与道德之关系问题及其在美国特定历史条件下的具体呈现,作为分析德沃金法律阐释理论的切入点,在此基本问题上,清理德沃金法律阐释理论的内在逻辑发展线索,以揭示其理论本身的特殊内涵、创新价值及实践指导意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 When American government and legal system fell into legitimacy crisis in the middle of 20^th century because the mainstream morality was dramatically impacted, Dworkin has to rethink "what law is " and trys to rebuild the destroyed mainstream morality in order to defend liberalism as the ruling political theory in U.S.A. It must be minded that "what law is " is a foundermental question in western legal theory history, to which different people has given different answers with their different views on historical background and theoretical logic. As a contemporary liberal, Dworkin is confronted with the law-morality question which derives from "what law is" because the inherent logical predicament of liberalism has made this transformation. By comparing classical and modern political philosophy, it’s easy to see that since classical political philosophy concerns devising the best political system in pursuit of the sovereign goal: goodness, their discussions of politics and law also accords with it. Evidently, law’s legitimacy question is beyond the scope of classical political philosophy and wholly attracts the concern of modern liberal theorists, because in modern liberal logic, legitimacy takes the priority over goodness and people independently dominates their moral lives, which means they can question the legitimacy of community and its law simply in accordance with their inner moral beliefs. Therefore, law-morality question is at the bottom a question of law’s legitimacy grounds.Legal positivism gives their answer to this question as a ruling theory in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, ie. law is value free and law ought to be detached from morality. Legal positivism provides the rule of recognition for law’s ground which has been admitted by law-making procedures or conventions. Strictly speaking, the law’s ground in this mean can not be equal to law’s legitimacy ground for it mainly relates to formal legitimacy. In fact, people in reality feel hard to equally treat law’s formal legitimacy and essential legitimacy, and can not obey law, at the same time freely criticize law just as positivism has encouraged them to do. The civil movement in 1960s has given a good example because Martin Luther King holds that everyone has the right of disobedience just on the basis of their moral beliefs. So, law’s legitimacy ground depends on morality no matter in the terms of theory or practice, which constitutes the basis of Dworkin’s whole theory. But a more important question is how to provide legitimacy ground for law, which determines the above claim can or can not be established and becomes the only task of Dworkin’s law interpretation theory.Dworkin’s law interpretation theory mainly concerns two questions. The first, how to realize the abstract idea’s formal structure in special context and build up a path by which the abstract moral goal is able to be made real, by which Dworkin tries to make methodological guidance for people who are keeping quarrelling but don’t know how to correctly do quarrel. The second, facing the real crisis of liberalism, Dworkin has to think how to keep the plural moralities at stableness. He finds the key to this question lies at mainstream morality, because mainstream morality is able to defeat moral nihilism, keep plural moralities at stableness and cast solid ground for law’s legitimacy with the support of consensus provided by mainstream morality.Dworkin uses concept and conceptions as his basic theory tools. As some consensus, concept works as a platform, from which the more specific views can derive. Dworkin gives two tests for every interpretive conceptions, one is fit ,which can guarantee people’s interpretations pointing at a same project, the other is justification, which can chose the best interpretation by comparing each conception in the terms of moral compelling. In Dworkin’s theoretical logic, a right answer is unavoidably to be produced. Certainly, if law interpretation can be put into practice, it must has a premise that people’s law issues includes moral considerations, because only this kind of legal issues demonstrates that people’s moral-pursuing activities are still going on and Dworkin’s law interpretation theory, which concerns how to correctly discuss law and how to realize moral goals, can therefore be of actual effect. In fact, Dworkin holds that people’s legal practice is just constituted of this kind of issues.When applying Dworkin’s law interpretation theory to the issues about constitutional questions, the legitimacy question of political system has to be considered. The legitimacy question in this sense means to demarcate community’s power and people’s right. Dworkin’s answer emphasizes people’s right prior to community’s power, and at the same time admits power to properly interfere people’s private lives only in view of the whole interests of community. Dworkin’s discussion about abortion issue may well be a demonstration. Dworkin’s law interpretation theory also covers how to correctly think obligation and democracy, which constitutes his new view on democracy. According to this new view on democracy, what community desires is just what people desires, so, all the political activities including law based on this consensus are legitimate.Dworkin’s law interpretation theory subjects to the theoretical project of modern American liberalism, which aims to find an approach to properly accommodate plural moralities. To do that, Dworkin can’t appeal to moral authority or moral dogmatism of any forms and has to find possible method that leads people to moral consensus. In Dworkin’s view, the question of method is the real key of law’s legitimacy. He feels confident of the goal in his theory building and his whole law interpretation theory.This essay puts Dworkin’s law interpretation theory in the logic context of liberalism and chooses the inherent predicament of liberalism as Dworkin’s basic question. By examining the logic line in Dworkin’s law interpretation theory, this essay aims to make plain the special content, creative value and practical guiding effect of it.更多还原