【作者】 范春莹；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本文旨在对法律思维进行阐释性研究,即从法学视角通过对法律思维的理论进路、模式、方法和立场的描述和分析揭示思维主体如何带着“关于法律的思考”的认识,根据法律并通过方法的运用解决具体问题的过程。本文尝试在形式主义和实质主义的两种进路和框架下展开法律思维的研究,并坚持将两种进路贯彻本文的始终。本文认为概念法学、纯粹法学和分析实证法学构成了形式主义法律思维的理论基础,涵摄思维模式以及文义解释、体系解释和历史解释是形式主义法律思维的主要思维模式和思维方法;自然法学、社会学法学、现实主义法学等构成了实质主义法律思维的理论基础,类型思维模式以及目的解释、社会学解释和法律续造是实质主义法律思维的常用思维模式和思维方法。就前者而言,当属典型的法律思维。而就后者来说,由于其总是试图寻求法律之外的依据展开思考,对其是否仍能归于法律思维尚有疑义。本文的创新之处在于通过论证将后者也纳入法律思维的范畴。并且通过对两种倾向的法律思维过程的描述性分析和比较性分析,以及对我国的实质主义思维与实质主义法律思维的比对,得出结论认为我国法律人应坚持克制主义的思维立场和形式主义的法律思维方式。实质主义的研究进路扩大了法律思维的研究范围和视野,拉近了形式逻辑的法治与正义之间的关联,体现了法律思维与法律方法研究的与时俱进。这对克服涵摄法律思维的僵化有积极的意义。本文由导论、正文两个部分组成,正文分六章。主要内容和观点如下:导论部分主要对法律思维的研究现状和法律思维研究的意义进行分析,指出目前法律思维的研究不系统、不细致,也不全面。而法律思维的研究不仅有助于我国法律理论研究的深入,而且对我国法律职业共同体的同质性法律思维的养成也助益良多并进而对我国的法治与和谐社会的实现也具有重大意义。这些因素指明了本文研究的正当性和必要性。第一章通过对现有的法律思维的概念和认识进行梳理,廓清法律思维的含义。指出本文关注的法律思维不是思维的心理学、生理学或者神经学,而是在司法领域应用的方法论层面的法律思维。这种意义上的法律思维的内容主要由法律专业知识、职业操作方法、法律思维模式和法律技巧构成。与其他思维相比较,法律思维具有法律性、工具性、保守性、确定性和缜密性的特征。对法学属性的探讨是理解法律思维的又一角度,基于对法学属性的不同认识,思维主体思考法律问题的进路也会不同。同时,这种认识把我们带入本文的第二章。第二章考察法律思维的两种理论进路,指出法律理论在法律思维的过程中,不仅扮演了为思维者提供“前见”以使思考能够顺利展开的角色,而且能够发挥决定思维主体的思维走向和为思考过程提供理论指导的作用。就此,法律思维呈现出形式主义和实质主义两种进路。前者更加注重法律规范的稳定性、确定性、客观性和可预测性,后者则更加注重个案本身的正义性以及法律规范的灵活性和适用性。但后者所获得的结论是可质疑和可辩驳的,因此也是可推翻的。第三章分析法律思维的两种思维模式。涵摄模式是形式性法律思维的主要模式,其强调法律推理的三段论,强调法律结果必然是从法律前提中产生的,就此,该种模式维护了法律的确定性和结果的可预期性。虽然随着理论研究的深入,涵摄思维遭到了诸多批判,但是笔者仍然认为涵摄思维应当是法律思维的主要模式,并且,其实际上也是司法审判中最常用的思维模式。考夫曼立基于哲学诠释学的理论,认为司法过程的思考方式主要是一种类型化的思维。与涵摄模式将概念作为法律分析的主要工具不同,类型思维主要将类型作为法律分析的工具。由于类型思维下的类推是将个案与法律规范的理念型案件进行类比推理,在类推的过程中,有关个案的各种实质性要素以及“事物之本质”的考虑已经渗透其中,因此,本文将类型思维模式视为是实质主义法律思维的思维模式。第四章主要探讨法律思维的解释方法。认为基于形式主义法律思维所追求的法律的独立性、客观性和可预期性目标,法律的文义解释方法、体系解释方法和历史解释方法是维护法治理论的解释方法。而目的解释方法、社会学解释方法和法律的漏洞补充方法则试图沟通法律与社会、法律与道德、法律与政策,将法律看作是实现社会正义的工具,因此其是实质主义法律思维的解释方法。该类方法能够在很大程度上消解法律的严格性和僵硬性,使得法律对社会具有应变性和灵活性。然而本文指出,在法律思维的过程中应用这类方法考察不容易形成共识的实质正义领域仍然有很大的风险,即导致案件的判决有可能蜕变为法官的任意。第五章分析法律思维的论证方法。法律思维应主要是一种根据法律的思维,而且这种思维应是一种理性思维。法律论证方法不仅能够显示法律思维的法律性和理性特征,而且能够最大限度地避免法官的任意。从而在一定程度上既保证法律判决的合法性,又能够保证法律判决的可接受性或妥当性。由于形式主义的法律思维更多地强调思维的“合法性”,实质主义的法律思维更多地侧重思维结果的正义性和可接受性,就此法律论证方法将形式主义法律思维和实质主义法律思维予以融合,使二者并行不悖。这样一来,法律思维在坚守法律独立性和形式性的同时,又能够使法律与外界沟通从而保持一定的灵活性和适应性。第六章旨在对我国法律思维的立场进行确定。虽然不是完全的对应关系,但是大体上来说形式主义法律思维对应着司法的克制主义立场,实质主义法律思维对应着司法的能动主义立场。由于我国传统中的法律思维方式与现代西方后现代主义所倡导的观念有某种暗合,因此,我们国内学者在发现西方后现代理论时,能够很容易地接受并力图发扬光大。具体到法学中的表现就是法律确定性的失落和形式主义思维方式的式微,而强调法律的不确定性、司法能动主义和司法造法的论调却甚嚣尘上。坦率地讲,我国并不缺乏实质主义思维的智识资源,缺乏的恰恰是形式主义的思维方式。因此,坚持克制主义的法律思维立场和完成形式主义法律思维的补课是我国法律思维主体当前的主要任务。最后,在结语部分本文再次提出将实质主义思维归入法律思维的理由,并指出我国现阶段表现出的思维方式更多的是实质主义思维,而非实质主义法律思维。实质主义法律思维的运用不仅有赖于一个良好的崇法环境,还有赖于一个严密的法律制度,更有赖于一个具备职业伦理的法律职业共同体。而目前看来,这些条件在我国尚属稀缺资源。在条件尚不具备的前提下,倡导实质主义法律思维和能动的思维立场可能会使我们重返过去的岁月,而法治也不过是一个遥不可及的幻想。更多还原

【Abstract】 The dissertation aims to explain legal thinking from the perspective of law through description and analysis of its theoretical way, model, method and position to reveal how bodies olve specific problems according to law and through the use of methods, with the knowledge of "thinking about law". This dissertation attempts to carry out the research on two frameworks, that is, formalism and substantive. This dissertation holds that the conceptual jurisprudence, the pure theory of law and legal positivism constitute the basis of the theory of formalism legal thinking, and the mode of subsumtion, as well as direct interpretation, system interpretation and historical interpretation, is the main mode of formalism legal of thinking. However, natural Law, legal sociology and legal realism, etc., constitute the theoretical bases of substantive legal thinking, and typological thinking, as well as destination hermenautics, sociological hermenautics and law continuation, is the common mode of substantive legal thinking. The former is a typical legal thinking. But the nature of the latter is still in doubt because it always seeks basis not belonging to law. This creation of the dissertation is to demonstrate that the latter is also included in the scope of legal thinking and concluds that the lawyer in China should exercise restraint and adhere to the position of formalism legal thinking according to descriptive and comparative analysis of the two trends. The road of substantive research expands the vision of the scope of the study of legal thinking, narrows the gap between formal logic of the rule of law and justice, and reflects the research of legal thinking and method developing with the times. It is meaningful to overcome the rigid legal thinking of subsumtion.The dissertation is composed of introduction and six chapters. The main content and views are as follows:Introduction analyzes the current research of legal thinking and the significance of the research, pointing out that the current study is not systematic, detailed or comprehensive. The research of legal thinking will not only help us to deep the study of legal study, but to form the homogeneity of legal of thinking of our legal professional community. Therefore, it is useful to realize the rule of law and a harmonious society in China. These factors points out the necessity and legitimacy of this dissertation.The first chapter clarifies the meaning of legal thinking. The concept of "legal thinking" here is not psychological, physiological or neurological thinking, but the legal methodology. The legal thinking mainly concludes the legal expertise, legal professional operation, mode of legal thinking and legal skills. Compared with other thinking, legal thinking has the characteristics of law, tool, conservation, care and uncertainty. Another way of researching legal thinking is to study the attributes of jurisprudence. Based on different understandings of attributes of law, there are different approaches of legal issues. The view leads to Chapter II.Chapter II studies two theoretical approaches of legal thinking, pointing out that the legal theory not only plays the role of providing "pre-see" to enable a smooth begainning of thinking, but decides the thinking process based on theoretical guidance. In this connection, the legal thinking shows two tendencies, formalism and substantive. The former pays more attention to the stability, certainty, objectivity and predictability of the legal norms, while the latter pays more attention to the justice of the case itself, as well as the flexibility of the legal norms and applicability. However, the conclusion of the latter could be questioned , rebutted and overturned.Chapter III analyzes the two modes of legal thinking. Subsumtion mode is the main one of formalism thinking. It emphasizes on the legal reasoning of the syllogism, and stresses that the results must be generated from the premise. This mode is to safeguard the certainty and predictability of the result. Although subsumtion has got a lot of criticism, I still think that this mode should be the main one of thinking. In fact, it is also the most common uesed mode in judicial process. Kaufman considered that the main mode of thinking is a typological thinking. Due to the type of thinking under the analogy is the case with the idea of law-case analogical reasoning, and in the process of the case, a variety of substantive elements and "the nature of things" have been penetrated into account, in this article, the type of thinking is regarded as a kind of substantive legal thinking.Chapter IV focuses on interpretation methods of legal thinking. Based on the legal independence, objectivity and predictability goals pursued by formalism legal thinking, methods of direct, system and history help to safeguare the rule of law. The interpretation of purpose, sociology and methods loophole-filling in the law are tools communicating with law and society, ethics and policy and are methods of substantive legal thinking. To a large extent, such methods can be resolve the rigidity of law, making the law flexible. However, this dissertation points out that there is still a big risk to inspect the substantive justice which is not easy to reach a consensus through these methods. That is the case leading to arbitrary of the judges.Chapter V analyzes the argument methods of legal thinking. Legal thinking should be considered as a way of thinking in accordance with the law, and it should be rational. The legal argument is not only able to show the legal and rational features of legal thinging, but also avoid arbitrary. Therefore it not only guarantees the legitimacy of the legal judgment, but also ensures its admissibility or appropriateness. As the formalism legal thinking emphasises more on its "legitimacy", and the substantive legal thinking emphasises more on the justice and acceptability of thinking outcome, the formalism and substantive legal thinking will be integrated by the method of legal argument. As a result, it can uphold the legal form and independence and communicate with the outside world to maintain a certain degree of flexibility and adaptability.Chapter VI aims at Chinese position of legal thinking. In general, the formalism legal thinking corresponds to the position of judicial restraint, and the substantive legal thinking to the position of activism. Because Chinese legal tradition coincides with views of the modern Western post-modernist to some extent, we found that Chinese scholars can easily accept and seek to develop the West post-modern theory. The specific performance is the loss of legal uncertainty and the decline of formalism, but emphasis on legal uncertainty, judicial activism and judicial law-making. Frankly speeking , there is no short of legal knowledge resources of substantive thinking but lack of formalism thinking. As a result, the current task is to adhere to restrained position and legal formalism.Finally, in the part of the conclusion, I emphasizes on the reason of recgonizing substantive legal thinking and points out that most thinking is substantive in China at this stage, rather than substantive legal thinking. The application of substantive legal thinking depends not only a good environment of belief of law , but also depends on a strict legal system and professional ethics of the professional community. At present, these conditions are still scarce resources in China. If we stand up substantive legal thinking and adhere to the position of judicial activism now, we could return to the position of past times and the rule of law is never a distant fantasy.更多还原