【作者】 侯学勇；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 现代法治精神的基本要求是,任何法律决定、尤其是司法决定的做出都应当具有可证立性,即应当提供充分的理由支持、论证决定的正确性。这一要求导致融贯性理论在法律论证中具有重要地位,融贯是法律论证行为必须满足的一个原则性要求。第一章概述了哲学及法学领域中关于融贯性理论的研究状况。哲学中,融贯论主要在真理观和认识论领域予以讨论。在真理领域,融贯论是对符合论进行批判而发展出来的一种真理观;在认识论领域,融贯论是不同于基础论的一种命题证立方式。新近的基础融贯论将传统上相互对立的理论予以融合,既注重经验性命题在证立过程中的作用,又结合了基础论的理论优势,是一种可能的理论方向。在对法唯实论所坚持的符合论立场进行深入批判的基础上,融贯论在法学领域受到足够的重视。法唯实论主张,某一法律规范之所以有效,在于“该规范为它所处的职业共同体接受为有效的法律规范”这一事实。但是,在性质上不同于事实命题的规范命题的有效与否,难以用符合标准予以判定,而应当在融贯论的立场上予以讨论。法学中的融贯论可以分为法律体系的融贯与法律论证的融贯两种,二者虽然有所不同,但却是相互支持。法律论证理论在最近几十年的迅速崛起为融贯论在该领域的研究提供了广阔的理论空间,学者们关于融贯论的讨论多是在法律论证框架下进行的。第二章讨论了融贯性理论在法律论证中存在的必要性。法律论证的基本属性乃是论证、而非证明,由此而引致,当代司法判决中证立判决结论的正当理由必将是开放的、趋于多元化的,许多法外正当理由将以“法律原则”的合法形式影响司法结论的证立。法律论证的论证属性主要表现在两个方面:一是法律规范本身具有可反驳性的性质,二是法律适用中对主观性因素的充分重视。在微观层面,法律规范在其内容的可改变意义上都具有可反驳性的特征,所以,法律人赖以安身立命的法律知识是一个不确定的体系,那么,理由之间联接关系的融贯程度,对论证质量的高低有重要影响。在宏观层面上,传统法学研究中对“法律是什么”、“法律的本质是什么”此类问题的关注,反映出的是人们将“法律确定性”之心理需求诉诸于某一客观体系的完备,忽视了主体性因素在法律这一社会构造体的重要性,错误描述了法律体系的性质。当代诠释学理论恢复了主体及主体行为的意识形态、社会学、心理学特征对理解行为之影响的正当性,由此,我们在学理上研究判决结论的证立时,一方面要考虑构成判决之主体理由的实在法体系的正当性,另一方面也要考虑上述主体性因素对判决结论形成的影响,这将使我们不得不从对法律本质的关注转向对法律理解之本质的关注。相应地,判断一个法律决定正确与否的标准,也由法律实证主义思维模式下的“分析性”转向整体主义思维模式下的“融贯性”。第三章主要通过对美国法学家Balkin法律理解理论的分析,详细阐述了法律主体在法律理解、法律论证过程中的重要作用,这为我们在法律论证中研究融贯性理论奠定了基本的立场:必须从认识论的角度充分考虑来自于理解主体的主观性因素对法律论证之融贯程度的影响。主观视角下的法学研究是本文应当坚持的一个出发点,它认可关于法律本质问题的研究同样关系到我们理解法律制度时的意识形态、社会学及心理学的状况,法律的融贯不仅是其自身应当具有的一个应然性特征,而且是理解的主体在理解过程中赋予作为客体的法律制度的某些东西。因而,我们对法律是否融贯的追问,必须从“融贯或不融贯的判断是如何产生的”这一问题开始,把法律论证的融贯性理论从本体论立场转向认识论立场。在认识论立场上,对法律的理解应当基于不同目的的需要,采取理性重构或理性解构的不同方式,因此,必须深入批判传统法学理论中的单一内在观点,坚持价值多元主义的真理观。所以,在对法律决定之正确性的证立过程中,决定者的意识形态内容,包括他的政治与道德信念、法律知识结构、以及其他主观认识都应当予以考虑。重视主观性因素对裁判结论之合法性、合理性及可接受性的影响,为融贯性论证中对听众、共识等因素的考虑奠定了理论前提。第四章,我们通过与一致性要求相比较的方式,阐述了融贯性的内在要求及其证立过程。一致性仅指命题之间无逻辑矛盾的关系,它是融贯性的必要条件、但不是充分条件,融贯性还要求多个命题必须胶合在一起、并在整体上产生意义。法律结论的正确性要求一方面指向该结论必须来自于有效的法体系,另一方面要求该结论又必须是合理、正当的。司法决定应当从现行有效的法律规则中推出,所体现的主要是一种一致性意义上的要求;司法决定的合理性来自于支持它的规范性前提的合理性,而该规范性前提的这一合理或公平的性质来自于有效法体系中其他法律规则、判例或者有效法体系外的经验或理性规则的融贯性支持。相对而言,直接根据法律规则推出结论是一种线性证立过程,而考虑多种因素对法律规则的支持则是一种整体性的证立过程。在不同的个案中,理由对结论会形成不同程度的融贯支持关系,因而,融贯性论证具有程度性质。融贯性论证的过程表明,支持法律结论的多样性前提,不但要在事实上形成融贯的相互支持关系,而且要为主体所认知、所掌握,在此基础上,它们对于结论的证立效力才能够为主体所接受,因此,融贯性论证的过程最终落脚于“认知主体对自己信念体系有近似正确的把握”这一假定。对于一些融贯之具体标准的描述,其目的并不在于给出一个关于融贯性论证的具体技术性标准,而在于表明,融贯论在法律论证中并非是一种纯粹“宏大叙事”的理论,而是一种具有“微观论证”意义的证立标准,所以具有一定的现实可操作性。第五章,由于法律论证之融贯状态的实现有赖于“认知主体对自己信念体系有近似正确的把握”,所以融贯性论证具有强烈的个人意识形态特征,由此产生这一理论的三个困难:一是将融贯界定为主体所持有的一种内在状态时,在不同的主体之间可能会产生各自融贯、却又彼此对立的信念体系,如何甄别一个合理融贯的与一个基于偏见而融贯的司法信念体系?二是强调认知主体之内在融贯性的司法信念体系如何反映外在客观世界的发展变化?三是法律领域中的融贯性论证也面临循环论证这一困题。对于这些困难,我们首先诉诸于“共识”这一概念,将具有共识性地位的信念融入司法论证体系之中:共识的经验性质可以克服“融贯性切断了信念体系与外在经验世界的联系”这一指责,共识信念的基础地位可以防止融贯性论证滑入循环论证的泥潭。但是,共识只能在抽象意义上应对这两种指责,一旦言及某一具体的共识概念时,由于它自身的内容会随着社会现状的发展而变化,因而具有不稳定性。所以,应当以程序性规则为保证,通过理性商谈以期使共识所产生的稳定作用最大化。共识缺乏时,也可以通过理性商谈逐渐形成共识。对理性的、程序性论辩规则的遵守,可以为实质性的共识的形成、稳定提供一种理性的保证。由此,我们可以近似地认为,遵守理性论辩规则可以获得一种确定的、正确的实质结论,也就避免了两个截然相反、却又各自融贯的信念体系产生。因此,融贯性论证所面临的困境必须从实质与程序两个维度上寻找解决途径:共识为融贯性论证提供了实质内容的担保,从而使融贯的论证体系与外在世界的发展变化相沟通,同时防止融贯性论证滑向循环论证的泥潭;论辩规则为融贯性论证提供了程序性的担保,使其能够合理地得出。两者必须相互结合,才能够在最大程度上实现法律论证的融贯状态。法律论证必须坚持主观性立场才能实现融贯,这是在承认人类之独立精神的基瓷献龀龅呐卸?应当与中国传统法律文化中对“天理”、“天意”之崇拜心理相区别;融贯性论证所坚持的整体性立场,亦应当与我们固有的集体主义精神相区别;作为一种理想的论证模式,融贯性论证具有批判、检验实践论证的功能。更多还原

【Abstract】 The basic requirement of modern law’s spirit is that, any legal decision, especially judicial decision must have justifiability. That also is, the correctness of decision should be supported by plenary reasons. This requirement brings on that coherence theory has an important position in legal argumentation. Coherence is one of "must" requirements which are principle requirements in legal argumentation.In chapter 1, we summarize the studying status about coherence theory in philosophy and law. In philosophy, coherence theory is talked about in the areas of truth and epistemology. In the area of truth, coherence theory is one truth which developed by criticizing correspondence theory. In the area of epistemology, coherence theory is one justification manner to proposition which is different with foundationlism. In recent day, foundherentism fuses the two theories which are opposite one another traditionally. Foundherentism both pay attention to the role of experiential proposition in the course of justification, and combine the theoretical advantage of foundationlism. And then, foundherentism is one possible theoretical direction.In the base of deeply criticizing to the position of correspondence theory which is insisted by legal realism, coherence theory is attached importance to in the area of law. Legal realism claims that, the reason why one legal norm is valid is the fact that this norm as one valid legal norm is accepted by legal community. But, the validity of normative proposition which differ with factual proposition is difficult to determinant by the criterion of correspondence theory. It should be talked about in the area of coherence theory. Coherence theory in law may be divided coherence of the legal system and coherence in the legal argumentation. These two forms have much differentia, but support one another also. Legal argumentation theory grows up in recent decade’s years. This theory offers widely theoretical space for coherence theory. So, scholars discuss mostly coherence theory in the frame of legal argumentation.In chapter 2, we talk about the reasons why we insist on coherent standpoint in legal argumentation. The basic property of legal argumentation is argumentation, not demonstration. And then, the reasonable reasons which justify judicial judge must be on-limits and plural. Many out-law reasonable reasons which take the form of "legal principle" shall affect justification of judicial judge. The properties of argumentation of legal argumentation represent two aspects. One is the defeasibility of legal norms; the other is importance of subjective factors in the course of legal applying.In microcosmic level, all legal norms are defeasible in the sense of being changeable. And then, legal knowledge is one uncertain system. So, the coherent degree of connection among reasons becomes important factors which affect the quality of argumentation. In macrocosmic level, scholars pay attention to ontological problems traditionally, for example, what is law, what is law’s essence. This reflects that the psychological demand of law’s certainness resort to the maturity of one objective system. This standpoint neglects the importance of subjective factors in the course of understanding law, describes falsely the property of legal system. The theory of hermeneutics makes it renew that it is reasonable that subject and subjective behavior’s ideological, sociological, and psychological property has influence to understanding behavior. This make us think over the follow factors in the course of studying justification to judicial judge. On the one hand, we should consider the reasonableness of positivism law which constitutes the main reasons of judge. On the other hand, we should also consider the influence to judge from the above mentioned subjective factors. So, we have to pay attention to the essence of legal understanding from the essence of law. Accordingly, the criterion which be used to estimate the correctness of judicial judge also turns to coherence under holisticism thinking model from analysis under legal positivism thinking model.In chapter 3, by analyzing Balkin’s legal understanding theory, we state particularly the important role of legal subject in the course of legal understanding and legal argumentation. This establishes our basic standpoint to study coherence theory in legal argumentation, that is, we must consider fully the subjective factors’ influence to the coherent degree of legal argumentation from the view of epistemology.Studying law at the view of subjective is the start place we should insist. This standpoint recognizes that, the study on law’s essence connects our ideological, sociological, and psychological status when we understand legal system. This standpoint recognizes also that, instead of seeing legal coherence as a preexisting feature of an object apprehended by a subject, we should view legal understanding as something that the legal subject brings to the legal object she comprehends. And so, our question closely about whether law is coherent should start from the question that "how the coherent or incoherent judgment come into being". We should turn coherence theory in legal argumentation to epistemological standpoint from ontological standpoint. At epistemological standpoint we should take the different forms of rational reconstruction or rational deconstruction according to different purposes. And then, we should deeply criticize singular internal perspective in traditional jurisprudence, insist pluralistic truth. In the course of justifying the correctness of legal decision, we should consider many factors which include judges’ ideology, politic and moral faith, legal knowledge frame, and others subjective factors. Attaching importance to subjective factors’ influence to the validity, rationality and acceptability of judicial judgments settle the theoretical precondition for thinking about audience and consensus in the course of coherent argumentation.In chapter 4, we explain the internal requirement of coherence and process of coherent argumentation by comparing coherence with consistency. Consistency means merely the no-logic-conflict among propositions. Consistency is the necessary condition, but not sufficient condition of coherence. In addition, coherence demands that many proportions must hang together and bring meanings in a whole. The claim of correctness of legal decision imply that, this decision must be deduced from valid legal system, and that, this decision must be reasonable and fairly. Judicial decision should be deduced from valid legal system, this requirement is mostly demand of consistency. The reasonableness of judicial decision is from the reasonableness of normative precondition. The reasonableness of normative precondition is from the coherent support by others legal rules, prejudication and experience or rational rules out-of-legal system. The course that decision is deduced directly from legal rules is one linear justification process. Comparatively, thinking over the support to legal rules from many different factors is one holistic justification process. In different case, reasons may support decision in different coherent degree. And then, coherent argumentation has the property of degree.The course of coherent argumentation indicates that, the justification force by multi-preconditions to legal decision doesn’t be accepted by subject until both that these preconditions form support each other and that these preconditions are knew and mastered by subject. So, the course of coherent argumentation stops at the supposition that epistemological subject grasps his faith system. The description about the criterion of coherence does not aim at present some concrete technical criterions about coherent argumentation, but does aim at that, coherence theory in legal argumentation does not one pure abstract and unavailable theory, but one concrete and available justification criterion, and then this theory has practical maneuverability in some sense.In chapter 5, we discuss that, the achievement of coherent situation of legal argumentation hang on "epistemological subject grasps his faith system", and then, coherent argumentation has the property of strongly individual ideology. On the base the above mentioned, the theory of coherent argumentation has three embarrassment. The first one is that, how we discriminate between one reasonable coherent judicial faith system and one prejudice coherent judicial faith system? The second one is that, how the judicial faith system which emphasizes the inherent coherence of epistemological subject reflect the development of outer objective world? The third one is that, how to overcome the embarrassment of a vicious circle?Face to these embarrassments, we resort firstly to the concept of "consensus", and absorb the faiths which have the position of consensus into the system of judicial argumentation. The experiential property of consensus may overcome the condemnation of "coherence cut off the relation between the faith system and outer experiential world". The fundamental status of consensus may prevent that coherent argumentation slip into the lair of a vicious circle. But, consensus can only reply to these two condemnations in the abstract sense. In the concrete case, the faith of consensus has the property of instability because that itself content shall change along with the development of social status. So, we should guarantee the function of consensus with procedural rules and maximize the stabilization of consensus by rational discourse. We also grow up consensus by rational discourse when lack consensus. Abiding by rational and procedure discourse rules can offer rational guarantee to the forming and stabilizing of material consensus. Therefore, we may think approximatively that, we can obtain affirmatory and correct conclusion by complying to rational discourse rules, and then avoid appearance of the two faith systems which contrary each other but coherent each one.Face to these embarrassments, we should find answers in the material and procedural ways. Consensus ensures the material content of coherent argumentation and then makes coherent argumentation system communicate with the development of outer world, and then at this time avoids slipping into the lair of a vicious circle. Discourse rule ensures the procedural of coherent argumentation and makes it continue rationally. Both consensus and discourse rule must combine each other and then realize the coherent state of legal argumentation in the most extent.We don’t realize coherence of legal argumentation until we insist on subjective standpoint. This judgment is on the base of admitting to human’s independent spirit which should be distinguished with the adoring psychology to "justice" and "providence" in the traditional legal culture in China. We should distinguish the holistic standpoint which be insisted in the procedure of coherent argumentation with our traditional collectivism. As one perfect argumentation model, coherent argumentation has the function of commenting and checking out practical argumentation.更多还原