【作者】 辛雪梅；

【导师】 郑成良；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法学理论， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 理论意义和实践意义法律推理既是关系到法律基本理论的命题，也是关系到法律实践理论的命题，对该课题的研究对我国法学研究的发展和法治国家的建设实践具有重要的理论意义和实践意义。研究法律推理，我们不得不从研究法律和法治的基本命题开始。受西方反思传统法治理论的法律观念和理论的影响，我们一直以来推崇为真理的法律的理性本质、普遍性、一般性、确定性、客观性等法律的本质和特征遭到了前所未有的质疑和挑战，进而法律推理在法治体系中的作用和功能也面临着同样的困境。的确，这些观点为我们研究法律和法治实践提供了多元化的观察视角和切入点，我们有必要重新审视和认识这些基本命题，为我们捍卫法治和法律推理的意义提供坚实的理论基础。改革开放以来，我国法学理论界的研究更多地倾向于法律的宏观命题的研究，随着法治国家建设进程的深入，我们有必要对法律实践及其具体的法律方法论进行深入细致的研究，使我国的法律更具建设性和可操作性，提高我国法律运作和法律实务水平。二、创新点1、体系上的创新虽然部分法学家已经提出法律推理在法律运作的各个阶段都有所体现，但目前学术界一般都将法律推理的研究对象局限于法律适用过程中的法律推理，司法阶段的法律推理成为学术界讨论的热点课题。本文从法律推理对整个法律运作过程中的重要作用和影响及其立法、执法和司法之间的密切的内在联系，将法律推理宽泛把握为立法阶段的法律推理、执法阶段的法律推理和司法阶段的法律推理，并总结归纳出各自的特点。这有利于在动态的法律运作过程中捕捉法律推理在各个阶段所要实现的目的及其相互之间的联系和补充作用。2、视角上的创新本文从西方解构思潮提供的对传统法治理论的独特的反思视角出发，通过研究法律的理性和法律推理、法治和法律推理、法律的形式合理性和法律推理、法律的确定性和法律推理、法律自治体和法律推理等有关法律<WP=50>的基本命题和法律推理的子课题，充分认识了法律推理所蕴涵的法理要义，为法律推理的实践和司法实务方面的制度改革和完善提供了理论基础。三、篇章结构本文分为三个部分，第一部分即第一章在简单阐述法律推理的概念后，主要阐述了法律推理的分类；然后，在此基础上将立法、执法、司法阶段的法律推理分别纳入法律推理的两大分类中，为研究法律运作的不同阶段的法律推理提供了平台；最后，通过对形式主义法律推理观和怀疑主义法律推理观进行分析后，总结出立法、执法、司法各阶段的法律推理的独特特点。第二部分即第二章总共细分为五节，分别论述了法律的理性和法律推理、法治和法律推理、法律的形式合理性和法律推理、法律的确定性和法律推理、法律自治体和法律推理等五个研究子课题。回应了法学界目前非常流行和盛行的反思和解构理论思潮对法治和法律理论的抨击，重新确立了肯定法治和法律推理的作用和意义的法律基础理论方面的坚实基础。第三部分以两章篇幅考察了如何在法律推理的实践过程中通过完善立法制度、法律解释制度、证据制度、法官制度等具体制度增强法律推理的大、小前提的不确定性和偶然性，加大法律推理制度对法治国家建设过程中的贡献度。四、主要观点1、法律推理的分类及其特点本文根据法律和法律推理的密切联系宽泛理解法律推理的基础上，将法律推理分为三个阶段的法律推理，即立法阶段的法律推理、执法阶段的法律推理和司法阶段的法律推理。将各个阶段的法律推理的特点总结为：立法阶段的法律推理是经验主导型法律推理；执法阶段的法律推理是逻辑主导型法律推理；司法阶段的法律推理是逻辑主导经验为辅的法律推理。2、从法律的理性和法律推理关系角度，认为法律的理性包括实质合理性和形式合理性并从实质合理性和形式合理性之间的关系角度可以这样理解法律推理：法律推理的反复运用就等于法律推理的大前提所包含的实质合理性在<WP=51>现实社会中的反复实践，并通过这一过程维护着实质合理性对社会共同体的统治；从法治和法律推理的关系角度，本文认为：第一，法治的内在机理需要法律推理。第二，法治体现的是一种“制度伦理”，法治运行是制度化运作过程。第三，法治意味着忠诚于法律，按照诚实信用的原则对待法律。第四，法律推理能够固定和维护“法律之内在正义”；从形式合理性和法律推理的关系角度，首先将形式合理性总结为如下三种特点：第一，法律制度的形式合理性是以一整套既存的、明确的、内在和谐的法律规范体系为其前提性条件的。第二，法律制度的形式合理性通过逻辑严谨的独立的法律方法——法律推理得出对社会成员行为的法律评价结论来实现。第三，法律制度的形式合理性增强了法律制度的可计算性、可预测性、提高了法律制度的效益；从法律的确定性和法律推理的关系角度，认为法律所具备的相对的确定性足以支持法律推理对法治的作用和意义；从法律自治体和法律推理的关系角度，认为法律推理作为法律自治的法律方法方面的自治性表现，应当有别于伦理、政治、经济等论证方法，遵循独特的法律思维方式。3、法律推理的大前提——法律规范的产生和确定过程可分为两个阶段，即确定法律推理的大前提?更多还原

【Abstract】 First, Theoretical Significance and Practical SignificanceLegal reasoning is a topic that is concerning legal basic theory and legal practice, the research of which is both theoretically and practically significant to the development of our legal study and construction of ruling by law. In order to research legal reasoning, we have to start at researching some basic propositions about law and ruling by law. Under the influence of western anti-tradition legal notion and theory, some essential characters, including legal essences of rationality, universality, generality, certainty and objectivity etc., which we used to hold as truth, have been doubted and challenged. Therefore, the function of legal reasoning would face the some difficulty in the system of ruling by law, too. Surely, these points of view offer us multiple approaches and ways to research law and legal practice and we are obliged to review and understand these basic propositions in order to make theoretical foundation for us to defend ruling by law and legal reasoning. Since China’s Reform, the research of jurisprudence is mostly inclined to legal macroscopical propositions. Together with the flourish of construction of ruling by law, we have to do some deep research about legal practice and legal methodology so as to make our law more constructive and practical and promote the level of operation and business of law.Second, Innovations1. Innovation on System. Although some jurists believe legal reasoning is involved in every stage of operation of law, recent academia mostly still confine legal reasoning in the process of judicature, because of which legal reasoning in the process of judicature becomes a hot topic of academia. This article generally tends to study legal reasoning at stages of legislation, execution and judicature for the sake of the enormous effect of legal reasoning to the whole process of operation of law and the consanguineous relationship of the three. Also this article concludes the characters of the different stage of <WP=53>legal reasoning, which is beneficial for understanding their goals, relations and inter-functions in a dynamic operation of law. 2. Innovation on approach. This article fully elaborates the juristic meaning of legal reasoning by the approach of western destructive thought to traditional jurisprudence and by researching relative propositions and sub-topics of the relationships between rationality and legal reasoning, ruling by law and legal reasoning, legitimacy of form and legal reasoning, definitude of law and legal reasoning and legal autonomy and legal reasoning, which offers theoretical foundation for practice of legal reasoning and reform of institutions in judicial business. Third, Structure of ArticleThis article is separated in three parts. The first part, first chapter, mainly discusses different kinds of legal reasoning after reviewing the concept of it, in virtue of which legal reasoning of legislation, execution and judicature shall be put in different sorts. This serves as the foundation for researching legal reasoning in different stages. Finally, by means of analyzing the notions of formalism and skepticism of legal reasoning, this article summarizes the characters of legal reasoning in different stages. The second part, second chapter, discusses separately five sub-topics of rationality and legal reasoning, rule of law and legal reasoning, legitimacy of form and legal reasoning, definitude of law and legal reasoning and legal autonomy and legal reasoning. At the same time, it refutes the attack towards ruling by law and legal reasoning from destructive thought, which is very popular in legal academia. And it re-establishes the foundation of affirmation of ruling by law and legal reasoning. The third part, the last two chapters, explores how to make perfect the institutions of legislation, legal interpretation, evidence and Justice in the process of practice of legal reasoning, how to strengthen indefinitude and contingency of major and minor premises in legal reasoning, and how to enl更多还原