【作者】 王彬；

【导师】 谢晖；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 对于法律解释本体论转向的研究趋势,本文采取了本体与方法在法律解释中相统一的研究立场,以司法为中心视角,从认识论、政治哲学和方法论三个角度对法律解释本体与方法的张力问题展开了系统研究。本体与方法的张力问题具体分解为:在认识论上为法律解释主观性与客观性的张力问题;在政治哲学上,这一问题在权力分立的宪政体制下表现为民主与法治的张力问题;在方法论上,这一问题则呈现为科学思维与诠释学思维的张力问题,这也是本文研究的三大问题。第一章:本章通过考察解释学对法律解释研究的影响,确立了全文的分析框架和逻辑起点。西方解释学研究经历了从作者中心、读者中心向文本中心的重心转移,经历了方法论解释学、本体论解释学和方法论与本体论相统一的解释学的范式转换。通过对解释学知识谱系的考察,本章认为本体论与方法论的统一立场为相对合理的解释学立场。通过考察解释学对法律解释研究的影响,本章对本体论解释学在法学研究中的运用路向、在法律解释理论中的运用意义、可能与限度进行了评价,而主张本体论与方法论在法律解释研究中的统一。法律解释即是本体又是方法,本体与方法的张力始终保持在法律解释的过程中,而使法律解释呈现出一系列辩证的特征。第二章:本章在理论范式的层面上对方法论意义上的法律解释学及其基础进行了勾勒和描述,从而确立了全文批判的靶的。方法论意义上的法律解释学意在建构一种“科学”意向的理论体系,具有科学主义的认识论基础、三权分立的政治哲学基础,以及法典化的法学基础。方法论意义上的法律解释学在具体操作层面上,以客观主义为解释立场,以逻辑涵摄模式作为法律适用模式,从而展现为“解释+演绎”的特征。在认识论基础上,这一理论范式以主客二分为认识图式,在解释目标上追求传统自然法和法律实证主义意义上的客观性。无论是自然法思维还是法律实证主义思维均是一种割裂精神与存在的实体法概念论,诠释学思维通过关系本体论对实体本体论的法概念论进行了批判,在精神与存在的关系中重新界定法的概念,从而引起了法律方法论的革新。在政治哲学基础上,方法论意义上的法律解释学则是通过启蒙运动中的政治哲学思想进行奠定的,这表现为三权分立的分权原则、多数至上主义的民主前提以及法律至上权威的维护。在解释学转向的背景下,方法论意义上的法律解释学在认识论、政治哲学和方法论上均陷入困境。本文在以下的章节中对法律解释的认识论困境、政治学难题、法律解释方法论自足性的问题进行系统探讨。第三章:在解释学转向的背景下,方法论意义上的法律解释学在认识论上的困境得以呈现,即法律解释主观性和客观性的悖论问题。这一困境在哲学上是真理符合论在认识论上的困境,其实质为自我中心困境。解释学转向影响下的法律解释理论对法律解释的认识论困境采取了超越的态度,这又具体表现为:立足于历史的宏大视野、主张法律解释应当随解释环境与时俱进而采取相对主义法律真理观的动态实用论;立足于个案审理的微观语境、主张法律解释应当整合多元视界、追寻法律唯一正解而采取绝对主义法律真理观的整体融贯论。对此,本文认为,哲学诠释学对法律解释认识论困境的超越是有限的,尽管其对方法论意义上的法律解释学形成强大的批判力,但是其无法为法律解释的效力提供有效的标准。对于法律解释的认识论困境,应当采取非唯实论的理论进路,从而实现法律解释有效性和客观性的分殊,法律解释的有效性是通过融贯性、共识性和客观性来共同保障的,因此,法律解释的客观性只能是在具体制度和程序中实现的交谈意义上的客观性。第四章:在解释学转向的背景下,在具体宪政体制的运行中,法律解释本体与方法的张力成为各种政治价值的较量,解释学转向造成立法意图的破灭形成了对传统分权逻辑和民主价值的挑战,从而法律解释中本体与方法的张力在政治运作的过程中展现为民主与法治(司法)的张力。在美国的宪政语境中,这一问题则具体体现为宪法解释的“麦迪逊困境”,在这一问题上出现了司法消极主义和司法积极主义两种司法哲学的对立。对此,本文拒绝非此即彼的态度,而主张温和的司法积极主义立场对这一难题进行缓解。西方的法律解释理论对传统民主价值进行了重新解读,为缓解这一难题提出了不同的理论进路,具体表现为:伊利的程序性民主与司法监督理论、德沃金的合宪性民主与道德解读理论、波斯纳的精英式民主与实用主义审判理论、哈贝马斯的协商式民主与程序主义司法理论。本文认为对于法律解释的政治学难题很难通过具体的法律解释技术进行解决,采取本体与方法相统一的立场,我们不能赋予法律解释方法过多的使命与担当,在对法官保持充分信任的前提下,对其提出说明判决理由的论证义务,同时通过文化整合力的公共领域对司法进行有效监督,又要通过制度和程序的渠道合理释放民意,实现民主和司法的良性互动。在中国语境下,对于解释学逻辑和普通法逻辑的暗合并不能作为否定我国制度逻辑的理由,而是应该在尊重和维护宪法的前提下,肯定立法解释权在政治、制度和实践上的合理性,同时通过一系列的制度措施赋予法官能动性的司法解释权,并实现司法解释权的自我约束以及司法解释权和立法解释权的合理分配。第五章和第六章主要是在解释学转向的背景下,对方法论意义上的法律解释学所主张的法律解释方法和法律适用模式进行诠释学式的反思与重构,同时对法律解释方法论的自足性问题进行批判和解决。本文主张在本体与方法相统一的解释学立场上实现诠释学思维的方法论转化,即通过对科学主义法律方法论的批判,确立诠释学的法律解释方法论。第五章:本章运用诠释学和语言哲学的知识资源,对方法论意义上的法律解释学所主张的文义、体系、历史三大解释方法进行了哲学上的反思和司法操作上的重构。文义解释是对法律语言的语用意义进行阐明,而非进行辞事相称的语义学解释,文义解释应该坚持类型化的法律思维方式;体系解释的解释学循环过程是解释者前理解结构参与下的理解过程,体系解释所依赖的法律体系势必是需要解释者进行价值评价的开放体系,体系解释的目标则由法律文本的协调性走向解释者价值评价的融贯性,要求解释者采取一种建设性的解释态度;通过效果历史原则和独断解释原则重构历史解释,历史解释的目的在于通过对立法历史的批判性运用,探究立法过程中规范价值的当下意义,通过对民主命题进行重新解读,我们可以为动态性的历史解释进行辩护。通过对法律解释方法的诠释学反思,本文主张超越基础主义的法律解释,在法律论证的理论框架下和具体宪政体制的制度语境中重新理解法律解释的不确定性和排序难题,并对法律解释的方法进行价值重估。第六章:司法三段论作为方法论意义上的法律解释学所主张的法律适用模式是经典三段论在法律思维中的运用,以法律命题的公理化、法律语言的精确性和案件事实的客观性作为逻辑前提,其实质是法律思维中事实与价值的二分。通过对自然法和法律实证主义的休谟问题进行检讨,事实与价值的二分法在法哲学的层面上遭遇崩溃;立足于事实与价值相交织的诠释学立场,法律适用的诠释学模式主张法官目光在事实与规范之间的流连往返。在本体意义上主张事实与规范之间的解释学循环并不具备操作性,而应当将事实与规范之间的解释学循环吸收进方法论中来,因此,事实与规范之间的解释学循环关系并不足以形成对司法三段论的否定,而是形成了对司法三段论的超越。通过将法律发现和正当化过程的二分,通过类型思维实现裁判规范的塑造是外部证成的任务,从而三段论演绎推理在内部证成中仍发挥着重要作用。对法律解释方法和适用模式的诠释学反思利于我们对法律解释方法论自足性问题进行澄清。更多还原

【Abstract】 As Chinese legal hermeneutics influenced by western hermeneutics, the standpoint and paradigm is used in legal interpretation study. With the transformation from methodology to ontology in western hermeneutics, the relationship between ontology and methodology in legal hermeneutics becomes a hot topic, interpretive turn happens in legal interpretation study. The paper takes the standpoint of combination between ontology and methodology in legal interpretation, and the perspective judicial center, and from the three aspects of epistemology, political philosophy and methodology. Therefore, the relationship between ontology and methodology in legal interpretation can be divided in three respects: the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity on epistemology, democracy and rule of law on political philosophy, scientific thought and hermeneutic thought on methodology.The first chapter mainly set up the analysis framework and logic stating point for the paper, by summarizing the influence of hermeneutics on legal interpretation study. The transformation happens in western hermeneutics from writer center to reader center and to text center, from methodology to ontology and to combination between methodology and ontology. So the paper takes the last standpoint as the analysis framework, evaluates the approaches, significances, possibilities and limitations of hermeneutics used in legal interpretation theories, and draws the conclusion that the interpretation is not only methodology but also ontology, the tension between them makes legal interpretation has much paradoxical features.The second chapter describes the methodology paradigm of legal interpretation. The paradigm is prone to set up scientific theoretical system, and based on the epistemology of subject-object dichotomy, the power-divided political philosophy and the jurisprudence of code, which connected with objectivity legality and determinacy of law respectfully. In the paradigm, subjective and objective interpretation are two different kinds of standpoint, actually, both of them are objective interpretation on the judicial standpoint, because both of them seek for legislator’s will in legal interpretation. Therefore, the paradigm takes the objective standpoint and subsumption application as its application model on the operational aspect. In the epistemology, the paradigm asserts the objectivity of natural law thought and legal positivism. Natural law appeals to metaphysical entity and takes the form of objective interpretation; legal positivism takes law as some psychological and societal fact, so takes the form of subjective interpretation. Both of them are entity ontology on legal conceptions, hermeneutics criticizes them from the relation ontology. In the political philosophy, the paradigm based on power-divided principle, majoritarian democracy and supreme legal authority. As interpretive turn happens, the paradigm is dropped into the predicament in all three aspects.The third chapter analyzes the predicament in epistemology and provides solutions to it. The predicament is caused by the paradox between subjectivity and objectivity. The paradigm is the truth correspondence theory in philosophy, and the predicament is self-center difficulty. Legal interpretation theories influenced by interpretive turn tries to surpass the predicament. The dynamic statutory interpretation theory asserts that legal interpretation should not be based on foudationalism and be developed with the circumstance changing from the grand historical perspective. The global theory asserts that legal interpreter should integrate multiple horizons and seek for the only right answer for law under the perspective of concrete case. The paper asserts that the solution provided by philosophical hermeneutics is much limited. To that problem, we should distinguish validity from objectivity and understands the legal interpretation objectivity from the perspective of conservation.The forth chapter mainly discusses the political predicament of legal interpretation. In the framework of constitutional system, legal interpretation exists as judicial power. The tension between ontology and methodology in legal interpretation displays that all kinds of political values compete against each other. Interpretive turn makes failure to seek for legislator’s will in legal interpretation, which challenges the traditional political value of democracy. The tension in constitutional system becomes that between democracy and rule of law. In American constitutional system, it is Madison predicament of constitutional interpretation. Judicial passivism competes against judicial activism as to the problem. The former asserts that judge should take modest attitude towards legal interpretation to seek for legislator’s and textual will in order to safeguard traditional democracy value. The latter asserts that judge should take an active attitude towards the will of legislator and text by revaluing democracy. In western legal interpretation theories, there are many solutions to the political predicament including Ely’s procedural democracy and judicial supervision, Dworkin’s constitutional democracy and moral reading, Posner’s elite democracy and pragmatic trial, Harbemas’ deliberative democracy and procedural trial. By evaluating all kinds of theoretical approaches, the paper asserts that the predicament is hard to solve by specific legal interpretation method. On the stand of combination of ontology and methodology, we should not rely on methodology too much, but give sufficient trust to judges and inspect them by solutions such as judges’ obligation of legal argumentation and cultural integration from public domain and procedural control form specific system. In Chinese context, we should not deny institutional logic by theoretical logic and should recognize the rationality of legislative interpretation and the activity and self-constrain of judicial interpretation.The fifth and sixth chapter mainly criticizes the traditional legal interpretation canons and subsumption application model and reconstructs them. As to the tension between scientific and hermeneutic thought in legal methodology, the paper takes an attitude that we should transform hermeneutic thought in methodology.The fifth chapter revalues legal interpretations including direct interpretation, systematical interpretation and historical interpretation by use of language and hermeneutic philosophy, also studies them from the aspect of judicial operation. Direct interpretation is reconstructed by Semantics and operated by genre model. Systematical interpretation is revalued by use of hermeneutical circle, should be operated in a open system to realize value coherence. Historical interpretation is reconstructed by use of dogmatic and effective history principles. Legislative history should be criticized in operation to realize the current values. Therefore, legal hermeneutics should surpass the foundationalism and revalue them in specific constitutional institution.The sixth chapter mainly reflects on the subsumption application model and reconstructs it by hermeneutics. The model is from Barbara model of logic and based on axiomatization of legal issues, and accuracy of legal language and absolute objectivity of case facts. To sum up, it is based on the dichotomy between fact and value. By reflecting on the Hume problem on legal philosophy, the paper asserts that fact and value interact each other in legal application, so the paper proposes the hermeneutic application model. In that model, judges’ horizon is back and forth from fact to value, but the paper’s point is against ontology about the model, but for methodology. Therefore, the traditional model exerts much effect in inner legal argumentation. At last, the paper answers the question about the self-sufficiency of legal methodology.更多还原