【作者】 王国龙；

【导师】 陈金钊；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 法律的有效性和法律解释都是法理论研究当中的基础性理论问题。西方解释学对解释有效性基础的理论研究大致经历了从“作者中心论”到“读者中心论”再到“文本中心论”的重心转移。相应地,在法律解释理论的研究当中,法律解释学对法律解释有效性基础的理论研究也大致经历了同样的一个重心转移过程。这一研究重心的转移既改变和丰富了人们对法概念论尤其是有效法概念论的理解和认识,也拓深了人们对法律方法论的研究。对法律解释有效性问题的研究涉及到对一个理想司法裁判的综合性思考,包括通过法律解释如何获得正确的法律认识和决定,司法裁判接受法律约束的可能性,司法裁判实现正确性追求的法律方法论建构,以及法律解释有效性的理想评价标准等。因此,法律解释的有效性问题既是一个在法哲学上需要探讨的问题,也是一个在法律方法论上需要重点研究的理论课题。在法律解释实践当中,法律解释效力之间的冲突乃是一个永恒性的难题；在法律解释学的研究当中,人们对法律解释有效性的评价标准也是立场和观点各异。正因为如此,本文的意图不在于提出一套评价法律解释有效性的理想标准,而是从法律方法论的视角探讨不同法律解释方法有效性的理论基础,并对它们进行了必要的反思。这种探讨既是理论性的,也是实践性的。前者构成了对法律解释有效性问题思考的法哲学维度,后者则构成了对法律解释有效性问题思考的法律方法论维度。第一章概述了法律解释有效性问题的由来,是本文探讨的逻辑起点和整体框架。法律的有效性问题是西方法理论研究当中的一个基础性理论问题,人们对法律有效性的立场和内涵界定纷繁复杂,对于法律有效性的理解都有着重大的差异。但是,法律的形式有效性和实质有效性乃是法律有效性的两个基本内容。正因为如此,形式有效性和实质有效性也构成了我们探讨法律解释有效性问题的整体框架。西方传统三大法学流派对法律的有效性问题都作过重点研究,它们的有效法概念论虽然侧重点不同,在各自的理论脉络中也都存在相对合理性的一面,但都呈现出一种明显的单维性、封闭性、静态性和缺乏理性证立等诸多局限性,尤其忽视了有效法的概念乃是一个解释性和论辩性的法概念。法律的适用过程是一个不断地进行解释和论辩的过程,而形式有效性和实质有效性乃是法律解释有效性建构的两个基本理论维度。法律解释的对象、法律解释的有效性和法律解释的正当性构成了法律解释学研究的三大基本问题。因此,对法律解释有效性问题的研究首先需要从法哲学的视角展开。同时,法律解释的过程还是一个要不断地实现理性化的过程,法律方法则是理性建构有效的法律解释所必须遵循的方法论取径。故而,我们还要从法律方法论的视角来探讨法律解释的有效性问题。第二章梳理了法律解释有效性问题研究的重心转移过程。在人类解释学发展的历史长河中,语文解释学和历史解释学构成了理论性解释学研究的两大阵营,而法律解释学和宗教解释学则构成了应用性或实践性解释学研究的两大阵营。解释学的历史经历了一个逐渐从单纯的解释技巧和解释方法发展到认识论和方法论,从认识论和方法论发展到本体论,再从本体论发展到实践论的发展。与此同时,围绕着解释中有关“真理问题”和“应用问题”的争论,解释学实现了从独断性解释学到探究性解释学,从一般解释学到精神解释学再到实践性解释学的发展方向的转变。西方解释学发展的这一宏观历史线索同样地影响到了法律解释学的整体发展,人们对法律解释有效性问题的探讨不断地变换着自己的时代主题交响曲。需要指出的,无论是“作者中心论”立场的法律解释学还是“读者中心论”的法律解释学,它们都没有很好地处理法律解释中的“真理问题”和“应用问题”,因而我们对法律解释有效性问题的研究需要迈向“文本中心论”法律解释学的研究立场。其原因在于：第一,法律文本是法律解释的逻辑起点；第二,法律解释的合法性追求要求法律解释必须围绕着法律文本展开,法教义学是法律解释学中对法律解释有效性问题研究的基本立场；第三,法律的规范性决定了法律解释实践的规范性,法律发现和法律证立是理性地建构法律解释有效性的两个基本的法律思维脉络；第四,走出法律解释学的独断论抑或探究论之间的争论困境,需要从“文本中心论”法律解释学的研究立场来重新思考。由此,法律解释中的“真理问题”和“应用问题”的探寻方能被兼顾。从建构司法裁判的视角来看,法律解释具有文本指向性、理性权威性和解释结果的可接受性三个基本特征。第三章从法律发现的脉络探讨了建构法律解释形式有效性的相关法律方法论的理论基础。一般而言,法律解释是以有效的法律规范作为解释对象的,而法律概念则是法律规范意义建构的基本单位。因此,概念分析成为法律解释形式有效性建构的重要法律方法之一。不过,要承认概念分析方法在法律解释当中的地位,首先就应该承认法律规范具有实在性。在法律规范实在性问题的理论研究当中,存在着实在论与反实在论之间的争论。其中,概念法学是西方一支相对系统地从法律规范的反实在论立场来阐述法律规范具有实在性的法学流派。概念法学强调概念分析在法律解释当中的重要性,主张通过对法律概念的分析可以实现对法律规范意义脉络的客观把握,即透过概念分析来解释法律规范的意义,主张一种“概念至上”论的法律解释观和法律解释的客观有效性。与概念法学相对应,利益法学、自由法学和法律现实主义等则反对概念法学的立场,主张一种法律的实在论立场；反对概念法学围绕着以法律概念为中心来展开对法律规范意义的客观解释,而主张透过法律规范本身并借助于利益、心理、经验等经验科学方法来研究法律规范的实践意义,即主张一种“概念虚无”论的法律解释理念。概念分析方法是以对承载法律规范意义的法律概念进行逻辑分析来展开法律解释的,但法律的逻辑是一种规范逻辑。凯尔森的先验论规范逻辑分析则是对法律规范意义的体系解释进行研究的典范。凯尔森建构起了法律规范体系内部的逻辑结构,这对我们对法律规范体系解释的有效性问题研究具有重要的指导意义,但先验论规范逻辑分析排除了对经验论上法律命题真／假值的研究。因此,凯尔森的规范逻辑分析在研究法律解释的有效性问题上也存在缺陷,无法实现从先验到经验的合理过渡。语义解释是法律解释的重要方法之一,哈特的法律规则有效性理论倡导一种“句法-语义分离论”的法律解释模式来探讨语义解释的有效性。借助于描述性的研究方法和解释性的研究方法相结合,哈特较为成功地解决了语义解释从“命题之真”到“规范有效”的论证理路架构。但哈特还是忽视了“命题之真”并无法保障对命题意义解释的正确性。这是由于,从经验论上来界定法律规则的陈述命题的真值性也是具有局限性的。需要指出的是,虽然“规范逻辑”研究和“句法-语义分离论”研究在各自的领域内都具有其合理性的一面,但从“读者中心论”的法律解释学立场来看，无论是凯尔森的纯粹法学,还是哈特的法律规则有效性理论,它们在论证法律解释形式有效性问题上都存在着一定的局限性。随着人们对传统法律三段论在法律适用过程中作用的反思,一种围绕着类推解释为中心的法律发现模式逐渐地获得了人们的普遍认同。考夫曼的类型思维是从哲学诠释学的视角倡导一种力图打破“事实与规范二分”的法律发现模式,并将类推的法律等置思维模式置于法律发现的核心地位。与考夫曼的先验论类型思维模式相对,孙斯坦立足于英美法系的法律推理传统对类推思维的研究,则可以被看作为是一种对类推解释的经验论研究努力。借助于未完全理论化协议理论,孙斯坦将类推思维在法律发现当中的地位和作用上升到推进民主司法的高度,从而更有力地彰显了类推思维在当代司法实践当中的重要性。类推思维是一个迈向民主政治的法治社会应该努力倡导的一种法律思维和法律适用模式,捍卫法治需要我们认真地对待类推思维方法在法律发现当中的地位。从法律方法论的视角来看,概念分析方法、法律规范的体系解释方法、语义解释方法、类型思维方法和类推思维方法等,对法律解释有效性的理性建构都具有鲜明的法律形式主义立场,因此,它们都是建构法律解释形式有效性的重要法律方法。第四章从法律证立的脉络探讨了法律解释实质有效性建构的法律方法论理论基础。从法律实质有效性的立场来看,法律解释有效性需要通过对法律规则在内容上或价值上的正确性证立来实现。在当代哲学与社会科学研究转型的历史背景下,人们开始立足于新的理论视野来探讨“如何建构正确性法律解释”的问题,故而这种法律解释有效性问题的研究具有鲜明的法律实质主义取向,是一种致力于对法律解释实质有效性问题的研究。与此同时,人们对传统法律解释有效性问题研究的法律形式主义取向给予了众多的批判。在传统法律方法论的研究当中,人们对法律的事实性与规范性的探讨往往只是侧重于某一方面。哈贝马斯立足于语用学研究的理论背景探讨了一种共识论的法律真理观,其极力批评了符合论法律真理观,并在理性商谈理论的基础上建构了法律命题证立所需要遵循的理性商谈程序性规则,从而打破了法律在事实性与规范性之间的紧张对立。但是,哈贝马斯所主张的通过理想情境商谈程序来证立法律命题的正确性缺乏法律的实践性。阿列克西则以哈贝马斯的理性商谈理论为基础,建构出一种程序主义的法律论辩理论。法律命题的正确性证立是根据有效法进行的,内部证立和外部证立构成了法律命题证立的双重理性架构。但是,程序主义法律论辩理论同样也具有局限性,法律证立自身的融贯性要求没有得到解决,融贯性是衡量法律解释实质有效性的一个重要判断标准。德沃金的法律真理融贯论是在对真理符合论、怀疑论和相对论等批判的基础之上建构起来的,其倡导一种建构主义的法律解释模式,并以真理内在实在论为立场提出了一种融贯论的法理论。德沃金的融贯论法理论也遭致了人们的诸多批判,其所面对的最大困境在于：融贯性只是法律解释有效性在自身证立问题上的一个评价标准,在很大意义上也是一种“独白式”的自我理性证立。法律解释性命题的正确性理性证立是以有效的法律规范作为前提的,但法律解释的结论还需要具有可接受性。阿尔尼奥立足于法教义学的研究传统,探讨了法律解释的可接受性证立问题。在法律解释中,解释性命题的正确性需要在一种理性的法律证立过程当中来实现。逻辑合理性和对话合理性是法律解释合理性的两个基本内容。法律解释的正确性证立除了需要具备合理性的诸条件之外,法律解释的结论还需要具备可接受性。在法律解释的证立当中,听众对法律解释证立的结论达成最终的共识乃是法律解释获得可接受性的基础,语言游戏、生活形式和法律共同体乃是建构法律解释具有可接受性的三个现实性条件。概括而言,法律解释实质有效性的建构是通过对法律证立的理由建构来实现的,人们对司法判决的最终接受不是简单地对其权威性的接受,而是对其所依据理由的理性接受。毫无疑问,任何法律规范之所以具有有效性,并不完全取决于国家机关对它的强制执行,实证有效性也只是法律有效性的内容之一。同样地,任何法律解释之所以具有有效性,也不仅仅因为法律解释主体自身所具有的权威性和法律自身的实证有效性,法律解释的有效性更应当体现为正确性、合程序性、融贯性和可接受性等诸多属性。在当代民主法治社会中,法律解释的权威不仅仅是一种国家权威,而且还是一种理性化了的公共权威,没有理由支持的权威也就缺乏有效性的依据。简单地以宣告判决的形式来终止司法审判过程的时代已经结束,对法律的正确解释和理性证立越来越成为法官裁判时所必须承担的任务。相应地,法官权力行使的正当性基础也与判决证立的前提、理性证立的过程和判决结论的可接受性等息息相关,法官不仅需要对法律解释有效性的自身作出“解释”,而且还需要对之加以理性证立,法律解释的结论最终还需要获得社会广泛的理性接受。更多还原

【Abstract】 The validity of law and legal interpretation are the basic theoretical issues in the theory of law. The research on the basic of Validity of interpretation in the western Hermeneutic has shifted roughly from the author response theory to the reader response theory then to the text response theory. Accordingly, this shift occurred in the theoretical research on the validity of legal interpretation, which not only changed and enriched people’s knowledge and understanding of the conceptualism of the law esp. the conceptualism of Validity, but also deeply extended the research on the legal methodology. The study of the Validity of legal interpretation involves a comprehensive thinking about an ideal judicial adjudication, which includes such issues as the way to obtain the correct legal knowledge and decisions through legal interpretation, the possibility of the judicial adjudication legally bound to law, the construction of the legal methodology of realization of the correctness of the judicial adjudication, as well as the ideal evaluating standards of the validity of legal interpretation. Therefore, the validity of legal interpretation is an issues need to be explored not only in the philosophy of law, but also in the legal methodology.In the practice of legal interpretation, the conflict between effectiveness of legal interpretation is regarded as a perpetual problem. In the hermeneutic of law, the evaluating criteria of the validity of legal interpretation among the people are also different. Because the above, the intention of this article is not to explore a set of ideal evaluating criteria of the validity of legal interpretation but the theoretical basis of the validity of legal interpretation from the perspective of legal methodology and give the necessary re-thoughts. This study is not only theoretical but also practical, and the former is the dimension of the philosophy of law, while the latter is the dimension of legal methodology.ChapterⅠoutlines the origin of the validity of legal interpretation which is the logical starting point of this paper and the overall framework. The validity of law is a fundamental theoretical problem in the western theoretical legal research. The positions and the connotations of the validity of legal interpretation are so complicated that the comprehensions of the validity of legal interpretation are different greatly. However, the formal and substantive validity of law are the two basic elements of validity of law, so the formal and substantive validity also constitute the overall framework of our exploration about the validity of legal interpretation. The three schools of law theory in the west world have made key research on the validity of law. Though the emphasis of their concepts of validity are different and in their theoretical context there is also a relatively rational side, they have such limitations as a nature of one-dimension, closed, static and lacking of rational justification and particularly ignoring that the concept of law is interpretation and argumentation. The application of law is a process of continuous interpretation and argumentation, while the formal validity and the substantive validity are the two basic theoretical dimensions of construction of validity of legal interpretation. The study of legal hermeneutic is composed of such three basic issues as the object, the validity and the legitimacy of legal interpretation. Therefore, the study of the validity of legal interpretation must start from the perspective of philosophy of law. Meanwhile, the legal interpretation is a process of continuing to achieve rationalism, and the legal method is a methodological way of rational constructing a valid legal interpretation. So we have to explore the validity of legal interpretation from the perspective of legal methodology.Chapter II is about the transformation of the focus in the study of the validity of legal interpretation. In the long history of hermeneutics, the language interpretation and the historical hermeneutics constitute the two camps of the study of the theoretical hermeneutics, while the legal hermeneutics and the religious hermeneutics constitute the two camps of the study of applied or practical hermeneutics. Hermeneutic has transferred gradually from the simple techniques and methods of explanation to the epistemology and methodology, from the epistemology and methodology to the ontology, from the ontology to the theory of practice. At the same time, considering the arguments of truth and application problems in the interpretation, hermeneutics has changed from arbitrary to inquiry nature, from the general hermeneutics to the spiritual hermeneutics and then to the practical hermeneutic. The development of western hermeneutics has equally affected the overall development of legal hermeneutics. The study of the theme of the validity of legal interpretation is constantly changing. It should be pointed out that whether the author response theory or the reader response theory of legal hermeneutics, they are not coping well with the truth and application problems in the legal interpretation. So we should maintain the position of the text response theory during the study of the validity of the legal interpretation. There are four reasons. First, the legal text is the logical starting point for legal interpretation; Second, the legitimate pursuit of legal interpretation requires the legal interpretation focusing on the legal texts, and the dogmatic of law is the basic position of study of the validity of legal interpretation; Third, the normative of law determines the normative of practice of legal interpretation. The legal discovery and the legal justification are the two basic legal thinking to rationally construct the validity of legal interpretation; Fourth, in order to avoid the dilemma of the debate between arbitrary and inquiry, we need re-think from the position of the text response theory. As a result, the truth and application problems in the legal interpretation can be taken into account at the same time. From the perspective of constructing the judicial adjudication, the legal interpretation has three basic features of text-directed, rational authority and the acceptability of the results of interpretation.Chapter III discusses the theoretical basis of the relevant legal methodology on constructing the formal validity of legal interpretation from the context of legal discovery. In general, the object of legal interpretation is the valid legal norms, while the legal concepts are the basic unit of construction of meaning for the legal norms. Therefore, the conceptual analysis has become one of the important methods for the formal validity of legal interpretation. However, to recognize the status of the conceptual analysis method in legal interpretation, the legal norms should be recognized as substantiality firstly. In the theoretical study of the substantiality of the legal norms, there exist the debasements between the realism and the anti-realism. The Conceptualist Jurisprudence is a western law school which described systematically the legal norms having the character of substantiality from the anti-realist position. The Conceptualist Jurisprudence emphasizes the importance of the conceptual analysis in legal interpretation and holds that with analyzing the legal concepts, the context of the meaning of legal norms can be grasped and interpreted. The Conceptualist Jurisprudence holds an idea of supremacy of concepts in the legal interpretation and objective validity of the legal interpretation. In contrast with the Conceptualist Jurisprudence, the Interests Jurisprudence, the Free Jurisprudence and the Legal Realism oppose the position of the Conceptualist Jurisprudence, while advocate the position of realism; oppose the Conceptualist Jurisprudence focusing on the legal concepts to expand the objective interpretation of the meaning of legal norms, while advocate analyzing the practical meaning of legal norms with the help of such scientific methods as interest, psychology, experience, etc. They hold an idea of nihilism of concepts in the legal interpretation. Conceptual analysis starts the legal interpretation based on the logical analysis of the legal concepts which carry meaning of legal norms. But the logic of law is a normative logic, and Kelsen’s normative logical analysis based on transcendentalism is a model of studying the systematical interpretation of legal norms’meaning. Kelsen constructed the logical structure within the system of legal norms, which has important guiding significance for our research on the validity of systematical interpretation of legal norms. But Kelsen’s transcendentalism excluded the study of true/false value of the legal propositions. Therefore, his normative logic analysis in the study of the validity of legal interpretation is also defective, because it can not realize the transition from transcendence to experience. Semantic interpretation is an important method of legal interpretation. Hart’s theory of the validity of law explored the validity of semantic interpretation through the model of ’syntactic-semantic separation theory’of legal interpretation. With the combination of descriptive methods and explanatory methods, Hart successfully constructed the structure of argument connecting the’propositional truth’ and ’normative validity’ of semantic interpretation. But he still ignored the’propositional truth’and could not guarantee the correctness of interpretation of the meaning of the propositions, because it also has limitations to define the truth of the declarative propositions of legal rules with empiricism. Although the’normative logic’research and’syntactic-semantic separation theory’have their rational side in certain area, from the perspective of the reader response theory of legal hermeneutics, whether Kelsen’s ’pure theory of law’or Hart’s theory of the validity of legal rules, they both has certain limitations in the demonstration of the formal validity of legal interpretation. With the re-thought of the traditional legal syllogism’s role in the application of law, a legal discovery mode centering the analogical interpretation gradually won people’s recognition. Kaufman’s categorized thinking advocated the model of legal discovery of breaking the binary of facts and norms from the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics, and set forth this mode of thinking in the central position of the legal discovery. Opposing to Kaufman’s categorized thinking based on transcendentalism, Sunstein’s study of analogical thinking based on the tradition of legal reasoning of common law can be regarded as an effort for the analogical interpretation. With the idea of’incompletely theorized agreements’, Sunstein promoted the status of analogical thinking in the legal discovery to advance the democratic justice. So the importance of analogical thinking in modern judicial practice got highlighted. Analogical thinking is a legal mode of thinking and application of law, which should be advocated in the society towards democracy and the rule of law. To defend the rule of law requires us take seriously the status of analogical thinking in the legal discovery. From the perspective of legal methodology, the conceptual analysis, the systematical interpretation of legal norms, the semantic interpretation, the categorized thinking and the analogical thinking have the distinct position of legal formalism for the rational framework of the validity of legal interpretation. So they are important legal methods to construct the formal validity of legal interpretation.Chapter IV discusses the theoretical basis of the legal methodology on constructing the substantive validity of legal interpretation from the context of legal justification. From the standpoint of the substantive validity of law, the validity of the legal interpretation can be achieved through the justification of the correctness of the legal norms’ contents or value. Under the historical background of the contemporary transformation of philosophy and social sciences, people began to explore how to construct correct interpretation of law from the new theoretical perspectives. Therefore the new studies of the validity of legal interpretation have a distinct orientation of legal substance and the substantive validity of the legal interpretation. At the same time, peoples criticized the formalism of the traditional study of the validity of legal interpretation. In the traditional legal methodology, the discussion about the factual and the normative of law just focused on a particular side. Based on pragmatics, Habermas explored consensus theory of truth, and strongly criticized the correspondence theory of truth. He constructed the procedural rules of rational negotiation in the justification of the legal propositions based on the theory of rational negotiation, which had broken the opposition between the factual and the normative of law. However, Habermas’s view that the justification of the legal propositions can be achieved through discussing procedures in the ideal situation is lack of legal practicality. Alexy presented the theory of procedural legal argumentation based on Habermas’s theory of rational negotiation. The justification of the correctness of the legal propositions is based on valid law, and therefore, the internal justification and external justification constitute a dual rational framework for the legal justification. The theory of procedural legal argumentation has limitations that the coherence of legal justification is not been resolved. Coherence is an important criterion to measure the substantive validity of the legal interpretation. Dworkin’s coherence theory of legal truth was built up based on the criticism of the correspondence theory of truth, the theory of skepticism and the theory of relativity, etc. And it advocated the constructivist model of legal interpretation and proposed a coherence theory of law theory in the position of internal realism of truth. Dworkin’s coherence theory is also criticized by a lot of peoples. The biggest problem is that the coherence is only a criterion in its own justification of the validity of the legal interpretation and a kind of monologue-style rational self-justification to a large sense. The rational justification of the correctness of legal explanatory propositions is based on the valid legal norms. But the conclusions of the legal interpretation also need to have acceptability. Aarnio explored the justification of the acceptability of the legal interpretation based on the science of dogmatic. In the legal interpretation, the explanatory validity of the proposition requires a process of the rational legal justification. The rationality of logic and the rationality of dialogue are the two basic elements of the rationality of legal interpretation. Besides, the correctness of legal interpretation also needs the conclusions to have acceptability. In the justification of the legal interpretation, the final consensus of audiences on the conclusions of legal interpretation is the foundation of acceptability. Language games, forms of life and the legal community are the realistic conditions for constructing an acceptable legal interpretation. Generally speaking, the construction of the substantive validity of the legal interpretation is achieved by the construction of reasons of the legal justification. The final acceptance of judicial decision is not simply for its authority, but rather for its reason.There is no doubt that the validity of legal norms is not entirely dependent on its enforcement of state organs, and the empirical validity is only one of the elements. Similarly, any legal interpretation has validity not simply for the authority of the subjects and the empirical validity of laws. The validity of legal interpretation should reflect many attributes as correctness, proper procedure, coherence and acceptability, etc. In contemporary society of democracy and the rule of law, the authority of legal interpretation is not just a national authority, but also a rational public authority. The authority with no reason is lack of basis of validity. The era that the judicial process was stayed simply by reading the decision has ended. The correct interpretation and rational justification of the law is increasingly becoming the tasks of the judges. Accordingly, the legitimate basis of the exercise of the judges’ power is also closely related to the premise of the judicial decision, the rational process of justification and the acceptability of the conclusions. The judges need not only interpret the validity of legal interpretation, but also justify it rationally. And the final conclusions of the legal interpretation should be accepted rationally and widely by the community.更多还原