法律论证的修辞学进路

发布时间：2018-01-20 23:44

本文关键词： 司法三段论法律论证修辞论证听众理论　出处：《山东大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：司法三段论以形式逻辑为基础,从既存的法律规范出发,将案件事实抽象为法律事实,以人工语言为载体,要求大小前提具备同一性,以尽可能避免价值判断对于司法判断的影响,以限制和消除法官的恣意,从而保障司法判断的客观性和准确性。但是,这种观点是可以质疑的：针对同一案例,大前提即法律规范存在竞合的情形,法官对于规范的选择是否有价值判断的涉入?法律事实如何能够无限接近于客观事实?诉诸权威的司法判断能否得到社会公众的普遍认可,一项不被普遍接受的司法判断怎样保证其有效性? 在回答此类问题的基础上,论证相对于证明的优势凸显,关于法律论证的理论逐渐趋于丰富。根据目前各国学者的研究成果,认为法律论证的研究进路主要有三种：逻辑学方法、修辞学方法和对话的方法。其中,关于修辞学方法在法律论证中的应用以法学研究的语言学转向为背景,以佩雷尔曼、图尔敏为代表的学者重构自中世纪没落的古典修辞学传统,建立了一套自成体系的新修辞学理论。作为论证的方法之一,修辞强调结论的合理而非理性,要求重视论证的过程。佩雷尔曼的新修辞学学说以听众理论为核心,将共识作为论证的前提和起点,并提出归纳总结出三种主要的修辞论证方法：准逻辑论证、基于实在结构的论证、建立实在结构的论证。本文在对法律论证理论和西方修辞学特别是新修辞学理论作系统梳理的基础上,着重讨论了修辞与论证的“契合点”,重点介绍修辞论证的方法,从方法论的角度探讨了修辞论证方法在法律论证中的可能性。讨论的过程除前言外,共分四个部分：第一部分“从司法三段论到法律论证”：在承认事实与规范二分的前提下,从价值无涉的角度,讨论了司法三段论在司法实践中的价值及局限性、法律论证的兴起和功用,提出“证明”和“论证”应该是二元对照的观点。在司法实践中,三段论是法官制作司法判决的主要思维方式,但同时对于涉及价值判断的合理性进行充分的论证,这种论证既是逻辑的也是修辞的、对话的。因此,我们试图建构的是一个开放性的论证体系。第二部分“修辞与论证的‘姻缘’”：一般认为,修辞与逻辑、对话共同构成论证的三种主要的论证手段,同时在方法论意义上也是论证理论的研究进路。该部分首先讨论了修辞论证的可能性,然后在梳理西方修辞学理论脉络的基础上,重点介绍了佩雷尔曼的新修辞学理论,包括听众理论、共识观和论证方法,这是本文的核心。第三部分“修辞学对法律论证理论的意义和局限”：该部分着眼于宏大视角,重点论述了将修辞论证方法引入法律论证的积极意义,诸如扩大了理性的边界,包括保证法律解释和司法判断的合理性；为法律判断中的价值判断提供了方法等等。同时,修辞论证作为一种理论性存在也必然有其自身的界限和不足,我们承认修辞作为论证方法的可能性,但也不能因此回避修辞学理论理所面对的批判。第四部分“关于修辞论证的前瞻性思考”：不论是西方形式主义的逻辑推理还是法律论证,在面向我国法律实践之时都会面临“本土化”的问题。本部分着重讨论修辞论证在我国法律实践中的可能性问题,以及修辞论证为我国现有司法制度带来的新的思考维度,如共识观与我国传统司法伦理的契合、在媒介国家法和民间法之间的桥梁作用等。
[Abstract]:The judicial syllogism based on formal logic, starting from the existing legal standard, the facts of the case are abstracted as legal facts, using artificial language as the carrier, with the same size of the premise, to avoid as much as possible to influence the value judgment of judicial judgment, to restrict and eliminate the arbitrariness of the judge, so as to ensure the objectivity and accuracy of justice judgment. However, this view can be challenged: in the same case, the premise that legal norms are competing situation, judge whether there is involvement of value judgment in choosing the norm? How can the legal fact infinitely close to the objective fact? Appeal to the judicial authority to judge whether generally accepted by the public, how a universally accepted judicial judgment to ensure its effectiveness?
Based on answering these questions, highlighting the argument with respect to demonstrate the advantages of the legal argumentation theory tends to be rich. According to the current research results of scholars, think that there are three main approaches of legal argumentation: logic methods, methods and methods of rhetoric words. Among them, on the application of rhetoric methods in legal argumentation the consequences of turning as the background, by Perelman Toulmin, as the representative of the traditional classical rhetoric scholars reconstructed from the decline of the middle ages, establish a set of new rhetoric theory. As one of the demonstration methods, rhetoric emphasizes the rational and irrational, and stresses the process of negotiation. The new rhetoric theory Perelman's audience theory as the core, consensus as the premise and starting point of argumentation, and put forward three major rhetorical argument The quasi logical argument, argument structure is based on the establishment of a real structure demonstration. Based on the theory of legal argumentation and western rhetoric, especially the basic theory of new rhetoric systematically, discussed the "meeting point" rhetoric and argumentation, focuses on the method of rhetorical argument, from the perspective of methodology is discussed the possibility of rhetorical argumentation in legal argumentation.
In addition to the preface, the discussion is divided into four parts:
The first part "from judicial syllogism to legal argumentation": admitting the facts and norms of two points, from the perspective of value free, judicial syllogism in the judicial practice of the value and limitation are discussed, and the rise of function of legal argumentation, put forward the "proof" and "demonstration" should be two yuan control. In judicial practice, syllogism is the main thinking way of judge makes judicial decisions, but at the same time for the rationality of value judgment of the full argument, this argument is illogical and rhetoric and dialogue. Therefore, we try to construct an open argumentation system.
The second part "rhetoric and argumentation" marriage ": generally, rhetoric and logic, the three main means of demonstration dialogue together constitute the argument, and the methodology significance is the demonstration research approach on the theory. The first part discusses the possibility of rhetorical argument, and then on the basis of western rhetoric theory. And introduces the new rhetoric theory of Perelman, including the audience theory, consensus and reasoning, which is the core of this paper.
The third part "the value and limitations of rhetoric to the theory of legal argumentation": this part is from a macro perspective, discusses the significance of introducing the rhetorical argumentation into legal argumentation, such as expanding the rational boundary, including the guarantee of reasonable legal interpretation and judicial judgment; provides a method for value judgment of legal judgment etc. at the same time, rhetorical argumentation as a theoretical existence has its own boundaries and limitations, we acknowledge the possibility of rhetoric as a demonstration method, but also can not avoid criticism so rhetoric theories face.
The fourth part "forward-looking thinking about rhetoric argumentation": both Western formalistic logic reasoning and legal argumentation in the legal practice in our country will face the problem of "localization". This part focuses on the rhetorical argument in our legal practice of the problem, and to bring the rhetorical argument the existing judicial system of our country's new thinking dimension, such as consensus and fit the traditional judicial ethics in our country, in the media between state law and folk law's role as a bridge.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-055

【参考文献】