哈贝马斯法律确定性理论研究

发布时间：2018-01-24 16:15

本文关键词： 确定性合理性交往理性法律商谈　出处：《南京师范大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：语言本身就存在着一种事实性与有效性的张力。这种张力造成了语言的不确定性。在通过对以语言为媒介的交往活动的社会整合的过程中,经过了生活世界和古代权威建制的发展和铺垫,最终现代法律成为了社会整合的最主要手段,内在于语言之中的事实性与有效性之间的张力也必然通过语言的交往活动体现到法律中来,哈贝马斯认为,内在于语言之中的事实性与有效性之间的张力造成了法律不确定性的产生。自然法学派试图用自然法的不可质疑的正确性和权威性来保证实在法的确定性和正确性。而分析法学派则坚持法律自身的自洽性,用法律规范的形式合理性来保证法律的确定性；也就是使法律成为一个逻辑严整、体系明确,效力等级森严的规范等级体系。而法律现实主义,从完全实证的角度否认法律的确定性。哈特则在传统分析法学的基础之上还主张最低限度的自然法是法律必不可少的内容,并通过承认规则来协调法律的确定性和合法性。德沃金则诉诸法律的整体性,由法律传统和现代法律实践构成对法官双重制约,并且通过对于法律整体性的把握和建构性诠释,实现了确定性和合理性的统一。哈贝马斯认为,以前的理论并没有真正解决法律确定性的问题。因为它们没有·看到法律不确定性产生的真正原因是内在于法律语言之中的事实有效性和规范有效性之间的矛盾。哈贝马斯指出,只有通过建立在交往理性基础之上的法律商谈才能真正解决内在于法律语言之中的事实有效性和规范有效性之间的矛盾,并最终达到法律确定性和合理性之间的统一。交往行为是主体之间通过符号协调的互动,它以语言为媒介,通过理由与对话,达到人与人之间的理解与一致。因此通过交往行为可以使得行为结果具有合理性。法律商谈是交往行为在法律领域的特殊化形式,除了要满足一般的交往行为所必须的特征,法律还必须具有特定的建制化形式。通过商谈论的视角对法律领域进行重构,法律中的确定性和合理性的矛盾得到妥善的解决。法律商谈中的通过充分理由的论辩并最终产生的“无强制的同意”保证了法律的合理性。而为了确保法律商谈的顺利进行,则必须对于法律商谈的过程进行程序化的法律建制。这些法律程序构成了法律商谈的“理想言谈情境”,从而构成了法律确定性的来源。法律确定性在此时不再是传统意义上的那种绝对的确定性,它是一种程序主义的确定性。但是这种法律确定性融入了合理性的特征,具有重构性的特点,是一种全新的法律确定性。哈贝马斯的法律确定性理论妥善地解决了内在于法律之中的事实有效性和规范有效性之间的矛盾。
[Abstract]:The language itself is the existence of a fact and effective tension. The tension caused by the uncertainty of language. In the process of social integration through the medium of language communication activities in the after life world and ancient authority system and the development of the modern legal basis, eventually became the most important means of social integration in fact, between the effectiveness of language is also bound by the tension of language communication activities to reflect the law, Habermas believes that in between facticity and validity in a language that the tension caused the uncertainty of law.
The school of natural law to natural law can not be questioned the validity and authority of the law to ensure the certainty and correctness. And analysis of the law school insisted that the self consistency of law itself, in the form of laws and regulations to ensure the rationality of the certainty of law; that is the law into a rigorous logic system, clear, normative effect hierarchy hierarchy. Legal realism, from an empirical perspective completely denied legal certainty. Hart is in the tradition of natural law on the basis of analysis of law also advocated the minimum legal essential contents, and the rule of recognition to coordinate the legal certainty and legitimacy. Dworkin resorts to the integrity of law, the legal tradition and modern legal practice of judges and by double restriction, to grasp and constructive interpretation of the integrity of law, to achieve certainty And the unity of rationality.
Habermas believes that the previous theory does not really solve the problem of legal certainty. Because they had no reason to see the real legal uncertainty is within the validity of law lies in the fact that language and regulate effectively the contradiction between. Habermas pointed out that only by establishing on the basis of communicative rationality can really solve the internal legal negotiation in fact the legal validity of language and regulate effectively the contradiction between, and ultimately achieve unity between legal certainty and rationality. Communicative behavior is through interactive coordination between the main symbol, it uses language as medium by reason and dialogue, understanding and consensus reached between people. Therefore the interaction can the behavior results are reasonable. Legal negotiation is a specialized form of communicative behavior in the legal field, in addition to meet the general The characteristic of the necessary communication behavior, the law must also have a particular form of institutionalization. To reconstruct the legal field through the discourse theory of law perspective, the certainty and rationality of the contradictions are properly resolved. Legal discourse by reason and argument eventually produced "no mandatory consent" to ensure that the rationality of law. In order to ensure legal negotiation smoothly, it must be the legal process for the establishment of legal discourse procedures. These proceedings constitute legal discussions of "ideal speech situation", so as to constitute a source of legal uncertainty. The uncertainty of law at this time is no longer the absolute certainty of traditional sense it is OK, a procedural. But this kind of legal certainty into the rationality of the characteristics, has the characteristics of reconstruction, is a kind of new legal determination Habermas's legal certainty theory properly solved the contradiction between the fact validity and the normative validity within the law.

【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90

【参考文献】