凯尔森、哈特法律效力论之比较分析

发布时间：2018-02-01 01:43

本文关键词： 凯尔森哈特法律规范法律规则法律效力　出处：《华东政法大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：凯尔森是一位颇负盛名又最引起争议的法学家，他是极端实证主义法学派——纯粹法学的创始人。纯粹法学理论之所以“纯粹”，乃是因为它仅仅描述法，试图把严格说来不是法的任何内容从这种描述的对象中排除出去，以免法律科学受到外来因素的影响。纯粹法学的绝对目的是认识和描述对象，它试图回答法是什么和怎样，而不是去回答法应当怎样。作为凯尔森纯粹法学的核心问题，法律效力论反映了凯尔森基础规范、动态的法律结构、法与国家合二为一的理论为主要代表的整个法学理论的目的和意义。 20世纪上半叶，面对英国传统分析法学日益增强的“话语”霸权和美国现实主义法学极具刺激的“边缘”挑战，新分析法学代表人物哈特试图运用日常语言分析的叙事策略，将法律概念分析的传统模式转换为现代模式。哈特接受和吸取了社会学的解释方法和自然法哲学的方法论，并将日常语言分析引入到法学理论的建构中。这些方法的引入和重构一方面拓展了法律概念分析的理论空间，另一方面也继承和发展了凯尔森的法律效力论。笔者试图从三个部分入手，比较凯尔森、哈特法律效力论的内容，并分析在效力论的建构过程中，哈特相较于凯尔森所采用的不同的视角和方法论基础，以及哈特是如何突破凯尔森“纯粹”的界限，而将之发展为较为缓和的理论。本文第一部分论述凯尔森、哈特对自然法学说和法律命令说的批判，明确分`析实证法学与自然法学在“应当”和“是”的关系问题上截然不同的态度，并着重指出凯尔森、哈特在对法律命令说进行批判时所采用的关于法律概念的不同观点和思路，这其中主要会涉及由“义务”观点引出的哈特内在观点和外在观点的区分，而这也是哈特建构其法律效力论的核心。第二部分论述凯尔森、哈特关于法律效力基本构成及效力与实效理论的观点。这一部分即涉及到法律效力论的主体部分，主要论述凯尔森“法律规范”与哈特“法律规则”理论是如何成为构成各自法律体系的基本元素，这两种理论的主要区别又是什么。在效力与实效的讨论中，虽然凯尔森、哈特都认为法律体系具有大体上的实效性为法律规范和法律规则具有效力的前提，，但是他们对大体上实效的理解仍有差异。本文第三部分论述的是法律效力论的核心问题，即效力的本原。在这一部分，可以看出凯尔森的“基础规范”理论与哈特“承认规则”理论虽然具有形式上的相似性，但是此两者的理论基础、形式及在法律体系中的地位并不相同。凯尔森对于法律效力位阶的论述也更多的基于他的纯粹逻辑的动态法律体系，而哈特并未明确指出其建构的法律效力体系中分明的效力层次。
[Abstract]:Kelsen is a famous and controversial jurist. He is the founder of the extreme positivist school of law-pure law. The theory of pure law is "pure" because it only describes law. In order to avoid the influence of external factors on the science of law, the absolute purpose of pure jurisprudence is to recognize and describe the object. As the core of Kelsen's pure jurisprudence, the theory of legal validity reflects Kelsen's basic norms and dynamic legal structure. The purpose and significance of the whole legal theory represented by the theory of combining law with the state. In 20th century, in the face of the increasing "discourse" hegemony of traditional analytical law in Britain and the "marginal" challenge of American realistic jurisprudence. Hart, the representative of New Analytical Law, tries to use the narrative strategy of daily language analysis. The traditional mode of legal conceptual analysis is transformed into a modern one. Hart accepts and absorbs the methods of interpretation in sociology and the methodology of philosophy of natural law. The introduction and reconstruction of these methods not only expands the theoretical space of legal conceptual analysis, but also inherits and develops Kelsen's theory of legal validity. The author attempts to compare the content of Kelsen's and Hart's theory of legal validity from three parts, and analyze the different perspectives and methodological bases adopted by Hart compared with Kelsen in the construction of validity theory. And how Hart broke through Kelsen's "pure" boundary and developed it into a more moderate theory. The first part of this paper discusses Kelsen and Hart's criticism of the theory of natural law and the theory of legal command, and makes it clear that there is a very different attitude in the relationship between "should" and "yes" in the study of "positive law" and "natural law". It also points out the different viewpoints and ideas on the concept of law adopted by Kelsen and Hart when they criticize the theory of legal order. This will mainly involve the distinction between Hart's internal and external views derived from the "obligation" view, which is the core of Hart's construction of his theory of legal validity. The second part discusses Kelsen, Hart's views on the basic structure of legal effect and the theory of effectiveness and effectiveness. This part involves the main part of the theory of legal validity. This paper mainly discusses how Kelsen's "legal norms" and Hart's "legal rules" theory become the basic elements of their respective legal systems, and what is the main difference between the two theories. Although Kelsen and Hart think that the legal system has the substantial effect as the premise of the legal norm and the legal rule to be effective, their understanding of the general effectiveness is still different. The third part of this paper deals with the core issue of the theory of legal validity, that is, the origin of validity. In this part. It can be seen that Kelsen's "basic norms" theory and Hart's "rules of recognition" theory have formal similarities, but the theoretical basis of these two. The form and the position in the legal system are not the same. Kelsen's discussion on the rank of legal effect is also more based on his pure logic of the dynamic legal system. But Hart did not point out clearly the distinct level of validity in the legal effect system constructed by Hart.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90

【相似文献】