麦考密克后果主义法律推理模式研究

发布时间：2018-04-14 20:53

本文选题：后果主义论辩 + 一致性论辩　；参考：《南京师范大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：尼尔·麦考密克创立的后果主义法律推理模式的主题是法庭上做出的公开判决所赖以成立的推理过程,旨在阐释和探明判别一个法律论辩是好还是差,是可接受的还是不可接受的标准,从而为法官在疑难案件中如何论证判决结论的正当性提供一个遵循的模式。在简单案件中,判决结论可以直接从既定的法律规则中得出,换言之,判决理由的证明只需借助演绎推理足以完成。但是在疑难案件中,法律规则的解释问题、无相关法律规则对之调整的相关性问题以及案件事实的分类问题就使得演绎推理的局限性凸现。它体现在演绎推理要么内在地推定判决所依据的那些基础——现有的法律规则——是正当的和有效的,要么就缺乏有效的前提。因此需要二次证明。二次证明意味着对做选择所依据的理由进行论证,即论证如何在相互对立的裁判可能之间做出选择。二次证明包括两个构成要素：一个是后果主义论辩,另一个是一致性和协调性论辩。后果主义论辩所关注的是不同判决方式带来的后果如何,一致性论辩强调的是法官确立的裁判规则与现行有效的法律规则之间没有冲突,协调性论辩着眼于该裁判规则所确立的规范标准与既定的法律体系在整体上是否协调,主张判决结论应当明确体现法律体系中的某种价值目标或政策取向。一致性和协调性论辩构成对后果主义论辩的限制和约束,旨在对法官所提出的裁判规则进行检验。在疑难案件中裁判规则既应当得到原则的支持,在后果上又应当是可欲的,而且不能与既定的法律规则相冲突,三者相互交错,共同完成判决结论的论证。一定的法律推理理论与一定的法律理论密不可分。麦考密克秉承了。实用主义的司法哲学立场,并强调法官对形式正义的坚守,试图超越法律实证主义和自然法,结合实践哲学来发展法律实证主义。作为社会制度形式的法律,并不立基于道德而存在,而只是经常受到道德的批判。法官在对道德价值、原则政策做综合考量得出判决结论的同时,一定要找到法律制度内的根据。后果主义法律推理模式虽然可以为法官解决疑难案件中法律裁决的证立问题提供一种有章可循的新道路,并可以有效地实现司法塑造社会的机能,但是其自身亦有一定的局限需要克服,比如对法官的过于信任和判决依据的不确定。
[Abstract]:Neal McCormick's model of legal reasoning based on consequence is the reasoning process on which public judgments are made in court. It is intended to explain and determine whether a legal argument is good or bad.Whether the standard is acceptable or not, it provides a model for the judge to prove the validity of the conclusion in difficult cases.In simple cases, the conclusion can be drawn directly from the established legal rules. In other words, the proof of the reason of the judgment can be completed only by deductive reasoning.However, in the difficult cases, the interpretation of legal rules, the relevance of the adjustment of the relevant legal rules and the classification of the facts of cases make the limitation of deductive reasoning prominent.It is embodied in the fact that deductive reasoning is either inherent in the presumption that the basis on which the judgment is based-existing legal rules-is valid and valid, or that there is a lack of valid premises.Therefore, a second proof is required.The second proof means to demonstrate the reasons on which the choice is based, that is, how to make a choice between the opposing referees.The second proof consists of two elements: one is the argumentation of the doctrine of consequence, the other is the argument of consistency and coordination.The focus of the argumentation of the doctrine of consequence is the consequences of different ways of judgment, and the consistent argument emphasizes that there is no conflict between the rules of adjudication established by the judge and the existing rules of law in force.The coordination argument focuses on whether the standard established by the rule of adjudication is in harmony with the established legal system as a whole, and argues that the conclusion of judgment should clearly reflect some value goal or policy orientation in the legal system.Consistency and coordination debate constitute the restriction and restriction to the argumentation of consequence doctrine, aiming at the test of the judge's rule of adjudication.In difficult cases, the adjudication rules should not only be supported by principle, but also desirable in consequence, and cannot conflict with the established legal rules. The three rules intersect with each other to complete the argumentation of the judgment conclusion together.A certain theory of legal reasoning is inseparable from a certain theory of law.McCormick took over.The judicial philosophical standpoint of pragmatism, and emphasizing the judge's adherence to formal justice, tries to transcend legal positivism and natural law, and combines practical philosophy to develop legal positivism.Law, as a form of social system, does not exist on the basis of morality, but is often criticized by morality.The judge must find the basis of the legal system while synthetically considering the moral value and the principle policy.Although the legal reasoning mode of consequence doctrine can provide a new way for judges to solve the problem of legal decision in difficult cases, and can effectively realize the function of judicial shaping society,However, there are some limitations to be overcome, such as too much trust in judges and uncertainty about the basis of judgment.
【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】：D90-051

【相似文献】