弗兰克与卢埃林法律思想比较研究

发布时间：2018-06-02 10:49

本文选题：弗兰克 + 卢埃林　；参考：《山东大学》2011年博士论文

【摘要】：美国法律现实主义运动对美国法律思想和法律实践的发展具有重要意义,至今仍然是美国法学界最关注的问题之一。弗兰克和卢埃林是最具典型性的代表人物,是法律现实主义运动的激进派和温和派,尽管国内关于法律现实主义运动、弗兰克与卢埃林法律思想的研究日趋丰富,但缺乏系统化的研究,即使专门化的研究作品也存在存在诸多曲解、误解。笔者力图全面系统地研究弗兰克、卢埃林的法律思想,并通过比较研究揭示揭示法律现实主义运动的历史意义,指出实际上是围绕罗斯福新政展开的,是法律界的凯恩斯主义。笔者分五章进行具体阐述：第一章,“弗兰克、卢埃林与美国法律现实主义运动”。本文以庞德与卢埃林、弗兰克的“论战”为线索探寻什么是法律现实主义运动,展开其特殊的时代背景,最后比较分析弗兰克和卢埃林的个人经历以及思想渊源。庞德与卢埃林、弗兰克的论战拉开法律现实主义运动的帷幕,本文将指出卢埃林与庞德的思想在很多方面具有一致性,他们之间的“论战”是商谈性的；而弗兰克与庞德之间则更多的是思想批判。这不仅可以澄清许多学者对“论战”性质的误解、展现论战的真实面目,而且把庞德、卢埃林、弗兰克对法律现实主义运动的观点清晰化,为后文进一步阐述奠定基础。美国法律现实主义运动是特定时代的产物,本文以联邦最高法院的判例为线索阐述这个时代背景,不仅因为最高法院的判决集中反应社会政治经济的根本性矛盾,是社会背景最好的缩略图,而且法律现实主义运动致力于揭示司法过程的真相,本文以现实主义者的视角观察判决背后的社会背景。弗兰克和卢埃林的不同个人经历在一定程度上决定了他们的法律思想,决定了弗兰克的政治家视角和卢埃林的学者视角。尽管弗兰克和卢埃林共同分享早期实用主义的法律思想,但弗兰克更推崇霍姆斯,而卢埃林则推崇卡多佐；在研究方法的选择上,弗兰克偏好心理学方法,而卢埃林强调社会学方法。对弗兰克和卢埃林思想渊源的比较可以部分展现法律现实主义运动的思想背景。第二章,“弗兰克的事实怀疑论与卢埃林的规则怀疑论比较”。弗兰克和卢埃林同属于法律现实主义运动,共同分享对法律形式主义的批判态度,但批判的方法、内容、结论等方面都不相同。弗兰克以心理学的方法戳穿形式主义的基本法律神话,而卢埃林以语言学的方法证明规则存在弹性的操作空间。弗兰克把法律与具体判决相联系,而卢埃林强调从形式主义的规则中心转向行为中心。弗兰克认为初审过程充满法官、证人、律师、陪审团的主观性因素,导致了初审事实的不确定性,但卢埃林认为弗兰克夸大了主观偏见的影响,尽管法律形式主义的确定性是虚假的,但通过研究实际的司法过程仍然可以预测判决结果。弗兰克的事实怀疑论以初审法院为中心,认为初审法院是司法系统的核心,而卢埃林的规则怀疑论则以上诉法院为中心,并非卢埃林忽视了初审法院的重要作用,而是卢埃林认为法院的主要功能不是解决具体纠纷,而是通过创造法律规则参与制度改革。而弗兰克认为具体案件公正解决才是司法公正的根本目标,从始至终弗兰克都是一位彻底的事实怀疑论者,不存在由事实怀疑论向规则怀疑论的转向。教育思想是弗兰克与卢埃林法律思想的重要组成部分,批判兰德尔的传统法律教育模式也是法律现实主义运动的任务之一。弗兰克把拯救司法公正的希望寄托在法律教育的改革上,建议通过增加心理学课程、参与实际的庭审过程(特别是初审庭审)、学生在具有律师经验的教师带领下实际办理案件等措施培养更加合格的初审法官,从而在初审事实的认定上更加逼近客观案件事实,但这些措施并未真正影响美国的法律教育模式。卢埃林作为职业的法律教育者,早期即参与了哥伦比亚的课程改革,并且出版买卖法的教材贯彻执行其法律教育的思想,与弗兰克不同,卢埃林法律教育的目标是培养优秀的律师,他们不是仅仅为当事人服务的“讼棍”,而是熟悉社会背景、对正当的社会需求及其敏感、具有正义感和理性的律师,他们对法官作出公正判决的提供最有力的帮助。第三章,“弗兰克与卢埃林思想体系比较”。弗兰克和卢埃林对法律形式主义的批判不是孤立的,而是从属于他们的思想体系。弗兰克的法律思想只是其思想体系的一部分,从本质上说弗兰克是一位出色的政治家,弗兰克指出美国应当采取独立发展的国家经济政策,孤立欧洲,重视提高国内购买能力,在思想上反对一切决定论,他从政治、经济、哲学等方面阐述维持和完善美国民主市场制度的重要性,法律思想是实现这一政治理想的工具。卢埃林的法律思想是一个完整的树状结构,可以按照时间顺序划分为三个部分,即现实主义的批判思想、法律社会学思想、关于上诉司法过程的实用主义思想,这三个部分是有机联系的,法律社会学思想和实用主义思想是对法律形式主义批判的继续,而批判是后期思想建构的前提,整体性理论是宏大风格理论的社会学部分。四十年代卢埃林与他的学生霍贝尔合作法人类学著作,卢埃林承担理论建构的任务,建立了既适用于现代社会又适用于初民社会的法律职能理论,希望能够超越韦伯建构的理想模型,建立以整体性理论为核心的法律社会学。尽管卢埃林的法社会学理论模型没有最终完成,但不能忽视他对法律社会学做出的重要贡献。五十年代以后卢埃林把焦点转移到法理学上,随着法律现实主义的阶段性胜利,律师界产生了对上诉司法过程的信任危机,卢埃林以宏大风格的“可估量性”救治这种恐惧。《普通法传统》是卢埃林法律思想的集大成,体现了卢埃林的实用主义法律思想。弗兰克与卢埃林思想体系的差异最终体现在法律诉求的不同上,弗兰克以个案正义追求法律面前人人平等的理想,从而保证美国民主制度的千秋万代,而卢埃林则希望法律制度实现社会生活的和谐秩序,寻求法律人如何理解社会、团体成员如何在法律的保护下实现自治的途径。第四章,“弗兰克与卢埃林的法律实践比较”。弗兰克作为美国第二巡回上诉法院的法官,其判决意见和异议意见也是体现其法律思想的重要载体,研究表明尽管弗兰克在法律思想上属于激进派,但在司法实践中却是严格的保守派,甚至沦为其所反对的法律形式主义者。而即使弗兰克掌握了精神分析的方法,也并不能控制他对共产主义者的偏见,侧面证明了其教育改革建议的失败。卢埃林也并非单纯的学者,通过主持起草《统一商法典》把他的法律思想付诸实践,尽管由于商人陪审团设置的撤销而使其理论构想部分受挫,但商法典的整体框架仍然保留了卢埃林的最初设计,仍然渗透着卢埃林的个人气质。无论是弗兰克还是卢埃林都是罗斯福新政的支持者,他们的思想都是为了建立更加健康的经济社会秩序。最后分析了弗兰克与卢埃林法律思想和实践异同的原因,尽管这些原因在前面的论述中都有涉及,但集中明确地提出来有助于加深理解。第五章,“美国法律思想史背景下的弗兰克与卢埃林”,探讨弗兰克、卢埃林与早期实用主义、批判法学、新现实主义的关系,在美国法律思想史的背景下研究弗兰克、卢埃林以及美国法律现实主义运动的影响。法律现实主义运动与早期实用主义法学分享相同的哲学基础,弗兰克是霍姆斯的信徒,卢埃林十分推崇卡多佐,但通过对他们的思想和实践进行具体分析,可以表明卢埃林才是真正的实用主义者,而弗兰克仅仅是法律现实主义运动的边缘人物。二十世纪四五年代以后,美国法律现实主义运动的思想获得了广泛肯定,在某种程度上说二十世纪的法理学流派都受到他们的影响,我们都是法律现实主义者了,但六七十年代兴起的法律和社会运动、批判法学运动更具有代表性,他们继承了法律现实主义运动的不同方面。美国法律现实主义运动在三个方面取得成功：打破法律形式主义的确定性神话、倡导交叉学科的法学研究、强调法律和政治的联系。四五十年代以后,法律的不确定性作为共识被广泛接受,几乎没有人再相信规则的逻辑推理能够得出判决。法律现实主义运动把交叉学科研究推向繁盛,弗兰克以心理学方法分析法律现象,卢埃林更偏好社会学／人类学的方法,新现实主义(即法律与社会运动)继承了法律现实主义的这个方面,致力于完全中立客观地研究法律的描述性方面。卢埃林指出法律渊源不仅包括规则和原则,还包括政策,政治悄悄进入卢埃林的法律思想当中,而弗兰克的法律思想服务于其政治理想,美国法律现实主义运动是罗斯福新政的法律变革思想,批判法学继承了法律现实主义运动关于法律的政治性方面,指出法律是政治制度的工具,目的是为了保护资本主义的市场和民主,其中预设了阶级之间的不平等和激烈矛盾。
[Abstract]:The American Legal Realism Movement is of great significance to the development of legal thought and legal practice in the United States. It is still one of the most important issues in the legal circle of the United States. Frank and Llewellyn are the most typical representative figures, the radicals and the warm schools of the Legal Realism Movement, despite the domestic movement of legal realism, The research of Frank and Llewellyn's legal thought is becoming more and more abundant, but it lacks systematic research. Even the specialized research works have many misunderstandings and misunderstandings. The author tries to comprehensively and systematically study the legal thoughts of Frank and Llewellyn, and reveals the historical significance of revealing the movement of legal realism through comparative study and points out that it is true. It is based on the new deal of Roosevelt and is the Keynes doctrine of the legal profession. The author is divided into five chapters:
The first chapter, "Frank, Llewellyn and the American Legal Realism Movement". This article, taking Pound and Llewellyn, Frank's "debate" as clues to explore what is the Legal Realism Movement, launches its special background, and finally compares Frank and Llewellyn's personal experience and ideological origin. The argument of Ke's debate opens the curtain of the Legal Realism Movement. This article will point out that Llewellyn's and Pound's ideas are consistent in many aspects. The "debate" between them is negotiable, while Frank and Pound are more ideological critiques. This can not only be a misunderstanding of the nature of the "controversy" by many of Cheng Qingxu's scholars. The true face of the war, and the clarity of Pound, Llewellyn, Frank's views on the Legal Realism Movement, laid the foundation for further elaboration. The American Legal Realism Movement is the product of a specific era. This article expounds the background of the times with the precedent of the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic, not only because of the Supreme Court's judgment set. The fundamental contradiction in the social and political economy is the best thumbnail in the social background, and the Legal Realism Movement is devoted to revealing the truth of the judicial process. This article looks at the social background behind the verdict in the perspective of the realist. The different experiences of Frank and Llewellyn determine their law to a certain extent. Thinking, it determines Frank's statesman perspective and Llewellyn's scholar's perspective. Although Frank and Llewellyn share the legal ideas of early pragmatism, Frank is more admired and Llewellyn admired Cardoso. In the choice of research methods, it prefers the psychological method and emphasizes the sociological side. The comparison of the ideological origins of Frank and Llewellyn can partly reveal the ideological background of the Legal Realism Movement.
The second chapter, "Frank's factual skepticism is compared with Llewellyn's rule skepticism". Frank and Llewellyn belong to the Legal Realism Movement, sharing the critical attitude of the legal formalism, but the critical methods, contents and conclusions are different. Frank pierced the formalistic basic law by means of psychology. Law mythology, and Llewellyn proves the elastic operating space of rules in linguistic methods. Frank links law with specific judgments, while Llewellyn emphasizes the transition from the center of formalism to the center of behavior. Frank believes that the initial trial process is full of the subjective factors of judges, witnesses, lawyers and jurors, leading to the fact of the first trial. But Llewellyn believes that Frank exaggerates the influence of subjective prejudice. Although the determinism of legal formalism is false, it can still predict the outcome of the judgment through the study of the actual judicial process. Frank's fact skepticism centered on the court of first instance and thinks that the court of first instance is the core of the judicial system and Llewellyn The rule skepticism is the center of the court of appeal, not Llewellyn neglects the important role of the court of first instance, but Llewellyn believes that the main function of the court is not to solve specific disputes, but to participate in the reform of the system through the creation of legal rules. And Frank believes that a fair solution to a specific case is the fundamental goal of judicial justice, from the beginning to the end. Frank is a thorough factual skeptic, and there is no change from the fact skepticism to the rule of doubt. Educational thought is an important part of Frank and Llewellyn's legal thought. It is also one of the tasks of the Legal Realism Movement to criticize the traditional legal education model of Randall. Frank is to save the justice of justice. On the basis of the reform of legal education, it is suggested that by adding psychological courses and participating in the actual trial process (especially the trial of the first trial), the students can cultivate more qualified first instance judges in the case of actual handling cases under the guidance of the teachers with the lawyers' experience, so that the facts of the first instance are closer to the facts of the objective cases, but the fact is closer to the facts of the objective case, but this is the same as that of the facts of the case. Some measures did not really affect the American legal education model. As a professional legal educator, Llewellyn took part in the curriculum reform in Columbia early, and published the teaching material for the sale law to carry out the thought of legal education. Unlike Frank, Llewellyn's legal education aims to cultivate excellent lawyers, they are not only the only ones. The "litigant" only serves the parties, but is a lawyer who is familiar with the social background, the legitimate social needs and their sensitivities, with a sense of justice and rationality, and they provide the most powerful help to the judge to make a fair judgment.
The third chapter, "comparison of the ideological system of Frank and Llewellyn". Frank and Llewellyn's criticism of legal formalism is not isolated, but from their ideological system. Frank's legal thought is only part of its ideological system. In essence, Frank is an excellent politician, Frank points out that the United States should Taking the independent development of national economic policy, isolating Europe, paying more attention to improving domestic purchasing power and opposing all determinism in ideology, he expounded the importance of maintaining and perfecting the American democratic market system from political, economic and philosophical aspects. Legal thought is a tool to realize this ideal of political governance. Llewellyn's legal thought is a whole. The tree structure can be divided into three parts in chronological order, namely, the critical thought of realism, the thought of legal sociology, and the pragmatism thought of the appeals judicial process. The three parts are connected organically. The legal sociology and pragmatism are the continuation of the critique of the legal formalism, and the criticism is the later thought. To construct the premise, the holistic theory is the sociological part of the grand style theory. In 40s, Llewellyn and his student Hobel co operated the work of legal anthropology, Llewellyn took on the task of constructing the theory, and established the legal function theory which is applicable to both modern society and the early people society, hoping to surpass Webb's ideal of construction. The model is the legal sociology at the core of the holistic theory. Although the theoretical model of Llewellyn's Sociology of law has not been finished, he can not ignore his important contribution to the sociology of law. After 50s, Llewellyn shifted the focus to the jurisprudence, and with the phased victory of the legal realism, the lawyer circles produced The crisis of trust in the appeals judicial process, Llewellyn treated this fear with the grand style of "measurability". < ordinary law tradition > is the aggregation of Llewellyn's legal thought. It embodies Llewellyn's pragmatism legal thought. The difference between Frank and Llewellyn's ideological system is finally reflected in the difference of legal demands, Frank is a one. The justice of the case seeks the ideal of equality before the law, thus ensuring the democratic system of the United States for thousands of generations, while Llewellyn wants the legal system to realize the harmonious order of social life, to seek how the legal man understands the society and how the members of the group realize the autonomy under the protection of the law.
The fourth chapter, "comparison of the legal practice between Frank and Llewellyn". Frank, as the judge of the second circuit court of appeals of the United States, his judgment and dissenting opinion is also an important carrier of his legal thought. The study shows that although Frank is a radical in legal thought, it is a strict conservative in judicial practice. Even if Frank grasped the method of psychoanalysis, it could not control his prejudice against the Communists, and the side proved the failure of his educational reform proposal. Llewellyn was not a simple scholar, and through the drafting of the unified commercial code, he put his legal ideas into practice, though As a result of the withdrawal of the merchant jury setting, its theoretical conception was partly frustrated, but the overall framework of the commercial code still retained Llewellyn's original design and still permeated Llewellyn's personal temperament. Both Frank and Llewellyn were supporters of Roosevelt's new deal to build a healthier economy. Social order. Finally, the reasons for the similarities and differences between Frank and Llewellyn's legal thoughts and practices are analyzed. Although these reasons are all involved in the previous discussion, it is helpful to deepen the understanding.
The fifth chapter, "Frank and Llewellyn in the background of the history of American legal thought", explores the relationship between Frank, Llewellyn and early pragmatism, critical jurisprudence and Neo realism, and studies the influence of Frank, Llewellyn and American legal realism in the background of the history of American legal thought. The movement of legal realism and the early reality Sharing the same philosophical basis with the doctrine of doctrine of doctrine, Frank is a disciple of Holmes, and Llewellyn highly esteems Cardoso, but through a specific analysis of their thoughts and practices, it can be shown that Llewellyn is the real pragmatist, and Frank is only the marginal figure of the Legal Realism Movement. In the four or five twentieth Century In the future, the thought of the American legal realism has been widely affirmed. To some extent, the jurisprudential schools of the twentieth Century have been influenced by them. We are all legal realists, but the law and social movement, which rose in 60s and 70s, are more representative of the critical law movement, and they inherit the legal realist. Different aspects of the movement of justice. The American Legal Realism Movement has achieved success in three aspects: breaking the deterministic myth of legal formalism, advocating the law research of interdisciplinary, emphasizing the legal and political connections. After 40s and 50s, the uncertainty of the law was widely accepted as consensus, and almost no one believed the rules. Logical reasoning can draw a judgment. The Legal Realism Movement has pushed the cross subject research into prosperity. Frank analyses the legal phenomena by psychological methods. Llewellyn prefers the sociological / anthropological method, and the Neo Realism (Law and social movement) inherits the legal realism and is committed to completely neutral and objective. Llewellyn points out that the source of law not only includes rules and principles, but also includes policies, politics quietly enters Llewellyn's legal thought, and Frank's legal thought serves its political ideal. The American Legal Realism Movement is the legal reform thought of Roosevelt's new deal, and the critical law inherits the law. On the political aspect of law, the movement of law realism points out that law is a tool for political system. The aim is to protect the market and democracy of capitalism, which presupposes the inequality and intense contradiction between classes.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D90

【参考文献】