后果主义视角下的法律解释
发布时间：2018-09-14 14:18
【摘要】：后果主义指行为以后果为中心，用后果来判断行为应否被选择以及行为的对错，属于功利主义伦理学的范畴。由于传统法律解释方法的不足，本文试图将伦理学中的后果主义思想引入法律解释，以后果为中心进行法律解释，亦即后果解释。本文创新之处在于根据中国的实用理性精神提出一种由果寻因的法律思维方式。 传统解释方法在解释目标与解释因素位阶上存在不足，后果解释则探求何种解释最能符合目前的社会生活关系与价值观，原则上应优先考量立法者的意图，但又要兼顾当下特定的时空背景条件。法律适用者通过后果解释的方式可提出优先于立法者意图的决定，而非仅限于法律客观的意图或目的本身。为探求何种解释最符合目前的社会生活关系与价值观，可通过一种或数种解释因素同时适用以实现解释目的。各因素之间可藉由后果评价的方式确定孰优孰劣。在法律续造时，必须注意司法权是否会侵害立法权。因立法目的不同，法律续造会有多种可能性，法律适用者可通过后果解释来加强说服力度，并选择其中更符合当下社会生活关系及价值观的法律续造。 中国人注重实践理性，以后果为导向的思维方式见长。本文试图从不同角度，依照不同标准，将后果分为三类：法律后果与事实后果；直接后果与间接后果；内部后果与外部后果。后果解释所指后果应限于事实后果与外部后果。当然这并不意味着要考量所有可能发生的事实后果与外部后果，相反，后果解释之后果仅限于重要之后果及发生机率高之后果。 后果解释可分为五个步骤操作：划定后果解释适用范围；寻找后果；预测后果；后果评价；后果抉择。划定后果解释的适用范围，旨在确保法律适用效力，维护法律拘束原则。寻找后果，指在适用领域说明后，借助其它社会科学，寻找重要的后果。预测后果，是对之前选定的事实后果进行预测，进一步判断何者为重要后果及发生机率高之后果。后果评价，则是对前述可能产生的后果作出评价。后果抉择，最后抉择最符合衡量标准者。 后果解释并没有被人们普遍接受，而且因其具有政治思维倾向的特征，倍受学者们诟病。责难的理由主要来自三个方面：1.危及法律确定性，容易导致法律虚无主义。但后果解释的出发点是评价的客观化，，仅当法律有多种解释可能，依法学方法的解释操作后仍有解释空间时，才适用后果解释；2.招致复杂后果。但后果解释仅指重要的后果，以及发生机率高的后果，因此不会招致复杂后果；3.有违宪政精神。不管是在法律解释有多种可能时，还是在法律续造时，后果解释并没有扩大法官的自由裁量空间，并未违背宪政精神。4．悖逆司法功能，法学的后果导向是不可能的，然而其却是必要的。后果解释虽然会导致系统变异的提高，然而系统也会制造剩余来平衡。因此其不违背司法功能。 后果解释有其合理性：1．后果解释符合中国的实用理性；2．后果解释是可被证伪的科学知识，后果解释是通过评价基础的公开与后果预测的可证伪性而提高其理性，持批判理性的立场；3．后果解释满足了能动司法的社会要求，当司法机构发挥其司法能动性时，它对法律进行解释更倾向于回应当下社会现实和社会演变的新趋势，而不是拘泥于旧有成文法或先例以防止产生不合理的社会后果，因此司法能动性即意味着通过法律解释对法律的创造和补充。 后果解释可弥补传统法学方法论的不足，适应新的社会发展要求，同时具有实践的可操作性。当法律存在多种解释或存在法律漏洞时，应将后果解释作为法律解释的一种方法，以抉择最优解释方案。
[Abstract]:Consequentialism refers to the consequence of an act as the center, judging whether the act should be chosen and whether the act is right or wrong by consequence. It belongs to the category of utilitarian ethics. The innovation of this paper lies in putting forward a legal thinking mode based on the Chinese practical rationality.
The traditional interpretation method has some shortcomings in the interpretation goal and the interpretation factor rank, while the consequence interpretation seeks what kind of interpretation best conforms to the current social life relations and values. In principle, the legislator's intention should be given priority consideration, but the specific time and space background conditions should also be taken into account. The decision to take precedence over the intent of the legislator is not confined to the objective intent or purpose of the law itself. In order to find out what kind of interpretation best conforms to the current social life relations and values, one or more explanatory factors can be applied simultaneously to achieve the purpose of interpretation. When renewing, we must pay attention to whether the judicial power will infringe the legislative power. Because of the different legislative purposes, there are many possibilities for the renewal of the law. Applicants of the law can strengthen their persuasion through the interpretation of the consequences, and choose the renewal of the law which is more in line with the current social life relations and values.
This paper tries to classify the consequences into three categories: legal consequences and factual consequences; direct and indirect consequences; internal and external consequences. The consequences of consequence interpretation should be limited to factual and external consequences. It does not mean that all possible factual consequences and external consequences should be taken into account. On the contrary, the consequences of interpretation are limited to the important consequences and the consequences of a high probability of occurrence.
Consequence interpretation can be divided into five steps: delimiting the scope of application of consequence interpretation; looking for consequences; predicting consequences; consequence evaluation; consequence choice. delimiting the scope of application of consequence interpretation is aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of law application and safeguarding the principle of legal restraint. Important consequences. Predictive consequences are the predictions of the factual consequences selected before, the further judgments of which are important consequences and the consequences of a high probability of occurrence.
Consequence interpretation is not generally accepted by people, and it is criticized by scholars for its political thinking tendency. The reasons for the blame mainly come from three aspects: 1. endangering legal certainty and easily leading to legal nihilism. Consequence interpretation is applicable only when there is still room for interpretation after the operation of methodological methods. 2. It leads to complex consequences. Consequence interpretation only refers to important consequences and high-probability consequences, so it will not lead to complex consequences. 3. It violates the spirit of constitutionalism. 4. Contrary to the judicial function, the consequence orientation of law is impossible, but it is necessary. Consequential interpretation will lead to the improvement of system variation, but the system will also create surplus to balance. Therefore, it does not violate the judicial function.
Consequence interpretation has its rationality: 1. Consequence interpretation conforms to China's practical rationality; 2. Consequence interpretation is a scientific knowledge that can be falsified; Consequence interpretation improves its rationality and holds the position of critical rationality by evaluating the openness of the basis and the falsifiability of consequence prediction; 3. Consequence interpretation satisfies the social requirements of active justice. When the judiciary exerts its judicial initiative, it tends to interpret the law in response to the current social reality and the new trend of social evolution, rather than sticking to the old statutes or precedents to prevent unreasonable social consequences. Therefore, judicial initiative means the creation and supplement of the law through legal interpretation.
Consequence interpretation can make up for the shortcomings of the traditional legal methodology, adapt to the new social development requirements, and has the operability of practice. When there are many interpretations or legal loopholes in the law, the consequence interpretation should be taken as a method of legal interpretation to choose the best interpretation scheme.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-051
本文编号：2242952
[Abstract]:Consequentialism refers to the consequence of an act as the center, judging whether the act should be chosen and whether the act is right or wrong by consequence. It belongs to the category of utilitarian ethics. The innovation of this paper lies in putting forward a legal thinking mode based on the Chinese practical rationality.
The traditional interpretation method has some shortcomings in the interpretation goal and the interpretation factor rank, while the consequence interpretation seeks what kind of interpretation best conforms to the current social life relations and values. In principle, the legislator's intention should be given priority consideration, but the specific time and space background conditions should also be taken into account. The decision to take precedence over the intent of the legislator is not confined to the objective intent or purpose of the law itself. In order to find out what kind of interpretation best conforms to the current social life relations and values, one or more explanatory factors can be applied simultaneously to achieve the purpose of interpretation. When renewing, we must pay attention to whether the judicial power will infringe the legislative power. Because of the different legislative purposes, there are many possibilities for the renewal of the law. Applicants of the law can strengthen their persuasion through the interpretation of the consequences, and choose the renewal of the law which is more in line with the current social life relations and values.
This paper tries to classify the consequences into three categories: legal consequences and factual consequences; direct and indirect consequences; internal and external consequences. The consequences of consequence interpretation should be limited to factual and external consequences. It does not mean that all possible factual consequences and external consequences should be taken into account. On the contrary, the consequences of interpretation are limited to the important consequences and the consequences of a high probability of occurrence.
Consequence interpretation can be divided into five steps: delimiting the scope of application of consequence interpretation; looking for consequences; predicting consequences; consequence evaluation; consequence choice. delimiting the scope of application of consequence interpretation is aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of law application and safeguarding the principle of legal restraint. Important consequences. Predictive consequences are the predictions of the factual consequences selected before, the further judgments of which are important consequences and the consequences of a high probability of occurrence.
Consequence interpretation is not generally accepted by people, and it is criticized by scholars for its political thinking tendency. The reasons for the blame mainly come from three aspects: 1. endangering legal certainty and easily leading to legal nihilism. Consequence interpretation is applicable only when there is still room for interpretation after the operation of methodological methods. 2. It leads to complex consequences. Consequence interpretation only refers to important consequences and high-probability consequences, so it will not lead to complex consequences. 3. It violates the spirit of constitutionalism. 4. Contrary to the judicial function, the consequence orientation of law is impossible, but it is necessary. Consequential interpretation will lead to the improvement of system variation, but the system will also create surplus to balance. Therefore, it does not violate the judicial function.
Consequence interpretation has its rationality: 1. Consequence interpretation conforms to China's practical rationality; 2. Consequence interpretation is a scientific knowledge that can be falsified; Consequence interpretation improves its rationality and holds the position of critical rationality by evaluating the openness of the basis and the falsifiability of consequence prediction; 3. Consequence interpretation satisfies the social requirements of active justice. When the judiciary exerts its judicial initiative, it tends to interpret the law in response to the current social reality and the new trend of social evolution, rather than sticking to the old statutes or precedents to prevent unreasonable social consequences. Therefore, judicial initiative means the creation and supplement of the law through legal interpretation.
Consequence interpretation can make up for the shortcomings of the traditional legal methodology, adapt to the new social development requirements, and has the operability of practice. When there are many interpretations or legal loopholes in the law, the consequence interpretation should be taken as a method of legal interpretation to choose the best interpretation scheme.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-051
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前4条
1 杨知文;;司法裁决的后果主义论证[J];法律科学(西北政法大学学报);2009年03期
2 罗东川;丁广宇;;我国能动司法的理论与实践评述[J];法律适用;2010年Z1期
3 李仕春;;案例指导制度的另一条思路——司法能动主义在中国的有限适用[J];法学;2009年06期
4 谭融;试析美国的司法能动主义[J];天津师范大学学报(社会科学版);2003年06期
本文编号：2242952
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2242952.html
