法律类推中案件间相似性的发现与证成
发布时间：2018-12-30 15:18
【摘要】：现有的类推论者往往在不同的指称意义上使用和论述类比推理,而且更重要的是,他们一般只在法律发现或者法律证成的单一维度上对案件间相似性判断采取描述性或规范性研究,从而造成了关于类比推理的各种表面和实质争议。 本文在描述、反思现有的认识论对案件间相似性判断的可能意义及其限度的基础上,提出了一种建立在类型概念基础之上的法律类型构造理论,认为案件间的相似性判断,是一个案件之间语义属性上的相似性和案件之间在法律规则的目的、立法理由、判决理由、法律原则等法律评价上的相似性共同作用的结果,而本文重构的法律类型可充分满足这一认识论要求。在证成部分,本文运用语义学论证、原则论证、衡量论证和融贯性论证,对法律解释者运用法律类型进行案件间的相似性判断面临的某种程度的不确定性依次进行了证成,指出法律类推中案件间的相似性判断仍具有相当的确定性。 本文的结构分为：第一部分在探讨围绕类推各种争议的基础上,提出相似性判断争议及其问题；第二部分围绕第一部分提出的问题意识,立足于学界的相关研究,对默会知识论、原型范畴论、概念整合论、现代认知心理学以及德国法学的类型论对相似性判断的意义及其可能性限度分别作了归纳与研讨。这种归纳构成后文构造的法律类型的理论起点和基础；第三部分探讨了一种全新的建立在类型概念语义基础之上的法律类型的构造形式、结构形态,并结合两个案件论述了其对法律类推中案件间相似性判断的认识论意义。这里的探讨显示出,法律类型能够运用于相似性判断中,亦可见本文的类型理论对于法律类推中案件间相似性的发现具有非常重要的意义；第四部分围绕语义学论证、原则论证、衡量论证和融贯性论证,分别探讨了案件相似性判断的证成问题。
[Abstract]:The existing analogists tend to use and discuss analogical reasoning in different referential senses, and more importantly, They generally take descriptive or normative research on the similarity judgment between cases in a single dimension of legal discovery or legal proof, which leads to various superficial and substantive disputes about analogical reasoning. On the basis of describing and reflecting on the possible significance and limitation of the existing epistemology to the judgment of similarity between cases, this paper puts forward a kind of construction theory of legal types based on the concept of type. It is the result of the similarity between the semantic attributes of a case and the similarity between the legal rules, the legislative reasons, the judgment reasons, the legal principles, and so on. The types of laws reconstructed in this paper can fully meet the epistemological requirements. In the part of proof, this paper uses semantic argument, principle argument, measurement argument and consistency argument to prove the degree of uncertainty faced by legal interpreters in judging the similarity between cases by using legal types. It is pointed out that the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogy still has considerable certainty. The structure of this paper is divided into: the first part of the discussion around the analogy of various disputes on the basis of the similarity judgment dispute and its problems; The second part focuses on the awareness of questions raised in the first part, based on the relevant research in the academic world, the tacit knowledge theory, prototype category theory, conceptual integration theory, The significance and possible limits of similarity judgment in modern cognitive psychology and German jurisprudence are summarized and discussed. This kind of induction constitutes the theoretical starting point and foundation of the legal types of the later texts. The third part discusses a new kind of legal type based on the semantic meaning of the concept of type, and discusses the epistemological significance of the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogies with the combination of two cases. The discussion here shows that the type of law can be applied to the judgment of similarity, and that the type theory in this paper is of great significance to the discovery of the similarity between cases in the legal analogies. The fourth part focuses on semantic argumentation, principle argumentation, measurement argumentation and fusion argumentation, and discusses the evidence of case similarity judgment.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D90
本文编号：2395749
[Abstract]:The existing analogists tend to use and discuss analogical reasoning in different referential senses, and more importantly, They generally take descriptive or normative research on the similarity judgment between cases in a single dimension of legal discovery or legal proof, which leads to various superficial and substantive disputes about analogical reasoning. On the basis of describing and reflecting on the possible significance and limitation of the existing epistemology to the judgment of similarity between cases, this paper puts forward a kind of construction theory of legal types based on the concept of type. It is the result of the similarity between the semantic attributes of a case and the similarity between the legal rules, the legislative reasons, the judgment reasons, the legal principles, and so on. The types of laws reconstructed in this paper can fully meet the epistemological requirements. In the part of proof, this paper uses semantic argument, principle argument, measurement argument and consistency argument to prove the degree of uncertainty faced by legal interpreters in judging the similarity between cases by using legal types. It is pointed out that the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogy still has considerable certainty. The structure of this paper is divided into: the first part of the discussion around the analogy of various disputes on the basis of the similarity judgment dispute and its problems; The second part focuses on the awareness of questions raised in the first part, based on the relevant research in the academic world, the tacit knowledge theory, prototype category theory, conceptual integration theory, The significance and possible limits of similarity judgment in modern cognitive psychology and German jurisprudence are summarized and discussed. This kind of induction constitutes the theoretical starting point and foundation of the legal types of the later texts. The third part discusses a new kind of legal type based on the semantic meaning of the concept of type, and discusses the epistemological significance of the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogies with the combination of two cases. The discussion here shows that the type of law can be applied to the judgment of similarity, and that the type theory in this paper is of great significance to the discovery of the similarity between cases in the legal analogies. The fourth part focuses on semantic argumentation, principle argumentation, measurement argumentation and fusion argumentation, and discusses the evidence of case similarity judgment.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D90
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前8条
1 杜宇;;刑法规范的形成机理——以“类型”建构为视角[J];法商研究;2010年01期
2 郁振华;;范例、规则和默会认识[J];华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2008年04期
3 雷磊;;法律推理基本形式的结构分析[J];法学研究;2009年04期
4 杜宇;再论刑法上之“类型化”思维——一种基于“方法论”的扩展性思考[J];法制与社会发展;2005年06期
5 陈林林;;裁判上之类比推论辨析[J];法制与社会发展;2007年04期
6 埃尔马·邦德;吴香香;;类推:当代德国法中的证立方法[J];求是学刊;2010年03期
7 杜宇;;刑法上之“类推禁止”如何可能? 一个方法论上的悬疑[J];中外法学;2006年04期
8 郁振华;波兰尼的默会认识论[J];自然辩证法研究;2001年08期
，本文编号：2395749
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2395749.html
