论立法权威

发布时间：2018-02-05 20:44

本文关键词： 立法权威合法性立法商谈　出处：《厦门大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：“民意审判”现象昭示了当下中国法律权威的危机,对于该问题,国内学者多着眼于法官或者审判,试图告诉法官如何作出好的判决或者维护司法的权威,却忽视立法问题。法律不仅需要社会公众的服从,更需要社会公众的内心认同,立法权威是法律权威的重要组成部分,同样地,它包含了公众对立法的外在遵守,也包含了公众对立法的内心认同,立法权威需要合法性的证成。对于立法权威的合法性来源,自然主义者诸如西塞罗、洛克和德沃金认为其取决于立法结果是否合乎某种自然法,实证主义者比如哈特、拉兹、凯尔森认为其来自于立法行为本身,以哈贝马斯为代表的程序主义者则将合法性诉诸一定的程序,通过平等广泛的商谈得出值得认同的“共识”。在价值多元的当今社会,人们既还在追求着终极价值,又再也无法找到一个可以为所有人所认同的终极价值,因而,将哈贝马斯的法律商谈理论作为立法权威的合法性证成进路,这种程序主义的范式相对于自然主义或者实证主义的理论,显然更为可取,即立法权威之树立需要走立法商谈之路。参照立法商谈的要求,我国立法实践存在立法参与主体的有限性、立法“商谈”对象的局限性、立法审议缺乏论辩性、立法参与主体商谈能力不足等诸多问题。为解决上述问题,首先,要确立商谈的立法理念；其次,应当保障公民平等且广泛的立法参与权；然后,需要建立健全诸如立法信息公开制度、立法听证制度、立法辩论制度、立法后评估制度等一系列相关的立法程序；最后,还需要加强公民教育,培养公民意识。立法走上商谈之路,立法权威才真正获得正当性,社会公众才能真正形成对立法、法律的认同。
[Abstract]:The phenomenon of "public opinion trial" reveals the current crisis of Chinese legal authority. For this issue, domestic scholars mostly focus on judges or trials, trying to tell judges how to make good judgments or uphold the authority of the judiciary. The law needs not only the obedience of the public, but also the inner identity of the public. Legislative authority is an important part of the legal authority, the same. It includes the external compliance of the public to the legislation and the public's inner identity to the legislation. The legislative authority needs the proof of legitimacy. For the source of the legitimacy of the legislative authority naturalists such as Cicero. Locke and Dworkin believe that it depends on whether the legislative results conform to some natural law, and positists such as Hart, Raz and Kelsen think it comes from the legislative act itself. Habermas represented by the procedure of legitimacy to a certain procedure, through equal and extensive negotiations to get the recognition of "consensus." in the value of diversity in today's society. People are still pursuing the ultimate value, but also can not find a final value that can be recognized by all. Therefore, Habermas's theory of legal negotiation as the legitimacy of the legislative authority into a path. This kind of procedural paradigm is obviously more desirable than naturalism or positivism, that is, the establishment of legislative authority needs to follow the road of legislative negotiation. There are many problems in our legislative practice, such as the limitation of the subject of legislative participation, the limitation of the object of legislative "negotiation", the lack of argumentation in the legislative review, the insufficiency of the capacity of the subject of legislative participation, and so on. First of all, we should establish the legislative concept of negotiation; Secondly, citizens should be guaranteed equal and extensive right to participate in legislation; Then, it is necessary to establish and perfect a series of relevant legislative procedures, such as the open system of legislative information, the system of legislative hearing, the system of legislative debate, the system of post-legislative evaluation, and so on. Finally, it is necessary to strengthen civic education and cultivate civic consciousness. Only when legislation is on the road of negotiation, can legislative authority truly gain legitimacy, and the public can truly form the recognition of legislation and law.
【学位授予单位】：厦门大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D920.4

【参考文献】