阿列克西法律论证理论述评

发布时间：2018-04-05 01:13

本文选题：法律论证　切入点：普遍实践论证　出处：《中国政法大学》2009年硕士论文

【摘要】： 法律论证理论是对传统司法理论在一定程度上的否定与突破。早已习惯了以司法三段论为代表的传统推理形式的人们到了二十世纪才逐渐的认识到,在许多现实案件的场合,传统司法推理的形式是应当受到质疑的。裁判者并不能从一般的法律规则与当前的具体案件事实之中仅仅依靠遵守逻辑规则就机械的演绎出裁决。裁判者事实上拥有了自由裁量权,可以对法律规则进行选择和解释。而要想维护法律的权威性与社会关系的稳定,又必须要求裁判者对这种选择或解释说明理由。在这样的情形下,法律裁决的合法性与正当性问题便进入了人们的视野,成为了人们关注的核心问题。法律论证正是这样一个对法律裁决的合法性与正当性进行证立的过程。法律论证理论兴起之后,对其研究的发展极为迅速,虽然只有短短几十年时间,学术成果已经很丰富。在法律论证理论发展的过程之中,德国学者罗伯特·阿列克西(Robert Alexy)法律论证理论的研究引起了学界较高的关注和广泛的讨论,很多学者对阿列克西的法律论证理论予以了肯定,并给予了较高的评价;同时,也有另外一些学者对阿列克西的法律论证理论提出了质疑的意见。但无论如何,作为法律论证理论领域的宝贵研究成果,阿列克西法律论证理论的贡献与不足都为当代学者进一步研究法律论证理论提供了起点,指引了方向。赞同阿列克西的学者会因此看清进一步研究的方向,反对的学者也会因此找到批判的标靶,而更多的学者则会站在中立的立场,以更开阔的视角和创造性的精神去继续探究法律论证理论。正是由于阿列克西的法律论证理论的重要地位,本文拟对这一理论进行简要的介绍,并对其的贡献与不足做一简要评价。在本文的第一章,笔者对法律论证理论的兴起进行了简要的分析。分析了法律论证理论产生的原因,主要是由于以司法三段论为代表的传统推理形式受到了质疑和司法活动性质的要求。自二十世纪七十年代以来,有关于法律论证理论的学说和著作大量涌现;不仅如此,在一些国际性重要的法哲学会议上,法律论证理论都被作为重要议题之一在会议上加以讨论。本文的第二章,对阿列克西的法律论证理论进行了简要的介绍。为了解决规范性命题的证立问题,阿列克西在讨论了关于实践论辩的一些有代表性的理论的基础之上,提出了普遍实践论辩理论。普遍实践论辩理论为规范性命题的证成设计了程序化的规则,但是,普遍实践论辩理论也存在着局限性。普遍实践论辩理论为阿列克西的法律论证理论奠定了基础。由于法律论辩在大多数的时候,需要得到一个确定的、终局性的结果,并且受到了时间空间的限制,这就要求法律论辩的程序设计上比普遍实践论辩需要有附加的规则,这些规则要保证该论辩在现行有效的法律体系下进行。阿列克西接受了波兰学者卢勃列夫斯基于1974年提出的关于在法律裁决的论证中的内部证立和外部证立的区分。同时,阿列克西又进一步指出,外部证成才是法律论证理论的基本点,也是法律论证理论的中心议题,并对内部证成与外部证成的规则与论述形式进行了规定。本文的第三章,讨论了阿列克西法律论证理论的贡献与不足。在贡献方面,笔者认为,阿列克西的法律论证理论的证立规则和论述形式的设计,有助于接近正确性的结果;关于内部证成中使用的前提所做的分类,具有开创性的意义;同时,阿列克西进一步的阐述了对前提的证成所应遵循的规则。在学界中,也有一些学者对阿列克西的法律论证理论提出了质疑意见。综合讨论这些质疑意见,有些确实是指出了阿列克西法律论证理论的不足,有些则是对阿列克西法律论证理论的误读。笔者认为,阿列克西法律论证理论的不足主要体现在以下三个方面:体系上不够完整、未对法律的不确定性问题加以解决以及不具有保证法律论辩结论的确定性。
[Abstract]:The theory of legal argumentation is to deny and break the traditional judicial theory in a certain extent. People have long been accustomed to the traditional form of reasoning in the judicial syllogism as the representative to twentieth Century to gradually realize that in many practical cases of the occasion, the traditional form of judicial reasoning should be questioned. The judge is not from the law the general rules and the specific facts of the case. Only rely on the rules to comply with the logic mechanical interpretation of the ruling. In fact the judge has discretion, can choose and interpret the rule of law. And in order to maintain the legal authority and the stability of social relations, and requires the referee to this choice or explain the reason. In such circumstances, the legality and legitimacy of the rule of law has entered people's field of vision, has become the core issue of concern. The legal argumentation is the process of proving the legality and legitimacy of the legal adjudication.
After the rise of the theory of legal argumentation, the research development is very rapid, although only a few decades, academic achievements have been very rich. In the process of development of the theory of legal argumentation, the German scholar Robert Alexis (Robert Alexy) to research the theory of legal argumentation in the academia high attention and extensive discussion, a lot of scholars on Alexy's theory of legal argumentation should be affirmed, and give a higher evaluation; at the same time, there are also some scholars on Alexy's theory of legal argumentation questioned opinion. But no matter how valuable research results as the field of legal argumentation theory, contribution and limitation of Alexy theory of legal argumentation for contemporary scholars further study the legal argumentation theory provides the starting point and direction. The scholars agree that Alexy will therefore see the direction of further research, anti The right scholars will also find the target of criticism. More scholars will stand in a neutral position and explore the theory of legal argumentation in a more open and creative way.
Because of the important position of Alexy's theory of legal argumentation, this paper will briefly introduce this theory and make a brief comment on its contributions and shortcomings.
In the first chapter, the author on the rise of the theory of legal argumentation is briefly analysed. Analysis of the causes of legal argumentation theory, mainly due to the traditional form of reasoning in the judicial syllogism represented by nature question and judicial activities. Since 1970s, there are about the theory of legal argumentation theory and works not only that, in some emerging; an important international conference on philosophy of law, theory of legal argumentation is regarded as an important one of the topics to be discussed at the meeting.
In the second chapter, the theory of legal argumentation on Alexy were briefly introduced. In order to solve the problem of normative propositional justification, Alexy in the discussion about the practical debate some representative theories based on the proposed universal practical argumentation theory. The general practice of argumentation theory as normative propositional justification the design procedure of the rules, but the general practice of argumentation theory has some limitations. The general practice of argumentation theory laid the foundation for Alexy's theory of legal argumentation. Due to legal argumentation in most of the time required to get a definite, final results, and by the time and space constraints, program design this requires legal argumentation than common practice argumentation requires additional rules, these rules to ensure that the argument in the current effective legal system under Alexy. Distinguish the accepted Poland scholar Lou Bo Levski proposed in 1974 on the rule of law in the demonstration of the internal justification and external justification. At the same time, Alexy further pointed out that the external card talent is the basic point of legal argumentation theory, is also the core topic of legal argumentation theory, and the internal justification and discusses the forms and rules external justification was provided.
The third chapter discusses Alexy's theory of legal argumentation contributions and shortcomings. In the aspect, the author believes that Alexy's theory of legal argumentation and the justification of rules on the form of design, is helpful to the correct result; the classification done on the premise to use internal justification in the groundbreaking at the same time, the significance; Alexy further elaborated on the premise of the rules. In academia, there are also some scholars on Alexy's theory of legal argumentation questioned opinion. A comprehensive discussion of these views, some indeed pointed out the deficiencies of Alexy theory of legal argumentation, there is a misreading of Alexy the legal argumentation theory. The author believes that the lack of Alexy's theory of legal argumentation is mainly reflected in the following three aspects: the system is not complete, not on the legal uncertainty question The problem is solved and the certainty of the conclusion of the legal argumentation is not guaranteed.

【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D90-051

【引证文献】