在经验和规范之间：法律正当性的范式转换

发布时间：2018-05-30 23:47

本文选题：法律正当性 + 范式　；参考：《华东政法大学》2013年博士论文

【摘要】：本文的主旨在于厘清正当性范式的演变过程，并寻找正当性范式转换之缘由；此外，本文还试图结合正当性范式之演变，提出一种当代的正当性重建模式。在导论部分，本文基于哈贝马斯的经验性正当性与规范性正当性理论，结合美国学者法隆的法学、社会学、道德哲学上的正当性界定，根据它们各自的内在理路，将正当性范式归结为规范性的正当性范式、经验性的正当性范式、通过合法性的正当性范式，以及程序性的正当性范式。规范性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于自然或神意；经验性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于人民的经验性的同意；通过合法性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于符合实证法规定；程序性的正当性范式认为政治权力和法律的正当性来自于经由程序审议达成的共识。本文第一部分详细阐述规范性的正当性范式。文章认为，自古希腊的史诗时代以降，直至启蒙运动，此一时期占主流地位的规范性的正当性就体现在一种二元秩序观当中，这种二元秩序观，在史诗时代的神话里，体现为神法与人法；在哲学化时期，则体现为自然和习俗；在古罗马，体现为神意与民意；在中世纪，体现为永恒法与人法。二元秩序观的要旨在于，二元秩序中的神圣秩序赋予了世俗秩序以正当性，由此，哲学或神话的建构都承担着一定的社会功能。然而，随着变革时代的来临，文艺复兴使人的地位大幅提升；宗教改革让神权土崩瓦解；启蒙运动则令自然烟消云散，当自然与神意都遭革除之后，二元秩序观分崩离析，正当性已是无根的浮萍。正是在这种大写的“人”的背景下，魔鬼般的马基雅维利思想出现了，失却了永恒秩序，马基雅维利事实上废弃了正当性的规范维度，他唯一关心的只剩下统治的有效性，而他所教导的，则是赤裸裸的权术，马基雅维利代表了一个时代的终结。不过，马基雅维利虽然毁坏了西方的正当性传统，但是他大肆破坏之后就甩手走人了，并没有重建正当性。事实上，这个工作是是由霍布斯完成的，他为现代政治重新找到了正当性的根基，即人权。所以，马基雅维利和霍布斯二人一破一立，但是只有霍布斯堪称现代政治哲学之父。霍布斯所开创的正当性依然属于规范性的正当性范式，因为他把正当性建立在基本人权之上，因此他的正当性与古代二元秩序观下的正当性一样，仍然属于道德性正当性的范畴，即认为正当性的标准不是来自于人民事实上的同意或接受，而是来自某种独立道德标准。但是他的正当性的划时代的转变在于，他虽然坚持道德性正当性的进路，但他却同时废弃了古代正当性的彼岸之路，而将正当性建立在此岸的世俗社会之上，更具体地说，就是将古代彼岸的自然与上帝置换成了此岸的人权。由此，霍布斯实际上在规范性的正当性范式下又开创了一个新的传统。沿着霍布斯开创的道路，洛克和卢梭进一步夯实了规范性正当性的人权范式，如果说他们之间有所不同的话，无非是霍布斯更加关注人的安全，而洛克更加关注财产，卢梭更加关注自由而已。本文第二部分详细阐述经验性的正当性范式。文章认为，经验性的正当性之所以在这个时期占据了主流地位，是因为现代性下事实与价值二分的结果。事实与价值二分导致了价值主观主义、价值多元主义、价值相对主义和价值虚无主义，最终正当性的规范之维即价值之维被完全摧毁，于是，马克斯·韦伯的经验性正当性应时而生。首先，韦伯将政治秩序的存在作为一个经验事实来观察和研究，他发现只有具有正当性的秩序才具有最高程度的稳定性，得以比较长的维持下去。其次，根据韦伯的研究，历史上政治秩序的来源既可能是来自于传统的传承，也可能来自于领袖的个人魅力，，现在社会的正当性则来自于一套形式理性化的法律之治。在此重要的是，韦伯秉承价值中立的方法，他只是像自然科学家那样考察为什么有些秩序比较稳定，然后客观描述作为这种稳定之基础的正当性的来源或类型，但他并不对这些正当性类型有所取舍或好恶，也就是说不作孰优孰劣的价值判断。本文第三部分详细阐述通过合法性的正当性范式。通过合法性的正当性即认为一个行为只要合乎法律就是正当的，事实上将正当性转换成了合法性。当马克斯·韦伯将现代社会的正当性类型认定为一种法理型正当性时，他已经开创了通过合法性的正当性道路。不过通过合法性的正当性这一独特的范式是在法律实证主义，尤其是凯尔森的纯粹法学那里才呈现出一种比较完善的版本。法律实证主义通过合法性的正当性要求合法性能够独立于传统的正当性，行动或权力只要合乎法律就是正当的，也就是合法性就是正当性。在此种理路之下，法律就成为了判断行动和权力的唯一标准，但是法律自身正当性来自于何处？或者说我们为什么要服从法律呢？因此，实证主义必须说明法律的有效性来源。而正是在这个地方，凯尔森的纯粹法学作出了独特的贡献，他将法律本身是否正当的问题转换成了法律本身是否有效的问题，又用颇有些诡诈的“基础规范”解决了法律为何有效的问题，从而彻底解决了通过合法性的正当性的路径建设，完成了通过合法性的正当性的整个拼图。通过合法性的正当性范式在某种意义上是韦伯经验性正当性范式的延续，它们回应的问题都是事实与价值二分，但是合法性的正当性范式又与韦伯经验性正当性范式在学术旨趣上有所不同。本文第四部分详细阐述通过程序性的正当性范式。法律实证主义的传人哈特，以及规范主义正当性的传人罗尔斯和哈贝马斯，他们为了解答价值多元的社会里如何重建统一的正当性基础的问题，沿着各自的传统都做出了努力。但是他们的从不同方向的努力却都呈现一种惊人的巧合，即都采纳了程序主义的进路。本文通过分疏程序所独有的形式性、包容性和中立性等特点，认定程序主义将是我们重建正当性的不二选择。但是，从法律实证主义处于萌芽状态的程序主义，到罗尔斯与哈贝马斯相互分歧的程序主义版本，都存在着各自的弱点，这一进路若想成功，还需要进一步加以修缮才有希望，为此，本文试图通过他们之间的互勘，从而综合三家之长，提出一种较为完善的程序主义来重建正当性。这种程序基于哈贝马斯的双轨制审议民主理论，是一种包含双轨制民主商谈的大程序：双轨制商谈程序作为一种获得正当性的工具，它的基础依赖于个人权利的保障，而其商谈的目标，主要是一种关于规范的共识，这种共识是一种罗尔斯所说的“重叠性共识”，通过这种装置而获得的正当性，准确地说，是一种通过合法性的正当性。这样，这种双轨制商谈程序的正当性，既继承了法律实证主义通过合法性的正当性道路，将法律置于中心位置，又运用了哈贝马斯的商谈理论的反身性特点来解决程序内嵌价值的循环问题，同时又通过罗尔斯的重叠共识对哈贝马斯商谈理论的目标进行修正，最终我们得以融合各家之长，得出了自己的理论思考。程序性的正当性范式融规范性的正当性范式、经验性的正当性范式与通过合法性的正当性范式为一炉，通过内置双轨制民主商谈的大程序，程序性的正当性范式既强调了规范性的可接受性，又强调了经验上的人民同意，同时，由于商谈的目标，主要集中于获得一种关于法律的共识，因此，程序性的正当性范式也是一种通过合法性的正当性范式。这样，本论文的四种正当性范式就不是由于作者兴趣随机地呈现在读者面前，而是具有一种内在的联系，第一、第二和第三种正当性范式最终都被吸收进了第四种正当性范式当中。
[Abstract]:The main purpose of this article is to clarify the evolution process of the justifiable paradigm and to find the reason for the transformation of justifiable paradigms. In addition, this paper also attempts to propose a contemporary model of legitimacy reconstruction with the evolution of the justifiable paradigm.
In the introduction part, this article, based on the theory of Habermas's empirical legitimacy and normative legitimacy, defines the legitimacy of the law, sociology, and moral philosophy of the American scholars, according to their internal logic, and sums up the justifiable paradigm as a normative positive paradigm, the empirical legitimacy paradigm, and the legitimacy. Normal paradigm and procedural legitimacy paradigm. Normative legitimacy paradigm believes that the legitimacy of political power and law comes from natural or divine meaning; the empirical justifiable paradigm believes that the legitimacy of political power and law comes from the empirical consent of the people; and the political power is considered through legitimacy paradigm. The justification of force and law comes from the provisions of the empirical law, and the procedural legitimacy paradigm believes that the legitimacy of political power and law comes from the consensus reached through procedural deliberations.
The first part of this article describes the normative legitimacy paradigm in detail. The article holds that the epic age of ancient Greece fell to the enlightenment movement. The normative legitimacy of the dominant position in this period was embodied in a view of the two yuan order. This view of the two yuan order was embodied in the mythology of the age of the history of the history of poetry. In the period of learning, it was embodied in nature and custom; in ancient Rome, it was embodied in God's meaning and public opinion; in the middle ages, it was embodied in the perpetual law and human law. The gist of the two yuan order was that the sacred order in the two yuan order gave the secular order justifiable, thus the construction of philosophy or mythology all assumed certain social functions.
However, with the advent of the era of change, the Renaissance made a significant improvement in the status of the man; the religious reform disintegrated theocracy; the enlightenment made nature dissipate, and when both nature and God were removed, the view of the two yuan order disintegrated and the justifiability was the root of the duckweed. Machiavelli thought appeared, lost the eternal order, Machiavelli de facto discarded the normative dimension of legitimacy, his only concern was the validity of the rule, and his teaching was naked power, Machiavelli represented the end of an era. But Machiavelli, although ruined the West. It was a tradition, but he left his hands after wanton destruction, and did not rebuild legitimacy. In fact, the work was done by Hobbes. He refound the foundation of the modern politics, that is, human rights. So, Machiavelli and Hobbes were two broken, but only Hobbes could be a modern political philosophy. Father.
The legitimacy created by Hobbes still belongs to the normative paradigm of justifiable nature, because he established legitimacy above basic human rights, so that his legitimacy, like the legitimacy of the ancient two yuan order, still belongs to the category of moral legitimacy, that is, that the standard of justifiable nature is not derived from the fact of the people's consent or connection. It comes from an independent moral standard. But the epoch-making transformation of his legitimacy lies in his insistence on the path of moral justification, but he discarded the way of the other side of the ancient legitimacy, and built it on the secular society on the shore, and, more specifically, the nature and God of the ancient shore. Instead of the human rights on the shore, Hobbes has actually created a new tradition under the normative legitimacy paradigm. Along the path created by Hobbes, Rock and Rousseau further tamped the normative and legitimate human rights paradigm, and if they say that there is a difference between them, Hobbes is more concerned with the security of human beings. Rock paid more attention to property, and Rousseau paid more attention to freedom.
The second part of this article elaborates on the empirical legitimacy paradigm. The article holds that the empirical legitimacy occupies the dominant position in this period because of the fact and value of the two points under modernity. The two points of fact and value lead to value subjectivism, value pluralism, value relativism and value nihilism, The dimension of the ultimate legitimacy, the dimension of value, is completely destroyed, so Max Webb's empirical legitimacy should be born. First, Webb observes and studies the existence of political order as an empirical fact, and he finds that only the order of legitimacy has the highest degree of stability and has been maintained for a long time. Secondly, according to Webb's study, the origin of political order in history may come from both traditional and personal charisma. Now the legitimacy of society comes from a set of rational legal rules. In this way, Webb is based on the method of value neutrality, and he is just like a natural scientist. To examine why some order is more stable and then objectively describe the source or type of justification as the basis of this stability, but he does not have any choice or good or bad of these types of justification, that is to say, not to make a judgment of what is superior and inferior.
The third part of this article describes the legitimacy paradigm in detail. Through legitimacy, it is believed that a act is justified by law as long as it is justified by law. In fact, when Max Webb identified the justifiable type of the modern society as a legal justifiable nature, he has opened it. The path of legitimacy through legitimacy, but the unique paradigm of legitimacy through legal positivism, especially the pure law of Kelsen, presents a more perfect version. Legal positivism requires legitimacy to be independent of traditional legitimacy, action or power through legitimacy. In this way, the law becomes the only standard to judge action and power, but where does the legitimacy of the law come from? Or why do we obey the law? Therefore, positivism must explain the source of the validity of the law. In this place, Kelsen's pure law made a unique contribution. He converted the question of the legitimacy of the law into the question of the validity of the law itself, and solved the problem of the validity of the law with some deceitful "basic norms", thus thoroughly solving the path construction of legitimacy through the legitimacy of the law. The legitimacy of the legitimacy of the whole jigsaw puzzle. Through the legitimacy of the legitimacy paradigm in a sense is the continuation of Webb's empirical legitimacy paradigm, they respond to the question of two points of fact and value, but the legitimacy paradigm is different from the academic purport of Webb's empirical legitimacy paradigm.
The fourth part of this article elaborates on the procedural legitimacy paradigm, Hart of legal positivism, and Rawls and Habermas of normative legitimacy, who have made efforts to solve the problem of how to reconstruct the unified legitimacy foundation in a pluralistic society of value, but they have made efforts along their own traditions. All the efforts from different directions have shown an amazing coincidence, that is, the adoption of a procedural approach. This article, through the unique formality, inclusiveness and neutrality of the separate procedures, determines that procedural doctrine will be an alternative to reconstructing our legitimacy. However, the procedural doctrine that is in the bud from the legal positivism, The procedural version of the differences between Rawls and Habermas has their own weaknesses. If the approach is successful and needs further repair, it is hopeful. For this reason, this article tries to build a more perfect procedural doctrine to rebuild legitimacy through the mutual exploration between them, so as to put forward a more perfect procedural principle. The dual track system based on Habermas's theory of democratic deliberation is a large procedure involving two track democratic negotiations: a dual track negotiation procedure as a tool for gaining legitimacy, its basis depends on the protection of individual rights, and the goal of its negotiation is mainly a consensus on rules, a consensus that Rawls said. The legitimacy of the "overlapping consensus", which is acquired through this device, is to be justified by the legitimacy, so that the legitimacy of the two track negotiation procedure inherits the legitimacy of the legal positivism, puts the law in the center of the heart, and uses the reflexivity of Habermas's theory of negotiation. At the same time, through the overlapping consensus of Rawls, we amend the goal of Habermas's business theory through the overlapping consensus of Rawls, and finally we have been able to integrate the length of each family and get his own theoretical thinking.
The procedural legitimacy paradigm combines the normative legitimacy paradigm, the empirical legitimacy paradigm and the legitimacy paradigm, through the built-in dual track democratic negotiated large procedure, the procedural legitimacy paradigm emphasizes both the normative acceptability and the experience of the people's consent, at the same time, as a result of negotiation. The goal is to obtain a consensus on the law. Therefore, the procedural legitimacy paradigm is also a legitimate paradigm of legitimacy, so that the four justifiable paradigms of this paper are not randomly presented to the reader because of the author's interest, but have an internal relationship, first, second and third kinds of positive paradigms. The sexual paradigm is finally absorbed into fourth types of legitimacy.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D90-052

【参考文献】