黄灯通行条款的规范内涵——法解释学视域下的“闯黄灯罚款案”

发布时间：2018-07-07 07:12

本文选题：闯黄灯 + 法律保留　；参考：《华东政法大学学报》2013年01期

【摘要】："闯黄灯"被罚款一案的争议焦点在于双方当事人对黄灯通行条款的复数解释,对此应运用法解释方法得出唯一结论。判断系争法条是出现了法律漏洞,因此"法无明文禁止公民即有自由",还是立法者为立法语言简洁之需要而有意保持沉默,可使用反面解释的方法进行探究。反面解释如能成立,意味着法律漏洞不存在,交警的行政处罚有法律依据。反面解释是否成立无法依靠形式逻辑自身来判断,需要借助体系解释、目的解释、历史解释及社会学解释等其他方法综合探求。各种方法解释的结果均可确认黄灯通行条款的规范内涵是:"当且仅当‘黄灯亮时车辆已过停止线’,‘车辆可以继续通行’"。
[Abstract]:The controversy over the case of "breaking yellow lantern" by the fine lies in the plural interpretation of the terms and conditions of the yellow lantern by both parties, and the only conclusion can be drawn as to the interpretation method of the usage of the yellow lantern. Judging that there is a loophole in the law, so "the law does not explicitly prohibit citizens have freedom", or the legislator for the purpose of the need for concise legislative language to keep silent, we can use the negative interpretation of the method to explore. If the negative explanation can be established, it means that there is no loophole in the law, and the administrative punishment of traffic police has legal basis. Whether the negative explanation is established cannot be judged by the formal logic itself, but needs to be comprehensively explored by other methods, such as system interpretation, purpose interpretation, historical interpretation and sociological interpretation. The results of various methods can confirm the standard connotation of the yellow light passage clause: "if and only if the vehicle has passed the stop line when the yellow light is on, the vehicle can continue to pass."
【作者单位】：上海对外贸易学院法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学基金项目“改革中的先行先试权研究”(项目号09YJC820071)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D920.5;D922.14

【参考文献】