后果主义视角下的法律论证理论

发布时间：2018-11-12 17:16

【摘要】： 后果主义法律论证理论是法律论证以及法律逻辑学中一个新兴的研究领域。后果主义法律论证理论用一种向前看的眼光,根据判决的可能后果,深入理解一个案件涉及的诸多具体利益,并要求法官在可能导致的多个竞争利益中进行选择,根据不同选择带来的不同后果进行价值评价,最终作出一个合乎情理的决定。目的在于帮助法官面对疑难案件时,应该立足社会现实的需要,通过考虑作出某一选择所导致的各种可能后果,来考量选择是否具有正当性,从而实现司法为民这一社会主义法治理论的基本理念。实质上后果主义法律论证理论从判决可能导致的各种后果出发,为法官提供了一种实用裁判方法,从一个全新的角度,探寻更加合理,更具实践意义的理论进路,以期满足法官在现实审判中的需求。第一部分从哲学、法律、逻辑及社会背景等四个方面探讨法律论证理论兴起的渊源。首先,实践哲学的兴起促使哲学家们更加关注人类行为正当性的思考,在这种背景下,法律的道德性重新引起人们的思考,实践理性也进入法学研究的视野;其次,概念法学的日渐式微,法官获得了一定的自由裁量权,这样法官就必须论证判决理由的正当性与可接受性;再次非形式逻辑的兴起为法律论证理论提供了理论支撑;最后,随着社会公众权利意识日益加强,对司法也提出了更高的要求。司法判决能够被双方乃至社会公众所接受,就必须进行充分的论证。第二部分通过考察不同学者的后果法律论证理论的总结,界定了后果主义法律论证的涵义。卡多佐从法社会学的角度,强调以价值判断衡量不同利益可能导致的裁判后果为指导来裁决案件。波斯纳认为法官应该立足于社会的需要,对案件背后隐藏的各种具体利益进行认真分析、调查和评估,并最终做出选择。麦考密克认为法官在裁判案件时尤其对于疑难案件的裁决,判决理由的形成,一般取决于所应该适用的法律规则、原则对社会可能导致的各种后果所进行的选择。在不同的历史时期或不同的法官眼中,同一案件事实,其判决理由也可能不尽相同,有时甚至可能得出截然相反的决定。本文通过对比各种不同后果主义法律论证理论,进而阐述了后果主义法律论证就是在法律秩序范围内,法官判决案件应该考虑适用某一法律规范或法律原则,对各种相关社会利益可能产生的潜在影响,以及可能引起的各种可能后果,并在对立的后果中进行考量,以为依据推出正当理由的论证理论。在此基础上,通过对后果的预测和分类进行分析和归纳,认为后果主义论证所趋向的后果,并非是司法裁决的任何后果,而是法律语境和法律职业思维下的后果,即要依据法律目的来预测可能产生的后果,而不能任意选择。而且可欲后果可以分为法律后果与社会后果、长期后果与短期后果、政治后果与法律后果等。最后,本文认为可欲后果的多样性,必然要求一定的标准对预测后果进行评价,也就是在各种利益(如公民自由与国家安全,个人隐私与知情权)之间达成一种平衡。法律原则、利益衡量、情理都可以作为对后果进行评价的标准,尤其是情理之于国人,更具有重要的实践价值。第三部分,对后果主义法律论证理论进行了反思和批判。如果没有其它相关制度的约束,后果主义法律论证必然会导致司法部门屈服于行政机关的影响和压力,导致司法判决行政化倾向。后果主义论证理论在现实司法实践也缺乏对法官自由裁量权的有效约束,很可能最终走向法律虚无主义的深渊。鉴此,本文的结论是后果主义论证理论还应该遵循正当法律程序以及说明理由制度的约束。法官对不同后果的取舍要说明理由,要实现阳光下判决,杜绝暗箱操作,让当事人输的明白,赢的清楚。后果主义法律论证理论只有得到正当法律程序和说明理由制度的补充,才能真正做出社会满意的判决,实现司法维护社会正义和司法为民的目的。本文选题的实践意义在于:(1)满足法官裁决案件的实际需求,即在疑难案件裁决中,借助后果主义论证法官可以尽快确立案件适用的法律规范,并以此为支点形成正当判决理由;(2)为判决理由公开制度作出有益的探索,以真正实现阳光下的司法正义。本文的研究重点在于后果主义法律论证理论的构建,并结合案例分析方法,论证了该理论在司法实践中的可行性与有益性。其创新点在于,通过对后果主义法律论证理论的界定,并且对后果主义法律论证理论进行了批判和反思,提出只有与正当程序和说明理由制度相结合的后果主义论证理论,才是适合我国司法实践的。
[Abstract]:The theory of the legal argument of the result doctrine is the legal argument and a new research field in the legal logic study. The theory of the result-oriented law is a forward-looking, based on the possible consequences of the sentence, in-depth understanding of the specific interests involved in a case, and requests the judge to choose among a number of competing interests that may result, The value evaluation is carried out according to the different consequences of the different selection, and a reasonable decision is finally made. The purpose of this paper is to help the judge, in the face of difficult cases, based on the needs of the social reality, to consider whether the choice is justified by considering the various possible consequences of a certain choice, so as to realize the basic idea of the theory of the socialist rule of law for the people in justice for the people. On the basis of the consequences of the possible consequences of the judgment, a practical method of referees is provided for the judge, in order to meet the needs of the judge in the real trial. The first part discusses the rise of the theory of legal reasoning from four aspects, such as philosophy, law, logic and social background. First, the rise of the practice philosophy has led the philosophers to pay more attention to the thinking of the legitimacy of the human behavior. In this context, the moral character of the law recauses the thought of the people, and the practice reason also enters the field of view of the legal research; secondly, the day of the concept of law The judge has given a certain discretion, so the judge must demonstrate the legitimacy and acceptability of the judgment reason; the rise of the non-formal logic provides the theoretical support for the theory of the legal reasoning; and finally, with the public's rights awareness day The strengthening of the administration of justice has also raised a higher level of justice. The judicial decision can be accepted by both parties and the public and must be fully The second part, through the investigation of the conclusion of the theory of the legal reasoning of the consequences of different scholars, defines the consequences. The meaning of the legal argument. Cardoso, from the perspective of the law sociology, emphasizes the determination of the possible consequences of different interests in terms of value judgment. Guided by the case, Posner is of the view that the judge should be based on the needs of the community and that the specific interests hidden behind the case are carefully analysed, investigated and evaluated, and finally make a choice. McCormick is of the opinion that, in the case of a decision, the judge's decision on the case of a difficult case, the formation of the grounds for judgment, will generally depend on the legal rules applicable, the principles of which the principle is likely to lead to the society The choice of the fruit. In different historical periods or in different judges, the facts of the same case may be different and sometimes even possible. In this paper, by comparing various legal arguments of different consequences, the paper expounds that the legal argument of the result is that in the scope of the law order, the case of the judge's judgment should consider the application of a certain legal norm or the legal principle, and it may be possible for various relevant social interests The potential effects, as well as the various possible consequences that may arise, and take into consideration in the opposite consequence, in order to justify the introduction of justice. On the basis of this, through the analysis and conclusion of the prediction and classification of the consequences, it is concluded that the consequence of the trend of the consequence-based argument is not any consequence of the judicial decision, but it is the consequence of the legal context and the legal professional thought, that is, it is to be predicted according to the legal purpose. the possible consequences, and can be divided into the legal consequences and the social consequences, the long-term consequences and the short-term consequences, and the political In the end, the author thinks that the diversity of the result can be evaluated by some standard, and it is in various interests (such as civil liberties and national security, personal privacy and right to know). A balance is reached. The principles of the law, the measure of interest, and the justification can be used as a standard for the evaluation of the consequences, in particular in the country and more The important practical value. The third part, the legal theory of the consequences. If there is no other relevant system, the legal argument of the result will lead to the judicial department's submission to the influence and pressure of the administrative organ. It can lead to the administrative tendency of the judicial decision. The result-based argument theory lacks the effective restraint of the discretion of the judge in the practice of judicial practice, and it is likely to end up The conclusion of this paper is that the theory of the proof of the consequences should be followed by the proper legal procedure. and explain the restraint of the reason system. The judge should explain the reasons for the trade-off of the different consequences, to make the judgment under the sun, to put an end to the operation of the dark box, and to let the judge The understanding and winning of the people's loss is clear. The theory of the legal proof of the consequences can only be supplemented by the proper legal procedure and the explanation reason system, so that the judgment of the social satisfaction can be truly made, and the judicial maintenance society can be realized The purpose of justice and justice for the people is to: (1) to satisfy the actual demand of the judge's decision case, that is, in the case of difficult case, the judge can establish the applicable legal norm of the case as soon as possible by means of the result-based argument and (2) make a useful exploration for the public system of the judgment. The focus of this paper is the construction of the theory of the legal argument of the consequence, and the case analysis method and the case analysis method. It is the feasibility and the benefit of the theory in the judicial practice. The innovation point is that through the definition of the theory of the legal argument of the result, and the theory of the legal argument of the result is criticized and reflected, it is suggested that only after the combination of the due process and the explanation reason system,
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D90-051

【参考文献】