法律推理大前提构建之新进路

发布时间：2018-05-15 01:02

本文选题：大前提构建 + 新进路　；参考：《西南政法大学》2009年硕士论文

【摘要】： 法律推理的大前提构建问题是法律逻辑学一个重要的研究领域。大前提构建问题,本质上是司法审判中由于法官不得拒绝裁判的规则存在,法官在面对法律规范不明、冲突、缺失等情形下,而必须对所裁案件依据的法律规范予以选择的问题。这种选择是基于法官的自由裁量权,但并不意味着其是一种任意选择或解释的结果,而必须是基于一种合理的,为当事人所能接受和理解的论证方法。大前提构建问题就是为了构建这样一些理论,为法官的最终选择提供有力的依据。但在目前已有的大前提构建理论中,并不能完全合理的解决上述问题,反而遭遇了类似“明希豪森困境”等的难题,本文在批判相关大前提构建理论的基础上,旨在从一个全新的角度,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。本文选题的实践意义在于:(1)满足裁判者裁判的实际需求。即在遭遇疑难案件,尤其是法律规范缺失、冲突,法律语言模糊、不明等情况下,为困境解决提供一条可行之路;(2)为司法裁判改革,尤其是为司法文书内容具体化、推理逻辑化的改革要求提供思路,以真正实现透明的司法正义。其理论意义在于超越逻辑系统本身,解决法律逻辑大前提论证中的“明希豪森困境”,构建合理的司法三段论体系,实现法律推理的正当性。本文第一部分,旨在探讨法律推理大前提构建问题的由来。首先,从法律逻辑学的基本研究对象入手,阐述了逻辑学的研究对象与现实发展状况,并进而对现阶段争议颇多的法律逻辑学的研究对象予以探讨,肯定了大前提构建问题在当前法律逻辑学范畴内的研究价值。其次,针对上述结论,一是从大前提构建的必要性方面,二是从大前提构建的可能性方面予以论证。大前提构建的必要性,是当下关于大前提构建的相关论证理论的局限性,以及迫切的司法实践需求两大原因促成;而大前提构建之所以具有可能性,则是由于现实层面我国法官本身具有一定的案件自由裁量权与理论层面中不断兴起的相关论证理论予以支持。本文的第二部分,旨在阐述并分析法律逻辑学领域内相关大前提构建的论证理论,同时就此提出一条更为合理的大前提构建的理论进路,本部分对目前学术界具有较大影响并代表不同研究方向的三个大前提构建论证理论予以评介。卡尔·拉伦茨的大前提构建理论详细分析了大前提构建中存在的各类情形,针对不同情形提出了与之相适应的简明的构建方法与标准,同时在存在多种构建方法时清晰的排列了应遵循的位阶,从而可以有效的解决大前提构建的理论困境,但在司法实践中缺乏更加具体的规则,阻碍了这一方法论的适用效果;罗伯特·阿列克西的大前提构建理论中,程序性法律论证理论是其理论基点,现代逻辑的演算系统在其论证理论中的充分运用,展现了该理论进路严谨性的特色,但是由于过分的唯理性,使得其在以内容为核心的法律大前提构建中遭遇困境;法律解释学以哲学解释学为理论背景,提出了司法者本身之于法律解释的主体性,强调了法官自身理解(本体)对于法律解释的重要性,但该理论自身的体系矛盾与艰深,造成了其在司法审判实践中的适用困难。针对上述各种理论自身存在的缺陷,本文引介了实用主义理论的相关要素,提出了大前提构建的一条新的理论进路。该理论进路具备以多元性与开放性为标识,以相对合理性为论证标准,以实践性为目的,以审判结果实效性为诉求的特征。多元性与开放性的特征,表现为面对当下法律逻辑大前提构建,各类论证理论众说纷纭的局面,该新进路以一种开放性的胸怀,容纳各种不同论证理论的争议,平息各种不同气质的哲学思想的冲突,它并不排斥其他思维进路,而是认为各种理论可以通过一定的方式而共存;在大前提构建中坚持一种相对合理性的论证标准,是为了克服“明希豪森困境”带来的知识之根的难题,强调只要获得的司法裁判能有效的解决纠纷,便无需过分追究大前提证成的真理性;以实践性为目的,则表现为针对当下的理论存在着过于艰深,实践性不强的问题,期望以一种更注重实践的“平民式”哲学精神来解决大前提构建的困境,其偏重方法在司法审判实践中的适用性与可推广性,始终坚持以实践为理论研究的基础;以审判结果实效性,表现为我们当以存在冲突的各方理论、原则所最终可能导致的结果进行比照,凡是能解决案件实际争议,有效实现案件公正审判后,就应予以选择,从而作为前提构建的论证标准。本文的第三部分是关于大前提构建的新进路在司法实践中的具体应用。分别选取了具有代表性的民法案例、刑法案例及婚姻法案例,比较其他大前提构建的论证理论在案例中的适用,将该理论进路具体应用方式予以展现,论证其在司法实践中的可行性。大前提构建的新进路以法的实际效果为根本衡量标准,法官考虑依据不同的法律规范所可能产生的不同法律效果,来判断究竟适用何种规范。其优势在于:(1)衡量标准的明晰,不存在繁琐深邃的理论,易于为我国司法实践者所掌握、适用;(2)能有效平息案件纠纷,尤其适用于调解结案的案件中,可以使当事人双方都获得满意的实际法律效果,从而有利于和谐社会、和谐司法的构建;(3)可以使法院的审理程序得以简化,避免不必要的司法程序,节约司法资源。但是,大前提构建这一新进路并不具有完全取代其他大前提构建理论的功能,也绝非一种具有普适性的理论进路;它不为追求个案的结果而破坏整个司法系统的平衡;不会为达到案件的最佳近期效果而忽略了远期的后果——即对法治的追求。本文的研究重点在于大前提构建的理论进路,以司法判例实证分析为重点,解决理论适用实践问题。本文研究的思路是从法律推理大前提构建的实践必要性与理论可能性入手,提出重构大前提的问题。并在考察、批判国内外各类法律推理大前提构建的理论基础上,提出大前提构建存在的缺陷及改进目标。研究方法在于引入西方有益的相关思想作为理论进路,以解决大前提构建的理论缺陷和实现研究目的。并以司法判例的实证分析方法,论证该思想进路在司法实践适用中的可行性与有益性。其创新点一方面在于对实用主义的批判基础上,借鉴其可行之点解决大前提构建的困境,另一面在于加强对司法判例的实证研究,摆脱以外法律逻辑学重理论轻实证研究的窠臼。
[Abstract]:The big premise construction problem of legal reasoning is an important research field in legal logic. The construction of the big premise is essentially the existence of the rule that the judge may not refuse the referee in the judicial trial, and the judge must choose the legal norms of the basis of the case under the circumstances of the unidentified legal norms, the conflict and the absence of the law. The choice is based on the discretion of the judge, but it does not mean that it is a result of arbitrary choice or interpretation, but it must be based on a reasonable method of proof for the parties to be accepted and understood. The construction of the big premise is to build such theories and provide a powerful basis for the final choice of the judge. However, in the existing theory of big premise construction, it can not solve the above problems completely and reasonably. Instead, it is confronted with a difficult problem like "mushausen Plight". On the basis of critical premise construction theory, this paper aims to explore a more reasonable and practical theoretical approach from a new angle to expire. The practical significance of this topic is: (1) to meet the actual needs of referees, that is, in the case of difficult cases, especially the lack of legal norms, conflicts, vague legal language, unknown and so on, to provide a feasible way for the settlement of the predicament; (2) the reform of the judiciary, especially for judicial documents. The reform of the logic of reasoning requires ideas to truly realize the transparent judicial justice. Its theoretical significance lies in transcending the logical system itself, solving the "the plight of the hausen" in the legal logic, constructing a reasonable judicial syllogism system and realizing the legitimacy of legal reasoning.
The first part of this article is to discuss the origin of the construction of the big premise of legal reasoning. First, starting with the basic research object of the legal logic, this paper expounds the object of the study of logic and the development of the reality, and then discusses the research of the legal logic which has many disputes at the present stage, and affirms the problem of the construction of the big premise. Secondly, according to the above conclusion, first, from the necessity of the construction of the big premise, the two is to demonstrate the possibility of the construction of the big premise. The necessity of the construction of the big premise is the limitation of the relevant argumentation theory on the construction of the big premise at the moment, and the urgent needs of the judicial practice two. The reason for the reason is that the possibility of the big premise is that the judges in our country have a certain right of discretion in the case and the theory of relevant arguments that are rising in the theoretical level.
The second part of this article is to expound and analyze the theory of argumentation in the field of legal logic, and to put forward a more reasonable theoretical approach to the construction of a big premise. This part is a review of the three major prerequisites, which have great influence on the current academic circles and represent different research directions. M Larenz's theory of big premise construction is a detailed analysis of the various situations in the construction of the big premise and the concise construction methods and standards adapted to different situations. At the same time, the position order should be followed clearly in the existence of various construction methods, so that the theoretical predicament of the construction of the big premise can be effectively solved. But the lack of more specific rules in judicial practice hinders the application of this methodology; in the theory of Robert Alexy's big premise construction, procedural legal argumentation theory is its theoretical basis, and the system of modern logic is fully applied in its argumentation theory, showing the characteristics of the rigorous approach to the theory. It is due to excessive rationalism that makes it difficult in the construction of a legal premise with content as the core; legal hermeneutics, with philosophical hermeneutics as the theoretical background, puts forward the subjectivity of the judiciary itself in the interpretation of the law, emphasizing the importance of the judge's own understanding (noumenon) to the legal interpretation, but the system of the theory itself spears. Shield and hardship make it difficult to apply in judicial practice.
In view of the shortcomings of these theories, this paper introduces the relevant elements of pragmatism theory, and puts forward a new theoretical approach to the construction of the big premise. The theoretical approach has the characteristics of diversity and openness, the relative rationality as the proof standard, the practicality as the purpose, and the appeal of the trial result. The characteristics of pluralism and openness are characterized by the construction of the legal logic in the face of the present great precondition of legal logic, and the different opinions of various argumentation theories. The new road has an open mind, accommodates various disputes of different theories of argument, and quits the conflict of philosophical thoughts of various different temperaments. It does not exclude other ways of thinking, but thinks that it is not a way of thinking. All kinds of theories can coexist in a certain way; to adhere to a relatively reasonable standard of argument in the construction of a big premise is to overcome the problem of the root of knowledge brought by the "the plight of Ming Xi hausen", and to emphasize that the truth of the large premise is not needed to be investigated too much if the judicial referee can effectively solve the dispute. The purpose of it is to show that there is a problem that is too hard and practical in view of the present theory, and it is expected to solve the predicament of the construction of the big premise with a more practical "civilian" philosophy spirit, and the applicability and scalability of the method in judicial practice, and always adhere to the basis of the theory of practice. The results of the trial results show that we should compare the results that may lead to the theory of the conflicting parties and the results that the principle may eventually lead to.
The third part of this article is the specific application of the new road in the judicial practice of the construction of the big premise. It selects representative civil cases, criminal cases and marriage law cases, compares the application of the argument theory constructed by other big premises, and demonstrates the theory into the concrete application way, demonstrating its judicature. The feasibility of practice.
The actual effect of the new road with the great premise is the basic measure of the actual effect of the law. The judge considers the different legal effects which may produce according to the different legal norms to judge exactly what norms to apply. The advantages lie in: (1) the clarity of the criteria is clear, there is no complicated and profound theory, and it is easy for our judicial practitioners to master and apply. (2) it is possible to effectively quell case disputes, especially in cases of mediation and settlement, which can make both parties obtain satisfactory actual legal effects, thus conducive to the construction of harmonious society and harmonious judicature; (3) it can simplify the trial procedure of the court, avoid unnecessary judicial procedures and save judicial resources. The new approach does not have the function of completely replacing other big premise construction theories, nor is it a universal theoretical approach; it does not destroy the balance of the whole judicial system for the result of the case, and does not neglect the long term consequences of the best recent effect of the case, namely, the pursuit of the rule of law.
The focus of this study lies in the theoretical approach of the construction of the big premise, focusing on the empirical analysis of judicial precedents and solving the practical problems of theory application. This study is based on the practical necessity and theoretical possibility of the construction of legal reasoning, and puts forward the problem of reconstructing the big premise. On the basis of the theory of the construction of the big premise, we put forward the defects and the improvement goals of the big premise construction. The research method is to introduce the useful related ideas of the West as the theoretical approach to solve the theoretical defects of the construction of the big premise and to realize the purpose of the study. On the one hand, on the basis of the criticism of pragmatism, the innovation point is to solve the predicament of the construction of the big premise on the basis of its practical point, and the other is to strengthen the empirical study of the judicial precedent and get rid of the stereotype of the light empirical research on the theory of legal logic.

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

【参考文献】