民事审判中类推的实证研究

发布时间：2018-05-03 01:40

本文选题：类推 + 民事审判　；参考：《甘肃政法学院》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：在法律适用的逻辑涵摄范式下,限制司法擅断,道德上的吸引力由此彰显。由于逻辑涵摄范式的道德吸引力,人们长久以来丧失对法律适用的本真面目的解蔽、反思和还原。但当下逻辑涵摄范式的僵化受到广泛批判。反对法律实证主义最为彻底的现实主义法学主张法律仅仅是对法官行为的预测,是为彻底的司法性立法。只要没有彻底颠覆“法治是规则之治”这一基本诉求,且找不出更好的社会治理方式以替代法治,那么任何有影响的法律理论都不能回避如何解决严格适用法律与司法性立法之间的分裂问题。德沃金用“整体性”以弥合严格适用法律与司法性立法之间的分裂,波斯纳则试图运用“效率性”来弥合上述分裂,而本文力倡的类型化范式则是基于法律适用的视域,寻求弥合这一裂隙的一种理论尝试,只不过是通过“类型”这个构造物来完成这一尝试。首先,介绍不同法系下,不同学派基于不同研究方法与模式对类推所作的不同定位,引出本文所采用的德国学者考夫曼的观点,也是笔者所持观点。而后对相关概念进行辨析,对本文所论述的“类推”形成一个较为清晰完整的认识。其次,选取国内系争案件中的几例典型,试图分析法院在审理案件时对于涉及类推所采用的思维进路,并从中推论法官在司法实践中的自由裁量权以及确立类推的标准。进行类推时,往往是在待决案件事实与法律规范中毫无疑问所透射出的典型事实之间进行比较,寻找相同的意义。但案件事实与法律规范是否具有意义的关联性、案件可否归属于该立法者所规范的类型、待决案件与典型案件究竟类似与否等问题,却是立法本身不能回答的,而必须仰赖法官创造性。再次,对民事案件进行收集、归纳和整理,并有针对性地进行类型化分析工作,得出考夫曼之类型化理论如何在具体审判活动中的得以适用。将解释学循环理论分别具体运用于法律规范和事实,通过科学之法律方法在具体司法实践领域将具体法律规范与个案事实相连接。对具体系争案件进行实事剪裁并对其本质深刻剖析,以便于对其类型归属合适定位。透过抽象法律文本探索制定法之立法意图,使之适用与现今疑难复杂案件,从而实现法律规范之稳定性与融贯性。并在以上分析过程中,对民事案件中类推的限度加以探究。最后,对民事案件中类推的法律效果、社会效果进行客观评价,类型归属范式尽其所能的兼顾了程序正义和实体正义,程序正义为法律规范保持其稳定性与融贯性提供了形式进路之可能,也是由于法律文本的这一属性给程序正义的生存与发展提供了广阔空间,二者相辅相成,不可偏废。
[Abstract]:In the logical paradigm of legal application, judicial arbitrariness is restricted, and the moral attraction is revealed. Because of the moral attraction of the logical paradigm, people have long lost the explanation, reflection and restoration of the true features of the application of the law. However, the fossilization of the current logical inclusion paradigm has been widely criticized. The most thorough realistic jurisprudence against legal positivism advocates that the law is merely a prediction of the judge's behavior and a thorough judicial legislation. As long as the basic demand of "the rule of law is the rule of law" is not completely subverted, and no better social governance can be found as an alternative to the rule of law, So any influential legal theory can not avoid how to solve the division between the strict application of law and judicial legislation. Dworkin uses "integrity" to bridge the gap between strictly applicable law and judicial legislation, Posner tries to use "efficiency" to bridge the above split, and the typological paradigm advocated by this paper is based on the perspective of legal application. A theoretical attempt to bridge this fissure is merely accomplished by the "type" structure. First of all, it introduces the different orientations of analogy made by different schools based on different research methods and models under different legal systems, and leads to the viewpoint of German scholar Kaufman, which is also the viewpoint of the author. Then the related concepts are analyzed and the analogies discussed in this paper form a clear and complete understanding. Secondly, select several typical cases of domestic disputes, try to analyze the way of thinking about analogies, and infer the discretion of judges in judicial practice and establish the standard of analogies. In analogies, it is often to compare the facts of pending cases with the typical facts transmitted without doubt in legal norms, and to find the same meaning. However, whether the facts of the case and the legal norms have a meaningful relevance, whether the case can be attributed to the type of the legislator, whether the pending case is similar to the typical case or not, is a question that the legislation itself cannot answer. It must depend on the judge's creativity. Thirdly, collect, summarize and sort out the civil cases, and carry on the type analysis work pertinently, draw the conclusion that Kaufman's typology theory can be applied in the concrete trial activity. The cyclic theory of hermeneutics is applied to the legal norms and facts respectively, and the specific legal norms are connected with the facts of individual cases in the specific judicial practice field through the scientific legal method. This paper analyzes the nature of specific cases in order to locate their types properly. This paper explores the legislative intention of making law through abstract legal texts, and makes it applicable to complicated cases, so as to realize the stability and consistency of legal norms. And in the above analysis process, the limits of analogies in civil cases are explored. Finally, the analogies of legal effect and social effect in civil cases are evaluated objectively. The paradigm of type attribution takes into account procedural justice and substantive justice as much as possible. Procedural justice provides the possibility of formal access for legal norms to maintain their stability and consistency, and it also provides a wide space for the survival and development of procedural justice because of this attribute of the legal text. They complement each other and cannot be neglected.
【学位授予单位】：甘肃政法学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】