“隐匿”在法律适用中的相继进路

发布时间：2018-06-05 05:12

本文选题：行政争议 + 不确定法律概念　；参考：《西安交通大学学报(社会科学版)》2017年04期

【摘要】：行政争议的有效解决取决于法律适用的说服力和决断力,其中前者取决于对何为法律规则共识的探求,后者则有赖于在规则缺失时何者能作出更好的判断。在"杭州啄木鸟鞋业案"中,法院通过认识因素得出了司法解释并修正了行政解释,但仅凭法律解释无法得出商品是否构成类似的判断,"隐匿"其中的意志因素被凸显出来。不确定法律概念的具体化分为规范性和功能性前后两条进路。在前者,法律适用者运用法律解释的方法不断地认识既存的法律规则,而在后者,法律适用者演变为立法者,并按照宪法的逻辑行使最后判断权。最后,这两条进路作为法律适用的范式之一能够将法律的说服力和决断力展现出来,进而更加有效地解决行政争议。
[Abstract]:The effective resolution of administrative disputes depends on the persuasive and decisive power of the application of the law. The former depends on the exploration of the common understanding of what is the rule of law, and the latter depends on which one can make a better judgment when the rules are missing. In Hangzhou woodpecker shoe industry case, the court obtained the judicial interpretation and amended the administrative interpretation through the cognition factor, but could not get the similar judgment whether the commodity constituted a similar judgment by the legal explanation alone, and the will factor in the "hiding" was highlighted. The concretization of uncertain legal concept can be divided into two ways: normative and functional. In the former, the legal applicator uses the method of legal interpretation to continuously understand the existing legal rules, while in the latter, the legal applicator becomes the legislator and exercises the final judgment power according to the logic of the Constitution. Finally, as one of the paradigms of the application of law, these two approaches can show the persuasive and decisive power of the law, and then resolve the administrative dispute more effectively.
【作者单位】：浙江大学光华法学院;
【分类号】：D925.3

【参考文献】