中国社科法学的前提批判

发布时间：2018-07-10 01:35

  本文选题：社科法学 + 法教义学　； 参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文分为三个部分:第一部分选择以社科法学为切入点分析社科法学的可能性之前提及其理论边界,此部分涉及社科法学与法教义学的关系;接着分析社科法学的理论缺陷及其发展,此部分涉及自然法学开始能否介入、如何介入社科法学和法教义学之争;最终回答社科法学的范式总结及其对中国法理学的理论更新有何种启示。针对第一个问题,本文认为社科法学在司法裁判中可以作为法教义学的辅助性力量;作为规范科学的法学,是一门理解的学问,社科法学可以作为法律前理解必要构成。但是鉴于规范与事实二分的法哲学原理以及法律系统和社会系统作为两个独立的系统的法社会学原理,社科法学必须恪守自己的理论边界,即在法教义学的框架内进行。针对第二个问题,本文认为社科法学迷失在社会科学的“丛林”中,而罔顾法学的“家园”;更确切地说,社科法学已经遭受到科学宰制,无力回家。社科法学如何才能科学宰制,本文的结论是,重视人文的向度,迈向文化研究;社科法学如何回归法学的家园,本文的观点是,回归自然法学的传统,面向立法。在第三部分,本文试图解决的理论问题是:社科法学重构中国法理学是否必要与何以可能。本文首先分析了政治化与西方化之间的中国法理学,去意识形态化与法律知识之科学性的寻求以及中国问题意识与法律知识之本土化的需求是中国社科法学运动兴起的外在动因。社科法学的法哲学基础之后,本文以既有的权利本位范式为理论参照,试图解决在既有的法哲学范畴体系内社科法学的理论重构何以可能。本文提出来规范范式与事实范式两个核心概念,分析了其对立与统一,为了实现规范与事实范式的统合,本文选取“法律关系”的概念作为切入点,以法律关系的事实面向的研究重点被称为事实范式,与之相应的则是规范范式,规范与事实范式之间寻求平衡,法律关系范畴研究的进一步推进便是权利交互性理论。本文通过对中国社科法学的哲学反思,得出如下结论。本文认为,对于法学而言,社科法学研究在两种意义上成为可能:第一是,在疑难案件裁判中的应用和作为理解法律必需的背景知识的社科法学研究;第二是,对作为社会现象的法律运作的社科法学研究,构成了立法的必不可缺的事实性前提。第一种意义上的社科法学研究是在法教义学框架体系之内的;第二种意义上的社科法学研究则突破了既有法教义学框架体系,涉及立法理论。第一种意义上的研究主要涉及社会科学知识应用;第二种意义上的研究则涉及社会科学方法的应用,即通过对法律实施的社会科学研究,揭露实施中的问题,分析问题的原因,并进一步通过某种方式提供法律制度完善的方案。在第一种意义上,社科法学的理论边界是规范与事实的二分,在第二种意义上,社科法学的理论边界在于事实与价值的二分,其对于规范之域和价值之域的不可说的东西必须保持沉默,不容置喙。在法学学术上,必须进行社科法学立场与法教义学立场的二元区分:社科法学面向法律制定场域,法律制定场域中应坚持开放的研究立场,面对法律在实施中暴露出的问题,用社会学、经济学、心理学、人文、历史等多学科的方法去解决;法教义学应面向法律实施场域,法律实施场域应恪守法律规范的文本界限,严格法律实施,以规范作为基本立场,在规范、事实和价值之间往复流转,以求得最接近正确的法律判断。在第一种意义上,我们主张迈向文化研究的社科法学,作为理解法律必需的背景知识的跨学科研究,这种研究包括自然科学、社会科学和人文学的研究;在第二种意义上,我们主张迈向立法法理学的社科法学:为了避免实证主义的偏颇与自以为是的积习,社科法学研究有待扩展为法律文化研究,把人文学(文化科学)纳入自己的研究视野,并与自然法学共谋立法大业,撑起立法法理学的另外半边天。在本体论上,社科法学的兴起在对于中国法治实践的微观具体问题上的分析上很有见地,但是其意欲参与中国法理学的重构,就必须提升自身的理论高度,而如果仅停留在口号式的宣讲和立场的申明,那么其在宏观理论层面是没有知识上的贡献的。本文认为,中国的社科法学必须完成苏格拉底式的“认识你自己”的自我反思,回归本体论层面在法律关系这一基本范畴的统筹之下完成规范范式与事实范式的整合,并深入到权利交互研究,最终完成中国法理学理论重构与知识更新。
[Abstract]:This article is divided into three parts: the first part chooses the premise and the theoretical boundary of the possibility of social science law by choosing the social science law as the breakthrough point. This part involves the relationship between social science law and the jurisprudence of law, and then analyzes the theoretical defects and development of social science law. This part involves the involvement of natural law and how to intervene in social science law. The final answer to the summary of the paradigm of social science and the enlightenment to the renewal of the theory of Chinese jurisprudence in the final answer is that the social science jurisprudence can be used as an auxiliary force in the jurisprudence of the judiciary; as a normative science of law, it is an understanding and social science Jurisprudence As the necessary constitution of understanding before the law, but in view of the philosophical principles of two points of standard and fact and the legal system and social system as two independent systems of legal sociology, social science law must abide by its own theoretical boundary, that is, within the framework of the jurisprudence of law. For the second questions, this article believes that social science law is a fan of law. It is lost in the "Jungle" of social science, rather than the "home" of law; to be more exact, social science jurisprudence has been subject to scientific domination and can not be able to go home. The conclusion of this article is to pay attention to the humanities and to the cultural research. The view of the social science law is to return to the home of law. The view of this article is to return to the law. In the third part, the theoretical question that this article tries to solve is: whether it is necessary and possible to reconstruct Chinese jurisprudence in social science law. This article first analyzes the Chinese jurisprudence between politicization and westernization, the search for the scientific nature of ideology and the knowledge of law, and the consciousness of Chinese problems. The demand of the localization of legal knowledge is the external cause of the rise of the Chinese social science law movement. After the legal philosophy foundation of social science law, this paper attempts to solve the possibility of the theoretical reconstruction of social science law in the existing legal philosophy category system. In order to realize the combination of the opposition and the unity of the two core concepts, in order to realize the integration of the norm and the fact paradigm, this article selects the concept of "legal relationship" as the breakthrough point, and the research focus of the factual orientation of the legal relationship is called the fact paradigm, and the corresponding is the standard model, the norm and the fact paradigm, the balance between the law and the law. The further advance of the study of category category is the theory of right interaction. Through the philosophical reflection on Chinese social science law, this paper draws the following conclusions. This article holds that, for jurisprudence, the study of social science law is possible in two meanings: first, the application of the referees in difficult cases and the necessary background knowledge for the understanding of the law. The research of social science law; second, the social science law research which is the legal operation of the social phenomenon constitutes the indispensable factual premise of the legislation. The first sense of social science law studies is within the framework of the jurisprudence of law; the second sense of social law study breaks through the framework of the existing legal doctrines, The first kind of research involves the application of social science knowledge, and the second meaning of the study involves the application of the social science method, that is, through the social science research on the law, it reveals the problems in the implementation, analyzes the causes of the problem, and further provides the legal system through some way. In the first sense, the theoretical boundary of social science jurisprudence is two points of standard and fact. In the second sense, the theoretical boundary of social science jurisprudence lies in the two points of fact and value. The unspeakable things in the domain of standard and the domain of value must be kept silent and incompatible. In law academia, social science jurisprudence must be established. The two yuan distinction between the field and the legal doctrinal position: Social Science jurisprudence faces the legal formulation of the field, and the legal formulation field should adhere to the open research position, face the problems exposed in the implementation of the law, and solve the problems in the fields of sociology, economics, psychology, humanities and history. Legal doctrines should be applied to the field of law and the law is true. The application field should abide by the text boundaries of the legal norms, strictly enforce the law, take the standard as the basic position, transfer between the standard, the fact and the value, in order to get the closest and correct legal judgment. In the first sense, we advocate the social science law of the cultural research as the interdisciplinary research for understanding the necessary background knowledge of the law. The study includes the study of natural science, social science and human literature. In the second sense, we advocate the social science law of legislative jurisprudence. In order to avoid the biased and self righteous accumulation of positivism, the research of social science law needs to be extended to the study of legal culture and the study of human Literature (Culture Science) into its own research. The field of vision, and conspiring with the natural law to conspire with the legislature, supports the other half of the legislative jurisprudence. In noumenon, the rise of social science jurisprudence is very insightful in the analysis of the microcosmic specific problems of the practice of the rule of law in China, but its desire to participate in the reconstruction of Chinese jurisprudence must improve its own theoretical height, and if it only stops In this paper, the Chinese social science law must complete the self reflection of the Socratic "know yourself", and return to the ontological level to complete the normative paradigm and the fact under the basis of the basic scope of the legal relationship. The integration of paradigms and in-depth study of rights interaction will ultimately accomplish the reconstruction of Chinese jurisprudence theory and knowledge renewal.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D90-05;D926
，

本文编号：2111509