合宪性推定与“合宪性审查”的概念认知——从方法论的视角

发布时间：2017-12-28 08:04

本文关键词：合宪性推定与“合宪性审查”的概念认知——从方法论的视角　出处：《浙江社会科学》2011年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目前广泛使用的"违宪审查"概念在内容上对应于西方语境中的"constitutional review",但是反过来,"constitutional review"的原译很难直接对应"违宪审查"。"违宪审查"概念在方法论层面主要表现为审查中的一种方法以及否定性功能。"宪法审查"、"违宪审查"与"合宪性审查"概念间的混用,在很大程度上源于方法论认识的缺失。"是否违宪"与"是否合宪"在方法论上具有截然不同的内容。这种方法论上的区分,在学理上可以溯源至塞耶谦抑主义。从作为实践形态的合宪性推定方法可知,"合宪性审查"概念在方法论层面具有特定的内容。通过在方法论层面辨析"宪法诉讼"、"司法审查"、"宪法实施"、"宪法遵守"、"宪法适用"、"宪法执行"、"宪法监督"等相关概念,构建以方法论为中心的概念体系,对于宪法方法的知识完备以及中国宪法审查制度的发展具有重要意义。
[Abstract]:Currently, the concept of "constitutional review" is widely applied to the content of "constitutional review" in the western context, but in turn, the original translation of "constitutional review" is hard to directly correspond to "constitutional review". The concept of "unconstitutional review" is mainly manifested in a methodology and negative function in the methodology level. The mixed use of the concept of "constitutional review", "constitutional review" and "constitutional review" is largely due to the lack of methodological awareness. Whether "whether to be unconstitutional" or "whether to be constitutionality" has different content in methodology. The distinction in this methodology can be traced to Thayer's modesty. From the method of constitutionality presumption as a practical form, it is known that the concept of "constitutional review" has a specific content in the methodology. Through in the methodology of the analysis of the "constitutional litigation" and "judicial review", "the implementation of the constitution, abide by the constitution", "constitutional", "constitution" and "constitution" and other related concepts, to construct the system of methodology as the center, has important significance for the knowledge and method of constitution China constitutional review system development.
【作者单位】：北京大学;
【分类号】：D911
【正文快照】： 作者王书成,法学博士,北京大学政治学博士后研究人员。(北京100871)成熟的学科离不开相对成熟的概念体系作为支撑。改革开放以来,中国宪法学已经取得了长足的发展,但尚未形成相对成熟的概念体系,诸多相关概念的使用仍然处于混乱不堪的状态。①“违宪审查”概念与宪法审查、合

【参考文献】