形式解释与实质解释之争及其出路
发布时间：2018-08-11 13:11
【摘要】：形式解释论与实质解释论的分歧并非双方论者所宣称的那般不可调和。相反,两派解释论在解释位阶上具有一致性,解释结论具有相似性。两派的差异性表现为对法条文义范围的理解不同,深层次的差异在于司法适用中刑事违法性与社会危害性原则优先性选择的立场不同。化解两派矛盾的出路在于建构起由文义解释向体系解释再向目的解释演进的路径:在文义解释中,可以将语义的范围推向极致;在体系解释中,应当协调好刑法与他法的关系、不同法条之间的关系以及同一法条内部的关系;在目的解释中,既要以保护法益作为刑法目的进行解释,还应通过构建多方参与机制诠释法条之规范目的。在解释的尽头,以人道主义补足解释的缺陷,实现合法性与正当性关系的协调。
[Abstract]:The differences between formal interpretation and substantive interpretation are not as irreconcilable as commentators on both sides claim. On the contrary, the two hermeneutics are consistent in interpretation order and similar in interpretation conclusion. The differences between the two schools are manifested in the different understanding of the scope of the text of the law. The deep difference lies in the different positions of the criminal illegality and the priority choice of the social harmfulness principle in the judicial application. The way to resolve the contradiction between the two schools is to construct a path from the interpretation of literary meaning to the interpretation of the system and then to the interpretation of the purpose: in the interpretation of literary meaning, the scope of semantics can be pushed to the extreme; in the interpretation of the system, the relationship between criminal law and other law should be well coordinated. The relationship between different articles of law and the relationship within the same article; in the purpose of interpretation, we should not only interpret the interests of protection law as the purpose of criminal law, but also interpret the normative purpose of the article through the construction of multi-party participation mechanism. At the end of interpretation, humanitarianism is used to complement the defects of interpretation and to coordinate the relationship between legitimacy and legitimacy.
【作者单位】： 华东政法大学;
【基金】：上海市085工程“华东政法大学博士生海外访学资金专项资助研究成果” 华东政法大学“优秀博士论文专项培育成果”(项目编号:2017-1-005)
【分类号】：D924.3
本文编号：2177089
[Abstract]:The differences between formal interpretation and substantive interpretation are not as irreconcilable as commentators on both sides claim. On the contrary, the two hermeneutics are consistent in interpretation order and similar in interpretation conclusion. The differences between the two schools are manifested in the different understanding of the scope of the text of the law. The deep difference lies in the different positions of the criminal illegality and the priority choice of the social harmfulness principle in the judicial application. The way to resolve the contradiction between the two schools is to construct a path from the interpretation of literary meaning to the interpretation of the system and then to the interpretation of the purpose: in the interpretation of literary meaning, the scope of semantics can be pushed to the extreme; in the interpretation of the system, the relationship between criminal law and other law should be well coordinated. The relationship between different articles of law and the relationship within the same article; in the purpose of interpretation, we should not only interpret the interests of protection law as the purpose of criminal law, but also interpret the normative purpose of the article through the construction of multi-party participation mechanism. At the end of interpretation, humanitarianism is used to complement the defects of interpretation and to coordinate the relationship between legitimacy and legitimacy.
【作者单位】： 华东政法大学;
【基金】：上海市085工程“华东政法大学博士生海外访学资金专项资助研究成果” 华东政法大学“优秀博士论文专项培育成果”(项目编号:2017-1-005)
【分类号】：D924.3
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前2条
1 冯殿美;王琪;;刑法文义解释方法论[J];山东警察学院学报;2009年01期
2 倪业群;;刑法文义解释方法的位阶及其运用[J];广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2006年02期
相关硕士学位论文 前3条
1 吴乐;罪刑法定视域下实质解释与形式解释之争[D];西北大学;2016年
2 李超;论刑法的文义解释[D];河北大学;2015年
3 苏凯;刑法文义解释研究[D];山东大学;2013年
，本文编号：2177089
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2177089.html
