法律冲突解决的方法论研究

发布时间：2018-03-22 13:27

本文选题：法律冲突　切入点：方法论　出处：《山东大学》2017年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：法律冲突解决的方法论是一个细小却至关重要的问题,但一直未能引起学界的足够关注。传统理论认为,法律冲突是一种"效力冲突",因此试图以"上位法优于下位法"、"新法优于旧法"和"特别法优于一般法"等冲突规则简单化处理。德沃金的原则理论揭示出:法律冲突的理解应超越传统法实证主义所予的框架,并应从价值的层面重新审视不同规范之间的内在关系。伴随着法学理论从"正确性理论"向"正当性理论"的转向,法律冲突解决的方法论问题逐渐成为一个新的研究命题。这一命题强调了实证法的开放领域及其不确定性,但却将法律冲突的客观样态展现出来。随着理论法学对法律规范的构造及其内在关系的揭示不断深入,法律冲突解决的内在机理、方法类型与具体技术等问题遽成为研究的重要议题。法律冲突解决的方法论是我们用来认识法律冲突和解决法律冲突的根本方法。一般而言,法律冲突的认识既有客观的一面,同时有主观判断的价值空间,从而导致人们的理解在结构上具有开放性。从法学的视角来看,法律冲突在效力上的展示所表现的只是不同规范在法律文本上的"形式"不一致,而不是它们在"实质"意义上的不一致。"实质"意义上的不一致涉及到对相冲突法律规定背后所隐藏的各个立法目的的考察,因此需要从价值上进行判断并进行法益衡量。传统法学关于法律冲突的理解仅限于规则的层次,将法律冲突简单地约化理解为一种效力逻辑冲突,由此带来的结果是实质正义的忽视或丧失。原则理论将法律冲突区分为规则冲突与原则冲突:前者主要考察不同规定在构成要件要素上的差异,具有简便易适用的特征,因此可以较好兼顾效益与公平;而后者则侧重于不同规定在法益保护上的不同,具有主观判断的特征,因此更有利于实现实质正义。原则理论在法律冲突中的运用由此就具有特殊价值。排除法律冲突在规范意义寻求过程中的复杂性,原则理论的引入并不会破坏(反而增强了)法律适用的平等性和一致性(体系正义)。倘若法律冲突的解决完全依赖于法实证主义的方式,法律的思考将会变成一种概念式的运作。面对社会变迁背景下利益不断分化的挑战,法律的正当性和权威性将会严重受到影响。从这个意义上说,原则理论在法律冲突解决中的引入不仅有助于实现法律体系的实践理性,而且也有利于维护实证法向道德领域的开放性。原则理论为法律冲突的解决提供了一个新的方法论框架。法律的思考于此必须要考虑到规则与原则的区别,并据与各种法伦理价值及一般的正义观念相连。法律冲突的解决需要考虑到各自规范的意图、正义以及合目的性的问题,而这些问题又是最后作出判断的基础。因此,要"正当"解决法律冲突就必须发掘出各该规范背后所隐含的评价以及各自评价的作用范围,并以此来为法律冲突的解决提供指引和支撑。法律之间的冲突存在着三种类型,即"规则v.规则"冲突、"原则v.原则"冲突以及"原则v.规则"冲突。与此相对应的法学理论就必须反映出此种类型差异,并着重于从两个方面来建构自己的方法论体系:一个是刚性的方法论体系,其着眼于通过规则与规则的碰撞来解决法律冲突。另一个是柔性的方法论体系,主要用于指导"原则v.原则"冲突和"原则v.规则"冲突的解决。在法律规范区分为规则与原则的基础上,异位阶规则冲突的解决就是一个重要的议题。从理论上言,异位阶规则冲突的解决仍可在传统的"上位法优于下位法"规则之下来进行处理,只是其内涵和思考框架应作不同的理解:首先,从内涵上看,传统的"上位法优于下位法"规则是一个绝对适用规则,只要两个法律规则之间存在着异位阶关系,则上位阶规则就必定会优先适用。在新的方法论体系下,"上位法优于下位法"规则仍然可以适用,但仅可适用于规则冲突层次。在涉及到原则冲突的情况下,即使下位法所规定的原则可能相对较为具体明确,亦不可断言上位法原则就一定会优先。原则之间的冲突需要通过衡量来解决,而原则之间的优先顺位关系并不固定。"上位法优于下位法"规则的适用有一些条件,同时也存在着例外。从宪法审查和规范监督的角度上看,异位阶规则冲突的解决并非一定就要让上位阶规则优先。通过法律解释和论证融贯性说理的方式,异位阶规则冲突也可能得到消解。至于同位阶规则冲突的解决,方法论则主要围绕两种规则而展开:其一是"特别法优于一般法";其二是"新法优于旧法"。"特别法优于一般法"(又称为"特别法优先")适用的关键在于找到最密切联系的规则,而为了找到此种隐匿的指示,法官必须要借助价值判断和功能分析。"特别法优于一般法"规则的适用前提在于认定的标准可以确定。从效力范围和逻辑结构等形式认知的层面上来识别特别法,其标准仍有缺陷。特别法与一般法之间关系的认定应从本质的层面上进行。在"特别法优于一般法"规则的适用中,规范层面上的适用前提主要涉及到对"同一机关"、"同一事项"以及规范之间规定"不一致"的理解。从实践上看,"对于一般法的根本违反"、"冲突解决规则的交叉"、"指向性条款的存在"、"补充性法律后果的特别考量"以及"价值衡量方法的引入"等情形出现时,特别法优于规则的适用就有可能出现特别例外。"新法优于旧法"(又称为"新法优先")是同位阶法律冲突处理的另一个重要规则。其功能主要在于平衡法稳定性与法变动性之间的价值冲突。"新法优于旧法"规则适用的关键在于明确其中新法的认定标准与适用前提。从既得利益保护与法律秩序稳定等方面上看,"新法优于旧法"规则的着眼点应在于新的社会事实。对于新法生效之前既有事实的法律调整应该突出既得利益的保护。在例外的情形下,"新法优于旧法"规则的适用当然可以允许新法溯及既往,但应该作严格的限定。从法律适用的实践上看,新法溯及既往的情形主要有有利溯及(从轻溯及)、不纯粹溯及、可预见性溯及、填补性溯及、程序性溯及、重要公益保护性溯及、澄清性溯及、合理性溯及以及从旧性溯及。上述两类规则所针对的情形也有可能会交叉,出现"新特别法与旧一般法冲突"及"旧特别法与新一般法冲突"的复杂场景。另外,同位阶规则冲突的法律处理还存在一些特别规则,如从重规则、从轻规则、"实体从旧、程序从新"规则、"从旧兼从轻"规则、"行为时法优于裁判时法"规则以及"行为地法优于人地法"规则等。在"原则v.原则"冲突的解决中,价值衡量是基本方法。宪法作为最高位阶的国内法,不仅规定着整个法律秩序的"基本价值",同时也规定了它(这些基本价值)对一切法律秩序领域的效力和作用强度。除此之外,其他各种各样的法律也会包含一些价值标准,它们同样会凝结成各种法律原则。探究和实现整个法律秩序的各种法律原则,就必须从价值的层面上进行衡量。在德国,联邦宪法法院的判决往往以这个前提作为出发点:宪法的秩序是一个意义整体,因此必须基于此种价值一致性来处理各种法益冲突。这样的观点表明,原则冲突解决的最崇高原则在于实现宪法统一,其依托于逻辑-目的论层面上的意义整体,而宪法的本质就在于,它可以为整个国家和社会生活提供统一的秩序。对于"原则v.规则"之间的交叉冲突,在理解上可将其还原为原则冲突,即:一个法律原则与另一个隐藏在法律规则之后起支撑性基础作用的法律原则之间的冲突。原则与规则之间出现冲突时究竟应以何者为先,这在本质上属于自由裁量的范畴,但此实非意味着该种冲突的解决就可以全凭恣意。规则与原则之间冲突解决的关键是重新审视相冲突规范之间的关系,使得规则与原则在统一的法秩序内获得一致。自由裁量从本质上看是一种价值选择,而此种选择又必须在统一的法秩序框架内进行。无论是何种法律冲突的解决,其基本的思路都应当是一种"价值论"。"价值论"在法律冲突的解决中只提供一种"框架性路径"。法律实践可基于"个体主观"的理性判断来确定法律之间的优先性。于此意义上言,关于法律冲突解决结果正当性问题的讨论实质上就是在探究以"论证"代替"证明"的必要性及可行性。诚如阿列克西所言,法律论证是普遍实践论证的一种特殊形式。因此,从法律论证的角度来考察法律冲突的解决过程,将会更有利于获得可接受性的结果。通观法律冲突解决的三种类型,并结合原则理论的商谈性特征,我们会看到法律冲突的解决在正当性上证立的基本要求是融贯性说理,具体的方法则有两种类型:形式主义方法和实质主义方法。形式主义方法主要包括语词和构成要件上的逻辑方法,而实质主义方法则有修辞、法益衡量和实质论证。
[Abstract]:The method is to solve the conflict of laws is critical to a small problem, but has not caused enough attention in academic circles. In traditional theory, conflict of laws is a "validity conflict", so the author tries to "the law is superior to lower level law", "simple method is better than the old law" and "special law is superior to the general law" the rules of conflict processing. The principle of Dworkin's theory shows that the framework of the conflict of laws should be understood to go beyond the traditional legal positivism, and should re-examine the value of the level of internal relations between different norms. With the theory of "right from the theory of" turning to "legitimacy" theory, the problem of the method to solve the conflict of laws has gradually become a new research topic. This topic emphasizes the empirical method of open field and uncertainty, but the objective state of the conflict of laws show. With the theory of law of law The structure reveals the intrinsic relationship between the fan and deepening the internal mechanism to solve the conflict of laws, methods types and specific technical problems had become an important research issue. To solve the conflict of laws is the fundamental theory that we used to understand and solve the conflict of law of conflict of laws. In general, understanding the conflict of laws are not only the objective at the same time a valuable space, subjective judgment, resulting in people's understanding is open in structure. From a legal perspective, the legal conflict in show on the effect of the performance of different specifications in the law only on the text of the "form" is not the same, rather than their "essence" in the sense of not investigation on the "substance". The sense of inconsistency relates to the conflict law hidden behind the legislative purpose, therefore needs to be judged from the value and the traditional legal measure. Understanding the law of conflict of laws rules is limited to the level, will be the conflict of laws simply reduced understood as a force of logical conflict, the result is the essence of justice neglected or lost. The principle of theory of conflict of laws between the conflict rules and principles of conflict: the former mainly inspects the different provisions in the composition of different elements. Has the characteristics of simple and easy to apply, so it can be a better balance between efficiency and fairness; while the latter focuses on the different provisions on the protection of legal interests of the different characteristics of the subjective judgment, and therefore more conducive to substantial justice. Applying the principle of theory in the conflict of laws which have special value. Eliminate the conflict of laws for complex process in the normative meaning, principle theory and will not damage (but strengthened) legal equality and consistency (system of Justice). If the law at The solution process is completely dependent on the method of positivism, legal thinking will become a concept of operation. The face under the background of social transformation and differentiation of interests continue to challenge the legitimacy of the law and authority will be seriously affected. In this sense, the principle of legal theory in conflict not only help in the practice of rational implementation of legal system, but also conducive to the maintenance of open empirical method to the moral field. To solve the conflict of laws principles theory provides a new way of thinking in the legal framework. This must take into account the difference between rule and principle, and according to the law linked with various ethical justice values and general. To resolve the conflict of laws need to consider their own norms intention, justice and purposeful problems, and these problems are the last judgment basis. Therefore, the "right when" To solve the conflict of laws must discover the scope behind each of the evaluation rules and their evaluation, and thus to solve the conflict of laws to provide guidance and support. The conflict between the law there are three types, namely "rule v. rule" conflict, "v. principle" and "principle of conflict rules of V." conflict. Law and corresponding theories must reflect this kind of difference, and focuses on system to construct their own methods from two aspects: one is the theory system of rigid method, its focus on rules and rules of the collision to solve the conflict of laws. The other is a system of flexible the method is used to solve the "guiding principles of conflict of the principle of V." and "v. rules" conflict. Based on legal norms between rule and principle, to solve the conflict of ectopic order rules is an important topic theoretically, In order to resolve the conflict rules of ectopic still in the traditional "the law is superior to inferior" rules of conduct down processing, but its connotation and frame of thinking should be different understanding: first, from the view of connotation, the traditional "the law is superior to inferior law" rules is an absolute rule, as long as the two law the rules have ectopic order relations, is the order rules will prevail. In the new methodology, "the law is superior to inferior" rule still applies, but can only be applied to rule conflict level. In relation to the principle of conflict situations, even if required under the law of the principle of the relatively specific, nor will the law principle assert priority. Conflict between the principles need to be solved by measure, and between the principles of priority relationship is not fixed. "Under the law is superior to a law rule There are some conditions, there are also exceptions. From the constitutional review and standardize the supervision point of view, solving the conflict between the ectopic order rules do not necessarily make the order rule priority. Through legal interpretation and demonstration of the coherence of reasoning way, order rules may be ectopic conflict resolution. As for the same class conflict rules the methodology is mainly focus on two kinds of rules: one is "the special law is superior to the general law"; the other is "the new law is better than the old law." "the special law is superior to the common law" (also known as the "priority of special law") for the key to find the most closely linked to the rules. Find this hidden instructions, the judge must be analyzed with value judgment and function. "For the premise of the special law is superior to the common law" rules is that the standard can be determined. From the scope of validity of logical structure and cognitive level special recognition The standard method, there are still some defects. That relationship between the special law and general law of nature should be level. In the application of special law is superior to the common law "rules, the applicable premise of the specification level mainly refers to the" same authority "," the same matters "as well as the specification" "understanding. From a practical point of view," the fundamental general law violations "," cross "conflict resolution rules," point to the existence of the terms "," special consideration "supplement of legal consequences and the value measure of the introduction of" cases, apply special law is superior to the rules of the there may be a special exception. "The new law is superior to the old" (also known as "the first") is another important rule in order legal conflict processing. Its main function is the conflict of value balance between stability and change of law law. "The law is superior to the old law" rules applicable in In the clear standards and applicable law premise. From the aspect of law and order and protect the stability of vested interest point of view, "the new law is superior to the old" rules should focus on new social facts. The legal adjustment both for the fact that before the entry into force of the new law should highlight the protection of vested interest. In exceptional circumstances. "For the new law is superior to the old" rules of course allows the retroactivity, but it should be strictly limited. From the practice of law on the law, retroactive case are favorable retroactivity (light, not retroactive) pure retroactivity, predictability of retroactivity, fill the retroactivity, procedure of retroactivity, important public welfare protective retroactivity, clarify the retroactivity, rationality and retroactive retroactivity. From the old of the above two kinds of rules for the situation is likely to cross, "the new special law and general law of old conflict" and "old and new special law A method of conflict "in the complex scene. In addition, the legal order processing parity rule conflicts still exist some special rules, such as heavier rules, lighter rules," the entity from the old program, from the new "rules" from the old and lighter "rules," the behavior method is better than the referee method "rules and behavior of people to act" method is better than the rules. In the "v. principle" to solve the conflict of value is the basic measure method. The constitution as the domestic law of the highest order, not only provides the legal order of "fundamental values", but also provides it (the basic value) effect strength of all legal order field. In addition, a variety of other laws also contain a standard of value, they will also be condensed into a variety of legal principles. To explore and realize the whole legal order of various legal principles, it must be measured from the value level. In Germany, the Federal Constitution Law court often as a starting point in this premise: the constitutional order is a whole, and therefore must be the value based consistency method to deal with all kinds of conflicts of interest. This view shows that the highest principle of conflict resolution is to realize the constitutional unity, depending on the logic level on the significance of the overall objective however, the essence of the constitution is that it can provide a unified order for the whole country and social life. The conflict between the principle of cross v. rules ", in understanding can restore the principles of conflict, namely: a law principle and another hidden in the rule of law after the conflict between legal principles the supporting role based. Conflicts between principles and rules when it should be whichcomesfirst, which belongs to the discretion in essence category, but this is not meant to solve this kind of conflict can be all by Wanton. Conflict resolution between the key rules and principles is to re-examine the relationship between conflict norms, the rules and principles agreed in a unified law order. Discretion in essence is a kind of value selection, the selection must be done in order to frame in a uniform. Whether it is solved what kind of legal conflicts, the basic idea should be a "value theory". The "value theory" in solving the conflict of laws only provide a framework of "path". The practice of law to determine the priority of the law based on the rational judgment of individual subjective ". In this sense words to solve the problem of conflict of laws, the legitimate discussion is essentially necessary inquiry to" demonstrate "instead of" proof "and feasibility. As Alexy said, the legal argumentation is a special form of universal practical argumentation. Therefore, from the legal theory To solve the process perspective of conflict of laws, will be more conducive to obtain acceptable results. Three types of law throughout the conflict resolution, and the principle of combining theory to discuss the characteristics of the basic requirements in the legitimacy of the Shanghai Li solution we will see the conflict of laws is the coherence of reasoning, specific methods there are two types of methods: formalism and substantive method. The main methods include the formalism of words and constitute elements of the logic method, and substantive methods have rhetoric, legal measure and substantive argument.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D90

【参考文献】