本文選題：辯證推理 + 法律沖突　； 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：司法判決的過程包括:事實(shí)的發(fā)現(xiàn)、法律的獲取和判決的證成三個部分。法律的獲取是其中不可或缺的一環(huán),也是長期以來法學(xué)家們研究的主要領(lǐng)域,而獲取法律的過程實(shí)質(zhì)上是對已查明的案件進(jìn)行司法歸類的過程,即尋找與案件事實(shí)相適應(yīng)的法律規(guī)范的過程。由于法律規(guī)范本身的多樣性和抽象性特征,法官在尋找法律規(guī)范的過程中可能會遇到很多困惑,如“法無明確之文”、“法律反差”、“法律沖突”“惡法”以及“法無明文規(guī)定”等。當(dāng)遇到這些法律上的難題時,法官并不能袖手旁觀,而應(yīng)通過不同的途徑尋找解決問題的方法和手段。由于立法程序的復(fù)雜性和人類認(rèn)識能力的局限性,“法律沖突”的情形在任何一個成文法國家都是普遍存在的,然而法律規(guī)范作為司法判決的重要依據(jù),一旦法律對相同的案件情形做出了不一致的規(guī)定,則必然會導(dǎo)致法律適用的混亂和困難,辯證推理正是人們在長期的實(shí)踐中尋找的一種解決“法律沖突”的方法或手段。另外,由于辯證推理自身具有的實(shí)質(zhì)性和或然性的特點(diǎn),為了增強(qiáng)其客觀性和可靠性,對辯證推理的模式和方法的研究就成為十分必要之事,在實(shí)踐中也具有非常重要的意義和價值。 本文的第一部分主要介紹辯證推理的研究現(xiàn)狀及研究意義,辯證推理自古希臘亞里士多德在與人進(jìn)行辯論和對話的過程中提出,至今已有幾千年的歷史,在此過程中,中外的許多學(xué)者都對辯證推理進(jìn)行了哲學(xué)上和法理學(xué)上的研究,產(chǎn)生了許多研究成果,本文只探討與法學(xué)相關(guān)的研究成果。本部分首先對已有的法理學(xué)和法邏輯學(xué)方面的辯證推理研究成果進(jìn)行梳理,指出其不足和缺陷,然后對研究司法判決中辯證推理的理論意義和實(shí)踐意義進(jìn)行總結(jié)和概括。 第二部分研究司法判決中辯證推理的涵義及適用,在第一部分對已有的研究成果進(jìn)行梳理的基礎(chǔ)上,本部分主要對辯證推理的涵義和適用問題進(jìn)行概括和總結(jié),最后指出辯證推理在適用于司法實(shí)踐中時,應(yīng)注意的一些現(xiàn)實(shí)問題。 第三部分闡述“法律沖突”情形下運(yùn)用辯證推理的依據(jù),主要從法律的邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)、法律的目的和意圖及法律的價值取向等與法律規(guī)范有關(guān)的依據(jù)和社會習(xí)慣或社會慣例、社會效用或社會利益及社會公共政策或社會公平正義觀念等與其他社會規(guī)范有關(guān)的依據(jù)兩個方面來展開論述,意在說明辯證推理并不是主觀的、隨意的,而是有其客觀依據(jù)的。 第四、五部分,在對以往文獻(xiàn)和資料進(jìn)行研究的基礎(chǔ)上,筆者試圖從法律邏輯學(xué)的角度總結(jié)出辯證推理的模式和方法,以期對法官在司法實(shí)踐中應(yīng)用辯證推理時起到一定的借鑒和參考作用。筆者總結(jié)的司法判決中辯證推理的四種主要模式有:原則導(dǎo)向模式、后果導(dǎo)向模式、時代價值觀導(dǎo)向模式及優(yōu)勢導(dǎo)向模式;兩種重要方法有:法律解釋的方法、論辯說理的方法等。
[Abstract]:The process of judicial decision includes the discovery of facts, the acquisition of law and the proof of judgment. The acquisition of law is an indispensable part of it, and it is also the main field studied by jurists for a long time, and the process of obtaining law is essentially a process of judicial classification of the cases that have been identified. That is, the process of finding legal norms suitable to the facts of the case. Due to the diversity and abstract characteristics of the legal norms themselves, judges may encounter many puzzles in the process of seeking legal norms, such as "there is no clear text of law", "legal contrast", Conflicts of laws, draconian laws and laws without express provisions. When confronted with these legal problems, the judge can not stand idly by, but should find ways and means to solve the problem through different ways. Due to the complexity of the legislative process and the limitation of human cognitive ability, the situation of "conflict of laws" is prevalent in any statutory country. However, legal norms are the important basis for judicial decisions. Once the law makes inconsistent provisions on the same case, it will inevitably lead to confusion and difficulties in the application of the law. Dialectical reasoning is just a method or means to solve the "conflict of laws" that people seek in the long practice. In addition, due to the substantial and probable characteristics of dialectical reasoning itself, in order to enhance its objectivity and reliability, it is necessary to study the models and methods of dialectical reasoning. In practice also has very important significance and value. The first part of this paper mainly introduces the research status and significance of dialectical reasoning, which was put forward by Aristotle in ancient Greece in the process of debating and dialogue with people. It has been thousands of years since, in the process of dialectical reasoning, Many scholars both at home and abroad have studied dialectical reasoning in philosophy and jurisprudence and have produced many research results. This part firstly combs the existing research results of dialectical reasoning in jurisprudence and legal logic, points out its shortcomings and defects, and then summarizes and generalizes the theoretical and practical significance of dialectical reasoning in the study of judicial decision. The second part studies the meaning and application of dialectical reasoning in judicial decision. On the basis of combing the existing research results in the first part, this part mainly summarizes and summarizes the meaning and application of dialectical reasoning. Finally, it points out some practical problems that should be paid attention to when dialectical reasoning is applied to judicial practice. The third part expounds the basis of applying dialectical reasoning in the case of "conflict of laws", mainly from the logical structure of law, the purpose and intention of law and the value orientation of law, etc. Social utility or social interests, social public policy or social fair and just concept and other social norms are discussed in order to explain that dialectical reasoning is not subjective, arbitrary, but has its objective basis. The fourth and fifth parts, on the basis of studying the past literature and materials, the author tries to sum up the model and method of dialectical reasoning from the angle of legal logic. In order to judge in judicial practice in the application of dialectical reasoning play a certain reference and reference. The four main models of dialectical reasoning in judicial judgment summarized by the author are: principle oriented mode, consequence oriented mode, times value oriented model and advantage oriented mode, two important methods are: the method of legal interpretation, A method of arguing, etc.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D90-051

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 謝旭,鄭志銳,謝罡;法律推理中的辯證推理與實(shí)踐推理芻議[J];菏澤師范�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

2 羅興平;張其鸞;;法律辯證推理及其良性運(yùn)用——以最高人民法院公報(bào)案例為視角[J];陜西理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2008年03期

3 邱愛民,張寶玲;論司法裁判中的辯證推理[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)與社會發(fā)展;2004年01期

4 王宏選;;疑難案件及其法律解釋[J];理論探索;2006年04期

5 都玉霞;張保芬;;法律推理與公正判決[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

，

本文編號：1954496