文義解釋的優(yōu)先性及其限制
發(fā)布時間：2018-11-28 12:41
【摘要】：文義解釋,是指依照語詞明顯的、通常的含義或者法律上的、專門的含義,來對法律的內(nèi)容進行清晰闡述的法律解釋方法,而不考慮法條字面含義以外的因素。已經(jīng)達成的共識是：文義解釋是解釋的出發(fā)點,具有適用上的優(yōu)先性。但是文義解釋是否具有決定上的優(yōu)先性,還是存在一定的分歧。主要包括三種觀點：文義解釋的決定論、文義解釋的非決定論,以及文義解釋的相對優(yōu)先性。本文持的是第三種觀點,即在一般的情況下,文義解釋的結(jié)果具有決定上的優(yōu)先性,不需要考慮其它的解釋方法；當出現(xiàn)一定的情形時,則這種優(yōu)先性要接受挑戰(zhàn)。 文義解釋的優(yōu)先性不僅在于文義解釋在適用上更為簡易,而且還有其予以保護的價值。具體來說,文義解釋的優(yōu)先性基于其解釋結(jié)果的客觀性、可維護法律意義的穩(wěn)定性,以及基于法條的相對獨立性。當然這種優(yōu)先性僅僅是一種相對的優(yōu)先性,法官一方面要重視法律的明確性和安定性,另一方面也要重視法律內(nèi)容適用于個案的公平正義。在具體的司法過程中,法官并不是機械地適用法條的,他必須防止法律決定論的思維方式,兼顧形式上和實質(zhì)上的因素,使得司法判決達到一種最大程度的可接受性,在這個過程中法官不可避免地會運用其自由裁量權(quán)。這種主觀性的價值判斷也并不是任意的,否則就會演變成司法上的恣意。在法律解釋方法的運用上表現(xiàn)為：在什么情形下應該排除文義解釋的適用?具體來說,當適用文義解釋有缺陷時,當文義解釋的結(jié)果與明顯的立法意圖相違背時,以及當文義解釋的結(jié)果與社會上重要的價值相背離時,就應該考慮排除文義解釋的適用。 當排除文義解釋的適用之后,我們應該怎樣去得出結(jié)論呢?這里有兩種情形：當法條的語義模糊或者適用文義解釋有兩種以上的結(jié)論時,則采用各種解釋方法相互滲透的方式來確定最終的結(jié)論；當文義解釋的結(jié)果與其它解釋方法的結(jié)果相沖突、與重大的社會價值相沖突,或者與重大的社會現(xiàn)實相沖突時,法官可以考慮用其它解釋方法或者是法律原則來排除文義解釋的適用。
[Abstract]:Literal interpretation refers to a method of legal interpretation that clearly states the content of a law according to the obvious, usual or legal meaning of a word, and does not consider factors beyond the literal meaning of a law. There is a consensus that the interpretation of meaning is the starting point of interpretation and has the priority of application. However, there are still some differences on whether the interpretation of literary meaning has the priority of decision. There are three viewpoints: determinism of textual interpretation, non-determinism of textual interpretation, and relative priority of textual interpretation. This paper holds the third view, that is, under general circumstances, the result of semantic interpretation is decisive and does not need to consider other interpretation methods, but this priority is challenged when a certain situation arises. The priority of literary interpretation lies not only in its simpler application, but also in its value of protection. Specifically, the preference of literary interpretation is based on the objectivity of the interpretation result, the stability of legal meaning and the relative independence of law. Of course, this priority is only a relative priority. On the one hand, the judge should attach importance to the clarity and stability of the law, on the other hand, the content of the law should be applied to the fairness and justice of the case. In a specific judicial process, the judge does not apply the law mechanically. He must prevent the way of thinking of legal determinism and take into account both formal and substantive factors, so that the judicial decision can reach a maximum degree of acceptability. In this process, judges will inevitably exercise their discretion. This subjective value judgment is not arbitrary, otherwise it will evolve into judicial arbitrariness. In the application of the method of legal interpretation: under what circumstances should we exclude the application of literary interpretation? Specifically, when there are defects in the application of the interpretation of meaning, when the result of the interpretation of cultural meaning is contrary to the obvious legislative intent, and when the result of the interpretation of the meaning of text deviates from the important value of the society, it should be considered to exclude the application of the interpretation of literary meaning. How can we come to a conclusion when we exclude the application of textual interpretation? There are two kinds of cases: when the meaning of the law is vague or there are two or more conclusions in the interpretation of the applicable meaning, the final conclusion is determined by the mutual penetration of various interpretation methods; When the result of textual interpretation conflicts with the results of other interpretation methods, with significant social values, or with significant social realities, Judges may consider using other means of interpretation or legal principles to exclude the application of textual interpretation.
【學位授予單位】：南京師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D90-055
本文編號：2362852
[Abstract]:Literal interpretation refers to a method of legal interpretation that clearly states the content of a law according to the obvious, usual or legal meaning of a word, and does not consider factors beyond the literal meaning of a law. There is a consensus that the interpretation of meaning is the starting point of interpretation and has the priority of application. However, there are still some differences on whether the interpretation of literary meaning has the priority of decision. There are three viewpoints: determinism of textual interpretation, non-determinism of textual interpretation, and relative priority of textual interpretation. This paper holds the third view, that is, under general circumstances, the result of semantic interpretation is decisive and does not need to consider other interpretation methods, but this priority is challenged when a certain situation arises. The priority of literary interpretation lies not only in its simpler application, but also in its value of protection. Specifically, the preference of literary interpretation is based on the objectivity of the interpretation result, the stability of legal meaning and the relative independence of law. Of course, this priority is only a relative priority. On the one hand, the judge should attach importance to the clarity and stability of the law, on the other hand, the content of the law should be applied to the fairness and justice of the case. In a specific judicial process, the judge does not apply the law mechanically. He must prevent the way of thinking of legal determinism and take into account both formal and substantive factors, so that the judicial decision can reach a maximum degree of acceptability. In this process, judges will inevitably exercise their discretion. This subjective value judgment is not arbitrary, otherwise it will evolve into judicial arbitrariness. In the application of the method of legal interpretation: under what circumstances should we exclude the application of literary interpretation? Specifically, when there are defects in the application of the interpretation of meaning, when the result of the interpretation of cultural meaning is contrary to the obvious legislative intent, and when the result of the interpretation of the meaning of text deviates from the important value of the society, it should be considered to exclude the application of the interpretation of literary meaning. How can we come to a conclusion when we exclude the application of textual interpretation? There are two kinds of cases: when the meaning of the law is vague or there are two or more conclusions in the interpretation of the applicable meaning, the final conclusion is determined by the mutual penetration of various interpretation methods; When the result of textual interpretation conflicts with the results of other interpretation methods, with significant social values, or with significant social realities, Judges may consider using other means of interpretation or legal principles to exclude the application of textual interpretation.
【學位授予單位】：南京師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D90-055
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條
1 熊靜波;;理解中國法解釋論的三個分析框架[J];法商研究;2010年05期
2 時延安;;論刑法規(guī)范的文義解釋[J];法學家;2002年06期
3 桑本謙;法律解釋的困境[J];法學研究;2004年05期
4 孫光寧;;法律解釋的評價標準:從合法性、合理性到可接受性[J];內(nèi)蒙古社會科學(漢文版);2009年05期
，本文編號：2362852
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2362852.html
