【摘要】：現有的類推論者往往在不同的指稱意義上使用和論述類比推理,而且更重要的是,他們一般只在法律發(fā)現或者法律證成的單一維度上對案件間相似性判斷采取描述性或規(guī)范性研究,從而造成了關于類比推理的各種表面和實質爭議。 本文在描述、反思現有的認識論對案件間相似性判斷的可能意義及其限度的基礎上,提出了一種建立在類型概念基礎之上的法律類型構造理論,認為案件間的相似性判斷,是一個案件之間語義屬性上的相似性和案件之間在法律規(guī)則的目的、立法理由、判決理由、法律原則等法律評價上的相似性共同作用的結果,而本文重構的法律類型可充分滿足這一認識論要求。在證成部分,本文運用語義學論證、原則論證、衡量論證和融貫性論證,對法律解釋者運用法律類型進行案件間的相似性判斷面臨的某種程度的不確定性依次進行了證成,指出法律類推中案件間的相似性判斷仍具有相當的確定性。 本文的結構分為：第一部分在探討圍繞類推各種爭議的基礎上,提出相似性判斷爭議及其問題；第二部分圍繞第一部分提出的問題意識,立足于學界的相關研究,對默會知識論、原型范疇論、概念整合論、現代認知心理學以及德國法學的類型論對相似性判斷的意義及其可能性限度分別作了歸納與研討。這種歸納構成后文構造的法律類型的理論起點和基礎；第三部分探討了一種全新的建立在類型概念語義基礎之上的法律類型的構造形式、結構形態(tài),并結合兩個案件論述了其對法律類推中案件間相似性判斷的認識論意義。這里的探討顯示出,法律類型能夠運用于相似性判斷中,亦可見本文的類型理論對于法律類推中案件間相似性的發(fā)現具有非常重要的意義；第四部分圍繞語義學論證、原則論證、衡量論證和融貫性論證,分別探討了案件相似性判斷的證成問題。
[Abstract]:The existing analogists tend to use and discuss analogical reasoning in different referential senses, and more importantly, They generally take descriptive or normative research on the similarity judgment between cases in a single dimension of legal discovery or legal proof, which leads to various superficial and substantive disputes about analogical reasoning. On the basis of describing and reflecting on the possible significance and limitation of the existing epistemology to the judgment of similarity between cases, this paper puts forward a kind of construction theory of legal types based on the concept of type. It is the result of the similarity between the semantic attributes of a case and the similarity between the legal rules, the legislative reasons, the judgment reasons, the legal principles, and so on. The types of laws reconstructed in this paper can fully meet the epistemological requirements. In the part of proof, this paper uses semantic argument, principle argument, measurement argument and consistency argument to prove the degree of uncertainty faced by legal interpreters in judging the similarity between cases by using legal types. It is pointed out that the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogy still has considerable certainty. The structure of this paper is divided into: the first part of the discussion around the analogy of various disputes on the basis of the similarity judgment dispute and its problems; The second part focuses on the awareness of questions raised in the first part, based on the relevant research in the academic world, the tacit knowledge theory, prototype category theory, conceptual integration theory, The significance and possible limits of similarity judgment in modern cognitive psychology and German jurisprudence are summarized and discussed. This kind of induction constitutes the theoretical starting point and foundation of the legal types of the later texts. The third part discusses a new kind of legal type based on the semantic meaning of the concept of type, and discusses the epistemological significance of the similarity judgment between cases in legal analogies with the combination of two cases. The discussion here shows that the type of law can be applied to the judgment of similarity, and that the type theory in this paper is of great significance to the discovery of the similarity between cases in the legal analogies. The fourth part focuses on semantic argumentation, principle argumentation, measurement argumentation and fusion argumentation, and discusses the evidence of case similarity judgment.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D90

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前8條

1 杜宇;;刑法規(guī)范的形成機理——以“類型”建構為視角[J];法商研究;2010年01期

2 郁振華;;范例、規(guī)則和默會認識[J];華東師范大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2008年04期

3 雷磊;;法律推理基本形式的結構分析[J];法學研究;2009年04期

4 杜宇;再論刑法上之“類型化”思維——一種基于“方法論”的擴展性思考[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2005年06期

5 陳林林;;裁判上之類比推論辨析[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2007年04期

6 埃爾馬·邦德;吳香香;;類推:當代德國法中的證立方法[J];求是學刊;2010年03期

7 杜宇;;刑法上之“類推禁止”如何可能? 一個方法論上的懸疑[J];中外法學;2006年04期

8 郁振華;波蘭尼的默會認識論[J];自然辯證法研究;2001年08期

，

本文編號：2395749