拉倫茨法律解釋方法述評
發(fā)布時間：2019-01-05 07:54
【摘要】： 卡爾·拉倫茨(Karl Larenz,1903年～1993年)作為德國法學(xué)方法論的權(quán)威代表人物,其著名代表作《法學(xué)方法論》使他獲得了經(jīng)典作家的美譽,并對德國的法學(xué)理論及其法律實踐產(chǎn)生了意義深遠的影響,使德國的法學(xué)主流學(xué)派由歷史法學(xué)、利益法學(xué)發(fā)展到目前兼顧法的安定性與法的時代感的新評價法學(xué)。其中,該書的核心精華理論——法律解釋方法——更是自問世以來便引起了極大的反響,它不但折射出了拉倫茨的法學(xué)方法論體系中最耀眼的理論光芒,而且還具有重要的理論意義和現(xiàn)實意義。即使我們在今天對其進行研究,仍然不失為過。 鑒于拉倫茨的法律解釋方法理論的重要地位和積極作用,本文擬將分為三章,在追根溯源地探究拉倫茨法律解釋方法產(chǎn)生的理論背景和實踐背景的基礎(chǔ)上,不僅揭示這種方法理論包括的主要內(nèi)容和自身特色,還將客觀地評價該理論具有的意義和局限。 本文的第一章,主要介紹了拉倫茨法律解釋方法的產(chǎn)生背景。如果欲研究一個理論,就必須明確它產(chǎn)生的理論背景和實踐背景及其涉及的相關(guān)內(nèi)容,這不僅是必不可少的研究路徑,而且對問題的展開、探討也極其重要。第一節(jié)將全面論述其理論背景,即從利益法學(xué)到評價法學(xué)的轉(zhuǎn)向、對探求整體法秩序體系的日益關(guān)注;第二節(jié)將詳細闡述其實踐背景,即司法實踐中填補法律漏洞的迫切需要、法官追求個案裁判的正當(dāng)性的要求。 本文的第二章,詳細分析了拉倫茨法律解釋方法的內(nèi)容和特色。第一節(jié)概述了拉倫茨法律解釋方法的主要內(nèi)容:字義解釋,法律的意義脈絡(luò)解釋,歷史上的立法者之規(guī)定意向、目標及規(guī)范想法解釋,客觀的目的論的解釋,合憲性解釋。第二節(jié)闡述了拉倫茨法律解釋方法理論不同于其他法律解釋方法理論的最大特點,即它不僅是對前人法律解釋方法理論的兼容并蓄,還首次區(qū)分了法律內(nèi)的法的續(xù)造和超越法律的法的續(xù)造。對于前人的相關(guān)理論的吸收和借鑒,筆者將主要例舉薩維尼的“四要素解釋方法”、米勒的“客觀目的論”、福斯特霍夫、克里勒等人的“憲法解釋”。 本文的第三章,重點討論了拉倫茨法律解釋方法的意義和局限。筆者認為,在意義方面,拉倫茨倡導(dǎo)的法律解釋方法不僅為價值判斷提供了一整套進行事后審查的標準,對實現(xiàn)法治社會的目標具有方法論意義;還有助于法官適用的法律由不確定性通向確定性,防止法官自由裁量權(quán)的恣意行使。但是,這種理論也存在許多局限,比如:劃分的子項未能窮盡母項致使邏輯體系缺乏完備性;法益衡量的方法未使主觀價值判斷客觀化的任務(wù)圓滿實現(xiàn);位階排序過于理想化,對法官解釋法律不具有普適性;缺少法律論證理論,不利于消除法律解釋結(jié)果的一解和多解現(xiàn)象之間的矛盾。
[Abstract]:Karl Larrenz (Karl Larenz, (1903-1993) as an authoritative representative figure of German legal methodology, his famous masterpiece, Methodology of Law, earned him a reputation as a classical writer. It has a profound influence on German legal theory and legal practice, which makes the mainstream school of German jurisprudence develop from historical jurisprudence and interest jurisprudence to a new evaluation law that takes into account the stability of law and the sense of the times of law. Among them, the core theory of the book, the method of legal interpretation, has aroused a great response since its inception. It not only reflects the most dazzling theoretical light in the system of legal methodology of Larenz, And also has important theoretical and practical significance. Even if we study it today, it is still too much. In view of the important position and positive role of Larenz's legal interpretation method theory, this paper will be divided into three chapters, on the basis of tracing back to the theoretical background and practical background of Larenz's legal interpretation method. It not only reveals the main contents and characteristics of this method theory, but also objectively evaluates the significance and limitation of the theory. The first chapter mainly introduces the background of Larenz's legal interpretation. If we want to study a theory, we must make clear the theoretical background and the practical background and the related contents, which is not only an indispensable research path, but also an extremely important discussion on the development of the problem. The first section will comprehensively discuss its theoretical background, that is, the turning from the law of interests to the law of evaluation, and pay more and more attention to the system of seeking the order of law as a whole. The second section will elaborate its practice background in detail, namely the urgent need to fill the legal loophole in the judicial practice, the request that the judge pursues the justice of the case adjudication. In the second chapter, the contents and characteristics of Larenz's legal interpretation method are analyzed in detail. The first section summarizes the main contents of Larenz's legal interpretation: meaning interpretation, legal meaning interpretation, historical legislator's intention to stipulate, objective and normative idea interpretation, objective teleological interpretation, and constitutionality interpretation. In the second section, the author expounds that the theory of Larenz's method of legal interpretation is different from other theories of legal interpretation, that is, it is not only inclusive of the former theories of legal interpretation methods. For the first time, a distinction is made between the continuation of law within law and the continuation of law beyond law. For the absorption and reference of previous relevant theories, the author will mainly cite Savini's "four elements interpretation method", Hans Muller's "objective Skopos Theory", Foster Hoff, Killer and others'"Constitutional interpretation". The third chapter focuses on the significance and limitation of Larenz's legal interpretation method. The author thinks that in the aspect of meaning, the method of legal interpretation advocated by Larenz not only provides a set of standards for value judgment to be examined after the event, but also has methodological significance for the realization of the goal of a society ruled by law. It also helps the judge to apply the law from uncertainty to certainty and prevents the arbitrary exercise of the judge's discretion. However, there are many limitations in this theory, such as the lack of completeness of the logical system due to the failure to exhaust the parent items, the lack of completeness of the logical system, the failure of the method of measuring legal benefits to make the objective task of subjective value judgment come true satisfactorily. The ranking is too idealized and it is not universal for judges to interpret the law, and the lack of legal argumentation theory is not conducive to eliminating the contradiction between one-solution and multi-solution of the result of legal interpretation.
【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】：2010
【分類號】：D90
本文編號：2401494
[Abstract]:Karl Larrenz (Karl Larenz, (1903-1993) as an authoritative representative figure of German legal methodology, his famous masterpiece, Methodology of Law, earned him a reputation as a classical writer. It has a profound influence on German legal theory and legal practice, which makes the mainstream school of German jurisprudence develop from historical jurisprudence and interest jurisprudence to a new evaluation law that takes into account the stability of law and the sense of the times of law. Among them, the core theory of the book, the method of legal interpretation, has aroused a great response since its inception. It not only reflects the most dazzling theoretical light in the system of legal methodology of Larenz, And also has important theoretical and practical significance. Even if we study it today, it is still too much. In view of the important position and positive role of Larenz's legal interpretation method theory, this paper will be divided into three chapters, on the basis of tracing back to the theoretical background and practical background of Larenz's legal interpretation method. It not only reveals the main contents and characteristics of this method theory, but also objectively evaluates the significance and limitation of the theory. The first chapter mainly introduces the background of Larenz's legal interpretation. If we want to study a theory, we must make clear the theoretical background and the practical background and the related contents, which is not only an indispensable research path, but also an extremely important discussion on the development of the problem. The first section will comprehensively discuss its theoretical background, that is, the turning from the law of interests to the law of evaluation, and pay more and more attention to the system of seeking the order of law as a whole. The second section will elaborate its practice background in detail, namely the urgent need to fill the legal loophole in the judicial practice, the request that the judge pursues the justice of the case adjudication. In the second chapter, the contents and characteristics of Larenz's legal interpretation method are analyzed in detail. The first section summarizes the main contents of Larenz's legal interpretation: meaning interpretation, legal meaning interpretation, historical legislator's intention to stipulate, objective and normative idea interpretation, objective teleological interpretation, and constitutionality interpretation. In the second section, the author expounds that the theory of Larenz's method of legal interpretation is different from other theories of legal interpretation, that is, it is not only inclusive of the former theories of legal interpretation methods. For the first time, a distinction is made between the continuation of law within law and the continuation of law beyond law. For the absorption and reference of previous relevant theories, the author will mainly cite Savini's "four elements interpretation method", Hans Muller's "objective Skopos Theory", Foster Hoff, Killer and others'"Constitutional interpretation". The third chapter focuses on the significance and limitation of Larenz's legal interpretation method. The author thinks that in the aspect of meaning, the method of legal interpretation advocated by Larenz not only provides a set of standards for value judgment to be examined after the event, but also has methodological significance for the realization of the goal of a society ruled by law. It also helps the judge to apply the law from uncertainty to certainty and prevents the arbitrary exercise of the judge's discretion. However, there are many limitations in this theory, such as the lack of completeness of the logical system due to the failure to exhaust the parent items, the lack of completeness of the logical system, the failure of the method of measuring legal benefits to make the objective task of subjective value judgment come true satisfactorily. The ranking is too idealized and it is not universal for judges to interpret the law, and the lack of legal argumentation theory is not conducive to eliminating the contradiction between one-solution and multi-solution of the result of legal interpretation.
【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】：2010
【分類號】：D90
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 黃進喜;;“價值導(dǎo)向的思考”方法的限度——評卡爾·拉倫茨的《法學(xué)方法論》[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年03期
2 胡玉鴻;利益衡量與“社會需求”——訴訟過程的動態(tài)分析之一[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2001年03期
3 龍衛(wèi)球;;評價法學(xué)的現(xiàn)代軌跡——評拉倫茨《法學(xué)方法論》[J];法制資訊;2008年10期
4 蘇軍偉;;芻議法律解釋[J];甘肅農(nóng)業(yè);2006年02期
5 呂東韜;;重讀拉倫茨法律解釋方法——讀《法學(xué)方法論》新思考[J];和田師范�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2008年04期
6 沈美華;;拉倫茨《法學(xué)方法論》的解讀和思考[J];湖北行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年S2期
7 彭婧;;法律的漏洞和法的續(xù)造——讀拉倫茨的《法學(xué)方法論》[J];科教文匯(上旬刊);2008年01期
8 杜江,鄒國勇;德國“利益法學(xué)”思潮述評[J];法學(xué)論壇;2003年06期
9 杜歆;;試論通過法律解釋及漏洞填補等方法實現(xiàn)個案正義[J];社會科學(xué)論壇(學(xué)術(shù)研究卷);2007年09期
10 焦寶乾;法律論證理論的興起及其思想背景[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年04期
，本文編號：2401494
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2401494.html
