论文部分内容阅读
分离论和一体论分别对裁判上类推的性质做出了相反的判定:分离论认为类推属于法律适用之外的法律续造技术,其不同于法律解释;一体论认为类推是适用法律的基本方式,其与解释无所差别,法律适用和法律续造亦无可分割。正确理解这个论争的关键在于从价值导向的类推思维结构出发,有意识地诉诸法律解释的目标理论,即法律解释目标究竟在于立法者的主观意思还是规范自身的客观目的,前者支持分离论,后者则导向一体论。法律解释目标的厘定离不开其背后蕴含的法哲学立场,分离论和一体论的论争反映出法律实证主义与反法律实证主义的法概念之争。最终,则只有在实质性的政治哲学讨论中才可能全面洞悉论争双方的理据。
Separationism and oneness respectively make the opposite judgment on the analogy of referees: Separationism considers that analogy belongs to law renewal technology other than the application of law, which is different from legal explanation; and one-dimensional theory thinks analogy is the basic method of applying law , There is no difference with the explanation, the application of law and law continue to be inseparable. The crux of correctly understanding this argument lies in consciously resorting to the objective theory of legal interpretation from the value-oriented analogical thinking structure, that is, whether the goal of legal interpretation lies in the subjective meaning of the legislator or the objective objective of regulating itself. The former supports the theory of separation and the later Those who guide one-dimensional theory. The determination of legal interpretation can not be separated from the legal philosophical position behind it. The debate on separationism and oneness reflects the controversy of legal concepts between legal positivism and anti-legal positivism. Ultimately, then, it is only possible to fully understand the arguments of the parties to the dispute in a substantive discussion of political philosophy.