论文部分内容阅读
本文是一篇探讨规范性(normativity)的论文。规范性是法理学的基础问题之一,但却困扰学界良久。曾经提出过制裁理论来探讨规范性的 Kelsen,到了晚年似乎更深刻地看到了规范性问题的复杂性,因此认为我们不可能给规范性任何精确的定义。但是这种谨慎保守的态度当然无法阻止学者继续探讨规范性的意义。许多新的理论被相继提出,本文亦可视为此等努力当中的一点尝试。本文的第2部分,将简短说明阐述规范性的三个主要理论模式:制裁论、规则论与证立论,并作一初步的综合检讨。在第3部分中,笔者将提出规范缝隙的概念,并简述对规范缝隙的一般性分类。在第 4部分中,则尝试由服从论的援引缝隙问题着手,发展规范缝隙理论与前述规范性理论模式,尤其是证立论,之间的对话可能性。接着在第5部分里,将借由意义指涉结构的不完整性,分析说明对规范相对人的空位召唤,因为这是规范显现出意义(making sense)的必要条件。一个显现出意义的规范性,并不局限于有拘束力的一边,反而是同时标示出“拘束/不拘束”的两侧,而召唤着理解后的相对人再进入(re-entry)到这两侧中的一侧。在这种观点下,规范性不等于拘束力,而是使得自由主体得以吊诡方式成立的条件及其运作结构。结论部分则综合指出,规范性就是规范缝隙,规范缝隙就是透过空位召唤、进驻与二元摆荡等运作,使得虚址主体得以浮现为自由主体的意义结构不完整性。而法律此等权威的规范性,则是控制其他规范性的二阶规范性。
This article is a treatise on normativity. Normative one of the basic issues of jurisprudence, but troubled the academic community for a long time. Kelsen, who had proposed the theory of sanctions to discuss normative Kelsen, seemed to have seen more deeply the complexity of normative issues in his later years, and concluded that we could not give any precise definition of normative. However, this cautious and conservative attitude certainly can not prevent scholars from continuing to explore the normative significance. Many new theories have been proposed one after another, and this article can also be considered as one of those efforts. The second part of this article will briefly describe the three main normative theoretical models: the sanctions theory, the rules of theory and evidence-based theory, and make a preliminary comprehensive review. In Part 3, I will propose the concept of nullability and outline the general classification of nullability. In Section 4, we attempt to develop the possibility of dialogue between normative gap theory and the aforementioned normative theoretical model, especially the proof of argument, from the perspective of the theory of conformity. Then in Section 5, we analyze and explain the vacancy call to the norm relative to the incompleteness of the denotation of meaning because it is necessary for the norm to make sense. A meaningful normative, not limited to a binding side, but at the same time marked “binding / unrestrained” on both sides, and called for the understanding of the relative re-entry (re-entry) To one of these two sides. In this view, normativity is not equal to the binding force, but rather the conditions and operational structure that allow the freedom subject to become paradoxical. In the conclusion part, it is pointed out that the norm is the norm gap, and the norm gap is the vacant position summon, stationed in the binary oscillation and other operations, making the imaginary address main body emerge as the meaning structure of the free subject. The legal norms of these authorities, it is to control other normative second-order normative.