论文部分内容阅读
一、规则与原则的法理分析(一)一般的法理认识作为法律规范,规则跟原则究竟哪个最佳的论争凸显了法学界最久远的辩证逻辑。规则和原则通常都被看成具有两个基本要件:起因和回应。因此,规则和原则的差异在于其要件结构。典型的规则在于描述实证的起因及精准的回应,徒留给决策者(检察官、法官或监管层)的是事实问题。相反,典型的原则是把起因和回应的评判都交给决策者,由他们根据基本评价标准决定。
First, the rule of law and principles of legal analysis (A) the general legal understanding As a legal norms, rules and principles which the best debate highlights the most profound dialectical logic of jurisprudence. Rules and principles are often seen as having two basic elements: cause and response. Therefore, the difference between rules and principles lies in the structure of their requirements. A typical rule is to describe the causes of the evidence and the precise response, leaving only the decision-makers (prosecutors, judges or regulators) is a matter of fact. On the contrary, the typical principle is to pass the judgment of cause and response to decision-makers, who decide according to the basic evaluation criteria.