论文部分内容阅读
陈金钊教授的“法治反对解释”命题有力地重申了罗马法中的明晰性规则。渊源于罗马法的明晰性规则强调对于清楚明确的法律规定无须作任何解释,而这正是“法治反对解释”命题的题中之义,而明晰性规则在英美法中对应的是平义规则(Plain meaning rule)。本文对围绕“法治反对解释”命题的争论和平义规则在美国法学界的相关讨论进行了梳理,在语言学转向的理论语境中重新诠释了“法治反对解释”命题,并强调了此命题在理论与实践语境中的不同修辞策略。
Professor Chen Jinzhao’s “Rule of Law Against Explanation” proposition effectively reaffirmed the clarity of the Roman law rules. Clarification rules derived from the Roman Law emphasize that there is no need to explain any clear and definite legal provisions, and this is just the meaning of the proposition that “the rule of law opposes the interpretation.” And the clarity rules correspond to those in the Anglo-American law. Plain meaning rule. This dissertation delves into the debate on “the rule of law against interpretation” and the rule of peace in the American jurisprudence, and reinterprets the proposition of “rule of law against interpretation” in the theoretical context of linguistic turn. Different Rhetorical Tactics of the Proposition in the Context of Theory and Practice.