摘要
“何时需要法律解释”这一问题值得法学方法论认真对待。目前学界对此的回答之一“明晰性原则”主张以“规则是否清晰”作为判断标准,但受到了诸多批评。外部批评从哲学诠释学和法律论证学出发尝试在逻辑意义上证明法律解释的普遍性,但实际上却误解了明晰性原则所预设的“法律解释”观念,仅产生名义冲突而非实质冲突。内部批评从逻辑缺陷、主观判准缺陷以及正当性缺陷三个角度指出了明晰性原则的理论困难,迫使后者不得不作出修正。修正后的明晰性原则以“典型事例”作为规则清晰性的判断标准,并促进了法律解释的程序化。这种程序化强调文义之于解释的指引功能与划界功能,同时实现了法律解释从权力观到义务观的转变,有利于促进法律适用的安定性。
The question of when should judges interpret the statute deserves serious attention in legal methodology.One of the answers to this question,the Principle of Clarity,which advocates that“whether the rule is clear or not”should be the criterion,has been subjected to a lot of criticisms.External criticisms from the philosophical hermeneutics and legal argumentation try to prove the universality of legal interpretation in a logical sense,but in fact,it is a misunderstanding of the concept of“legal interpretation”which the principle of clarity presupposes,hence only produces a nominal conflict rather than a substantive conflict.The internal criticisms point out the theoretical difficulties of the Principle of Clarity from three perspectives:logical flaws,subjective judgement flaws,and legitimacy flaws,forcing the principle to be amended.The revised principle of clarity uses“paradigm”as a criterion for the determination of the clarity of rules and promotes the proceduralisation of legal interpretation.This proceduralization emphasises the guiding and delimiting functions of word meaning,and at the same time realises the transformation of the power-conception of legal interpretation to duty-conception,which is conducive to the stability and certainty of the application of law.
作者
余昊迪
雷磊
Yu Haodi;Lei Lei(Law School,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088)
出处
《浙江社会科学》
北大核心
2025年第6期45-57,157,158,共15页
Zhejiang Social Sciences
基金
2021年度教育部哲学社会科学研究后期资助重大项目“时代镜像中的法理学研究”(项目编号:21JHQ012)的研究成果。
关键词
明晰性原则
法律解释
语言习惯
法律概念
程序化
principle of clarity
external criticisms
internal criticisms
paradigm
roceduralisa‐tion of legal interpretation
作者简介
余昊迪,中国政法大学法学院博士研究生;雷磊,中国政法大学法学院教授。(北京100088)。
