,, 2001,,,,,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,, gλυ,,,,,, (Bydlinski),, (, ),,,, :,, :, (3),, 74,,,,,, [ ] :,,, Alexander Kress Schauer :, , 60 gλυ 2001

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download ",, 2001,,,,,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,, gλυ,,,,,, (Bydlinski),, (, ),,,, :,, :, (3),, 74,,,,,, [ ] :,,, Alexander Kress Schauer :, , 60 gλυ 2001"

每沧娄
7 years ago
Views:

1 Ξ,, ;, :,,,,,,,,,,, ( ) ( ),,, 2010,,, (open texture),,,,,,,,,,, Ξ, Cass R1Sunstein judicial minimalism,,,,, (broad rules), (deep theories) Cass R1 Sunstein, One Case at a Time : Judicial minimalism on the Supreme Court, Harvard University Press,19991 [ ] : :,, 2001 judicial minimalism, (regular law), :, , ;,,,,, ( ),

2 ,, 2001,,,,,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,, gλυ,,,,,, (Bydlinski),, (, ),,,, :,, :, (3),, 74,,,,,, [ ] :,,, Alexander Kress Schauer :, , 60 gλυ ;, :, : , 2002, 46, [ ] :,, ,,,, See Hart s Postscript, in The Concept of Law, 2nd ed1 Clarendon Press, 1994, especially the third and fourth sections1,, ,,,,,, See Robert Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, trans1 by Julian Rivers, Oxford university press, 2002, p165, 801, :, , 54 See Larry Alexander & Ken Kress, Against Legal Principles, 82 Iowa L1 Rev ; Frederick Schauer, Prescriptions in Three Dimensions, 82 Iowa L1 Rev ,,,, :, ,

3 2006 2,, gλϖ,,,, ;,,, ( ),, gλω, ( ), :, ;,,, ;,,,,, gλξ :,, : N, ; :,,, gλψ,,, :, (all - or - nothing),, ;,,,, ;,,,, (counter - instances),,,, (dimension of weight),,,,,,,,,, gλζ,,,,, gλϖ gλω gλξ gλψ gλζ Bydlinski, Juristische Methodenlehre und Rechtsbegriff, 1982, S11331 [ ] :,, 1996, 10 gλϖ, :, , Neil MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford University Press, 1994, p11521,,

4 ,, gλ{,,,, (optimization requirements) (ideal ought),,, ;, (real ought), (prima facie character), :,, (definite), (prima facie) ;, (definite character), ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,, P1 P2,,P1 P2, (formal principles) ;, gλ,,,,,,,,,, gλ},,,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, gλ gλ{ gλ gλ} gλ, :,,See Hart s Postscript,supra, n16, the third sector1 See Robert Alexy, supra, n17, the third section1 : Robert Alexy, 24 : :, :, ,

5 gµυ,,,,,,,,,, gµϖ : ( )?,,,,,, gµω,,, ( ),,,,,,,,,,, ( ) ( ), (fit) (justify), gµξ,,, :,,,, ( ), ( ) gµψ,, ,, :,,,,,,,,,,, :,,,?,?,,,,,,, ;,, gµυ gµϖ gµω gµξ gµψ,,,,,, ;,,, (certainty) (appropriateness),,, 124 ;See Fernando Atria, On Law and Legal Reasoning, Hart Publishing, 2002, pp ,, 55 :, , 37 See Larry Alexander & Ken Kress, supra, n18, p17451 gλϖ,

6 ,,,,, ( ),,, gµζ, ( ),,,, 1889 ( Riggs v1 Palmer), gµ{ (Palmer),,,,,,,,,,,?,,,,,,, P1,, P1 P2, (formal principles),,, P1 P2, P1 gµ,,,,,,,??,,,,,,,, gµ}, ( Henkel) :,, gµ, gνυ,,,, gµζ gµ{ gµ gµ} gµ gνυ :, : ( 1 ), 2002, ; gµω, 15, N1 Y1 506, 22 N1 E1 188(1889) 1 (1899,115,506,,22,188 ),,, 41 ;[ ] :,, , 14 See Robert Alexy, supra, n17, p581,, :, ( ) See Robert Alexy, supra, n17, pp : Riggs v1 Palmer,, See Hart s Postscript, supra, n16, p2621 Henkel, Recht und Individulaitat, 1958, S1 371 gλ, 245 [ ] :,, ,

7 2006 2,,,,,,,,,,, gνϖ,,,,,, :,, gνω, ( Earl), :,,,,,,, gνξ,,,,,,,,,,, (P1),,, (P2),,P1 P2,,,,,,,, gνψ,,, ;,,, gνϖ gνω gνξ gνψ gνζ See R1 Alexy, Zum Begriff des Rechtsprinzips, S gλ, 13 [ ] :,, , N1 Y1 506, 22 N1 E1 188(1889) (New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v1 Armstrong),117U1S1591,6 S1 Ct1 877(1886),, [ ] :,, , 23 Kenneth J1Vandevelde, Thinking Like a Lawyer : An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Westview Press, 1996 p11421 :,,, [ ]N :,, ,

8 gνζ,, gν{,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, gν,,,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,, (definitive rights) ; (prima - facie rights) ;,,,,, (the law of competing principles) :, P1 P2,,,, (C), (P) ; C P1, P2, : (P1 P P2) C P1 C Q, :C Q, C : ( P1 P P2) C, C Q, :,, 1973 (Lebach Case) gν} Lebach 6,, (ZDF),, (resocialization), gν{ gν gν},,,,,,,,, :, ,, ; ; ;,,, ;,,, Robert Alexy, supra, n17, pp gλ, BVerf GE 35, 202, Urteil v ( , ) See Robert Alexy, supra, n17, pp :, ,

9 (1) 2 (1), gν,, : 1 (1) 2 (1) 5 (1) (2) gου (tension) P1, P2 P1,P2,, (balancing), ( ),, ;,, :, (C1),, : (P2 P P1) C1,, :, (C2),, : (P1 P P2) C2,,,,C2 ( ), :C2 Q, :F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 Q, : (F4) (F3) (F2) (F1),,,,,,,,,,,?,,,,,,,,,,, ;,, gοϖ gν gου ( Grundgesetz 1949) 1 (1) :, 2 (1) :, ( Grundgesetz 1949) 5, (1) :,, (2) :, gοϖ See Robert Alexy, supra, n17, pp

10 :,,,,,,,, :H, Z, H,Z H J,, : H, H,,,,, Z,,,, gοω,,,,,,, H,,,,,,,, :,,,,, gοξ,,,, ( P1), (P2) gοψ,,, :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, gοω gοξ gοψ :,,, 72 :,,,

11 2006 2, gοζ,,,,,,,,,,, ;,,, gο{ 1986,,, gο,,,,,,,, (P1) (P2), (C1),,, : (P2 P P1) C1,, (C2),,, : (P1 P P2) C2 Abstract :As far as legal principles are concerned, it is more vital to explore their apllications in judicial trials than to define them1 In general, there exist four situations in which legal principles are applied in judicial practices1firstly, the principle will act as the basis and guidance of the rule when a legal principle is in accord with a legal rule1 Secondly, a legal principle will be applied for dealing with the legal loophole when a legal rule is missed1 Thirdly, a legal principle will be used for making an exception of a legal rule when the principle conflicts with the rule1 Finally, the situation in which legal principles are conflicted is especially complicated 1 These four situations may be structurally intercrossed and overlapping 1 And the first situation of the application of principles has been well known, but the other situations, especially the third and fourth situations are in need of more research 1From the deep perspective of normative jurisprudential methodology, this article attempts to investigate the logical structure of the judicial application of legal principles 1 ( : ) gοζ gο{ gο,,,,,, : ( ), ; ( ) gνζ, [ ] :,, , (1986 ) 11 20, [ ] : I ( 2 ), 2000,

,,,,,,,,,, 2.,,,,,,,,,,,,, 600, 500,,,,,,,,,, (1894 ), 10, 6 3.,,, gλυ, ;, ; ;,,,,, 4.,, gλϖ,,, :,,, gλω,,,, 5., 300, 1300, :,,,, :, 53

1998 1 29,,,,, ;,,,,,,,, : 1.,,,, 20, 600, 500,,,, 52 ,,,,,,,,,, 2.,,,,,,,,,,,,, 600, 500,,,,,,,,,, (1894 ), 10, 6 3.,,, gλυ, ;, ; ;,,,,, 4.,, gλϖ,,, :,,, gλω,,,, 5., 300, 1300, :,,,, :, 53 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,