论文部分内容阅读
分析法学与法律诠释学分别表现出描述性与评价性的不同学派特质。美国法学家德沃金构建的整全性法律解释观,为我们提供了消解两派对垒的重要分析框架。德沃金认为法律文本的真实价值存在于作者与读者的对话式互动整合中,进而主张真正的法律解释境界为创造性的建构性解释。这种消除对垒之道的核心在于,对法律命题的创造性的解释,蕴含着描述与评价的成分。用德沃金的法律解释观来对待布朗诉教育委员会案,可以看出大法官通过建设性解释赋予宪法第十四修正案以正确的时代意蕴,即学校种族隔离教育的禁止体现平等保护的公共价值。虽然德沃金试图通过阐释性概念获致惟一正解,但他这种受到伽达默尔影响的法律解释观,注定惟一正解的追寻只是高贵的迷思,本身已遁入司法造法之中。
Analytical jurisprudence and legal hermeneutics, respectively, show the descriptive and evaluation of different school qualities. The complete legal explanation of the construction by American legal scientist Dworkin provided us with an important analytical framework for dispelling the two parties against each other. Dworkin holds that the true value of the legal text lies in the interactive dialogue and interaction between the author and the reader, and then advocates that the true state of legal explanation be a creative constructive explanation. At the heart of this elimination of confrontation is the creative interpretation of legal propositions, which contains the components of description and evaluation. Judging from Brown’s v. Board of Education with Dworkin’s legal interpretation, we can see that the Justice passed the constructive interpretation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution with the correct implication of the times: the prohibition of segregation in schools prohibits public protection of equality value. Although Dworkin tries to obtain the only positive solution through the interpretative concept, his pursuit of Gadamer’s view of legal interpretation and his pursuit of a single positive solution are merely noble myths that have themselves escaped into the judicial making.