期刊文献+

法治思维与论题思维 被引量:1

The Thinking of Ruling by Law and Topical Thinking
原文传递
导出
摘要 法治思维应该是立法者、司法者、行政者和广大公众都应具备的素质。法治思维的一个重要体现是论证明理即通过论证这种思维方式明立法之理、司法之理。通过论证建立的内心确信对于维系社会法治不可或缺。古代法律论题思维的两个面向——法律原则和法律论证,给我们提供了借鉴。论题思维在当代的复兴和发展——法律论证型式理论,给我们提供了良好的论说原理和工具。全体公民对法律论证尤其是法律论证型式的理解和应用,是法治思维的重要一环。 The Thinking of Ruling by Law is the quality which the lawmaker, the judiciary, the administrator and general public should have. One important manifestation of The Thinking of Ruling by Law is an argument. That means understand the legisla- tive principle and judicial principle by argumentation, which is a mode of thinking. The moral certainty established by argumenta- tion is indispensable to maintain the rule of law. Two aspects of ancient topical thinking in law - legal principle and legal argu- mentation provide us with reference. The revival and development of topical thinking in modem society - theory of legal argument schemes provides us with good principle and means of argumentation. All the citizens'apprehension and application of legal argu- mentation, especially legal argument schemes is an important part of Thinking of Ruling by Law.
作者 武宏志
出处 《法学论坛》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第5期22-29,共8页 Legal Forum
基金 陕西省高水平大学学科建设专项资金资助项目<批判性思维与非形式逻辑>(2012SXTS09)的阶段性成果
关键词 法治 思维 论证 论题 论证型式 Ruling by Law Thinking argument topoi argument schemes
  • 引文网络
  • 相关文献

参考文献26

  • 1Douglas N. Walton, Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno, Argumentation Schemes [ M ]. Cam- bridge : Cambridge University Press, 2008 : 90 - 91.
  • 2James L. Jasinski, Sourcebook on rhetoric : key concepts in contemporary rhetorical studies[ M ]. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications, 2001 : 579.
  • 3Jerzy Stelmach and Bartosz Broek, Methods of Legal Reasoning [ M ]. Dordrecht : Springer, 2006 : 137.
  • 4Aulis Aarnio, The Rational as Reasonable. A Treatise on Legal Justification [ M ]. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Comnanv. 1987:99.
  • 5Aulis Aarnio, Introduction [ C ]//. Aleksander Peczenik. On Law and Reason. 2nd ed., Hei- delberg: Springer,2008:4.
  • 6Robert C. Pinto, Evaluating Inferences : The Na- ture and Role of Warrants [ C ]//. David Hitch- cock & B. Verheij (eds.). Arguing on the Toul- rain Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrech : Springer,2006 : 115 - 143.
  • 7Henry Prakken, AI & Law, Logic and Argu- ment Schemes [ J ]. Argumentation. Vol. 19. No. 3(2005) :303 -320.
  • 8Stephen S. Toulmin, R. Rieke and A. Janik. An Introduction to Reasoning[ M ]. New York:Mac- millan, 1984:281 - 282.
  • 9Raquel Mochales and Aagje Leven, Creating an Argument Corpus: Do Theories Apply to Real Arguments[ C ]//. Proceedings of the 12th Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. New York: Association for ComputingMachinery,Inc. , 2009:21 - 30.
  • 10Joel Katzav and Chris Reed, A Classification System for Arguments [ EB/OL ]. http ://www. arg. dundee, ac. uk/people/chris/publications/ 2004/lassifyingArguments. pdf 2013 - 03 - 06.

二级参考文献81

  • 1Michael H.Frost, Introduction to Classical Legal Rhetoric: A Lost Heritage, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005, p.39.
  • 2K. N. Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study, Oceana Publications, 1960, p. 116.
  • 3Carole Bell Ford, The Women of CourtWatch : Reforming a Corrupt Family Court System, University of Texas Press,2005, p.58.
  • 4Anthony Bradney, Fiona Cownie, Transformative Visions of Legal Education, Blackwell Publishing, 1998, p.126.
  • 5Jan Klabbers, Mortimer Sellers, The Internationalization of Law and Legal Education, Springer, 2009, pp.42-43.
  • 6Kenneth J. Vandevelde, Thinking Like a Lawyer : An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Westview Press, 1996, p. 1.
  • 7Marc Feldman, Jay M. Feinman, Legal Education: It's Cause and Cure, 82 Michigan Law Review (1984), pp.914-931.
  • 8Sarah E. Redfield, Thinking Like a Lawyer: An Educator's Guide to Legal Analysis and Research, Carolina Academic Press, 2001.
  • 9Barry B.Boyer, Roger C. Cramton, American Legal Education: An Agenda for Research and Reform, 59 Cornell Law Review (1974), pp.221-297.
  • 10Steven Stark, "Why Lawyers Can't Write?", 97 Harvard Law Review (1984), pp. 1389-1391.

共引文献62

同被引文献9

引证文献1

二级引证文献10

;
使用帮助 返回顶部