再论法律解释的目标——德国主/客观说之争的剖析与整合

Analysis and Integration of Controversies between Subjective/Objective Doctrines In German Theory

对法律解释目标的不同理解导致了德国方法论学说中的主观说与客观说之争。这场争议的实践意义在于,两者通过排定不同的方法次序在个案中产生不同的解释结果。主观说与客观说各自存在许多支持与反对的理由,在这些理由背后隐藏着相对立的立场。在法哲学的层面上,它反映为权威与正确性的价值之争;在法政治学的层面上,它反映为立法权与司法权之争。一种恰当的整合性理论主张主观说对于客观说初步的优先性,它体现了温和的宪政主义立场。

Different understandings of the objective of legal interpretation have led to the dispute between subjective doctrine and objective doctrine in legal methodology in Germany. The practical significance of the debate lies in the fact that, by assuming different priorities of legal methods, the two doctrines have produced different results of interpretation in individual eases. For subjective and objective doctrines, both have supporters on the basis of various arguments. As a result, two sharply contrasting standpoints exist behind them. On the dimension of legal philosophy, this opposition represents itself as a value-dispute between authority and correctness; and on the dimension of legal politics, as a competence-dispute between legislature and judicature. A proper theory of integration claims a prima-facie priority of subjective doctrine over objective doetrine, which reflects the standpoint of a moderate constitutionalism.