论孙斯坦与德沃金的司法理论之争

On the Argue between Sunstein and Dworkin

德沃金的整体性司法其实是一种理论型司法:对法律的适用要求法官探究规则背后的所隐含的理论。针对这一观点,孙斯坦提出了"未完全理论化的共识"这一概念,并在此基础上提出了一种最低限度的司法主张,反对司法过程中对理论的过多介入,强调适可而止的共识。但抛开表面的争议,如果就中低层次的理论而言,其实两者的观点并没有实质区别;如果指的是高层次理论,那么德沃金同样同意并不是在每一个案子中都需要理论。总而言之,孙斯坦和德沃金的分歧也许只是一个伪分歧。

Dwoekin＇s idea of the integrity of judicature is actually theoretical judicature,as according to his theory it needs a judge to explore the theory behind during law application.However,Sunstein purposes the concept of incompletely specified theory agreement as the response to Dwoekin＇s above theory and he suggests the opinion of the minimum standard judicature,emphasizes on limited common sense,while opposing too much judicial interference.If we throw off their exterior differences and examine from the medium or low level of theory,there are actually no substantial differences between them;while if we explore from the high level of theory,Dwoekin also agrees that it is not necessary for a theory behind for each and every case.In all,the differences between Sunstein and Dworkin are probably false.