国际法中的“反事实推理”:作用与局限

Counter-factual Reasoning in International Law:Roles and Limits

时间的流逝使法学家和实践者面对两个相互联系的问题,即因果关系的证据问题以及根据反事实推理,如果原先的非法行为不发生,现在看来会是怎样的合理性问题。虽然心理学、历史和国际关系等多个学科越来越多地利用反事实推理,但国际法在很大程度上忽视或忽略了该方法。反事实推理可增加国际事件可被感知的法律意义。反事实推理能让我们评价因果关系,这对于在国际法律体系中伸张正义来说尤为重要。反事实推理是贸易救济中一种有用的方法。反事实推理在评价国际法的有效性方面起着重要作用。但由于其假设性的本质和社会事件的复杂性,反事实推理只应被视为其他方法的补充。

Lapse of time confronts legal theorists and practitioners with two interrelated problems, that of providing evidence of causal relations and that of the legitimacy of counter-factual reasoning in determining how the present might have looked like if that original illegal act had not taken place. While a range of disciplines, including psychology, history, and international relations are increasingly utilizing counter-factual reasoning, international law has largely ignored or neglected the methodology. Counter-factual reasoning can increase the perceived legal meaning of an international event. Counter-factual reasoning allows us to assess causality, which is essential for meting out justice in international legal system. Counter-factual reasoning is a useful methodology in trade remedies. Counter-factual reasoning plays important roles in assessing the effectiveness of international law. However, due to its hypothetical nature and the complexity of societal events, counter-factual reasoning should be seen only as a complement to other methods.