法律形式主义的现实主义批判

A Realistic Critique on Legal Formalism

法律形式主义具体表现为法律理论领域中的概念形式主义与审判实践中的规则形式主义。法律现实主义提出了法律形式主义具有逻辑之谬、实践之弊、目标之虚三宗罪。法律形式主义在逻辑上不考虑概念适用的具体语境、错把三段论的形式逻辑当作逻辑的唯一模型、无法反应现实的法律实践;在实践中忽视先例原理的两面性、忽略法官裁决案件的实质理由、忽视审判结果的实质正义;在目标诉求上追求虚幻的唯一正解式的确定性。法律现实主义质疑法律形式主义有关法律确定性本质和范围的观点,并不反对法律实质上应该是确定的这一命题,他们诉诸社会科学的经验研究去发现现实法律确定性的源泉。

Legal Formalism embodies concept-formalism and rule-formalism.According to legal realists,it makes a mistake in logic,practice and fundamental appeal.Firstly,it disregards the context in which the concepts apply and mistakes syllogism for the only model of logic,so it doesn’t mirror real legal practice.Secondly,it not only ignores the two faces of stare decisis,but also overlooks the substantive reasons and justice of judicial decision.Lastly,it searches an illusory certainty with only correct answer.Actually,legal realists don’t object the proposition that law should be certain,they just criticize such view as false,and illusory certainty.Legal realists resort to empirical research in social science so as to find the source of real legal certainty.