法律漏洞填补:理论探源与功能定位

Legal Loopholes Filling:Theoretical Source and Function Location

概念法学和新自然法学派认为法律体系可以逻辑自足,法律不存在漏洞。随着时间的推移和研究的深入,自由法学、利益法学、分析法学等学派分别从不同的角度论证法律漏洞存在的必然性和法官进行漏洞填补的必要性。当人们深刻地认识到立法不能万能的现实后,法学研究亦随之完成了从立法中心主义向司法中心主义的转向。司法作为权利救济的最后一道防线,必须尽力完成保障权利的任务,而不得以法律未有规定或存在欠缺为由拒绝裁判,这意味着填补法律漏洞属于司法权的应有之义。相较于通过立法或修法方式消除法律漏洞,法官在司法权限范围内填补法律漏洞能够使当事人获得最为快捷的救济。此过程中,经受实践检验的创造性司法工作,则可为以后的立法供应最有价值的原材料。

The concept law school and new natural law school believes that the legal system can be logically self-sufficient and there are no loopholes in the law. With the passage of time and the deepening of research, the free-law school, interests law school, analytical law school and so on demonstrate the inevitability of the existence of legal loopholes from different angles and the necessity of filling the loopholes by judges. When people realize the reality that legislation cannot be omnipotent, legal research has also completed the shift from legislative centralism to judicial centralism. As the last line of defense of the right remedy, the judiciary must try its best to fulfill the task of safeguarding the right, and not refuse to judge claiming that the law is not stipulated or there is a deficiency, which means that filling the loopholes in the law belongs to the proper meaning of the judicial power. In contrast to eliminating legal loopholes by means of legislation or amendment, judges can obtain the most rapid relief by filling legal loopholes within the scope of judicial authority. In this process, creative judicial work tested by practice can supply the most valuable raw materials for future legislation.