法律漏洞填补的司法论证

Judicial Argumentation on the Closing of Legal Loopholes

法律漏洞填补的司法论证包括认定论证和填补论证两个部分。根据法律漏洞的两个构成性特征,认定论证由规则缺失论证和圆满性论证组成,对此可分别提出论证型式α和论证型式β。法律漏洞一旦根据论证型式得到认定,论证目标即指向漏洞的填补。法律漏洞填补在司法上有两条路径:规则引入(有规则填补)与规则创设(无规则填补)。填补论证分为引入论证和创设论证两种类型,对此可分别提出论证型式Ⅰ和论证型式Ⅱ及其附属论证型式。这两种论证在法律漏洞填补上存在竞争关系,最终还需确立一条填补论证原则P,以避免选择之难题。

The closing of legal loopholes is a traditional topic of legal methodology as well as a common problem in legislation and judicial practice.Judicial argumentation on the closing of legal loopholes includes two parts,i.e.,the identification argumentation and the closing argumentation.According to the two constitutive characteristics of legal loopholes,the identification argumentation is composed of the rule-deficiency argumentation and the soundness argumentation.The former is aimed at proving the lack of applicable legal rules while the latter is aimed at proving that the case should be regulated by legal rules.For these two argumentations,argumentation schemeαand argumentation schemeβcan be put forward respectively.Once legal loopholes are identified according to the identification argumentation,the goal of the argumentation changes into the closing of the loopholes.Logically speaking,there are two judicial approaches to the close legal loopholes,that is,rule introduction(closing with other rules)and rule creation(closing without any rule).Correspondingly,the closing argumentation can be divided into two types,i.e.,introduction argumentation and creation argumentation,and two argumentation schemes,namely argumentation scheme I and argumentation scheme II,and their subsidiary argumentation schemes that can be proposed respectively.These two argumentation schemes are in a competitive relationship with each other in the closing legal loopholes,and ultimately a principle of closing of argumentation,namely principle P,needs to be established to avoid the difficulty of choice.