动态体系论:迈向规范形态的“中间道路”

Flexible System:The“Middle Way”of Normative Form

动态体系论将法律体系视为弹性的、流动的开放体系,法律结论为多种原理相互作用的结果。动态体系论意图将法律体系从概念法学的僵化状态中解放出来。动态体系论的规范技术起源于规则的原则化变迁,此种变迁的内因在于现代法律系统需要增强对环境的柔软认知能力,实质是一种内在体系的外显。动态体系论的法技术拓宽了“方法工具库”,开辟了规范形态的“中间道路”,推动制定法与私法基本体系的融合,促使法律规范的结构变迁与现代法律体系的动态构筑,动态体系论的积极意义并未被高估。就动态体系论的规范构造而言,要素采取法原理形态更契合动态评价的理念;动态的协动机制可以“隐而不现”,并需要借助判例累积与学说构建得到补足。此外,要素的限定性为动态评价确定外在界限,不至于使评价范围无边无际。同时,根据动态体系论给出的规范指引,并结合理性的结论证立结构,法官的主观恣意可以得到有效限制,所谓破坏法安定性的诘难并非不可逾越。

The theory of flexible system holds that legal system is an elastic and fluid open system,and the legal conclusion is the result of the interaction of various principles,which aims to liberate the legal system from the rigid state of conceptual jurisprudence.The normative technology of flexible system originates from the change of rule to principle,and its internal cause is that the mod-ern legal system needs to enhance its soft cognition to the environment.The essence of flexible system is externality of internal system.The positive implications of flexible systems are not overestimated,because the legal technology of flexible system broadens the“method library”,opens up the“middle way”of normative form,promotes the structural change of legal norms and the dynamic construction of modern legal system,and pushes forward the integration of basic system of statute and private law.As far as the normative construction of flexible system is concerned,the form of legal principle is more in line with the idea of flexible evaluation.The dynamic coordination mechanism can be“hidden but not present”,and needs to be supplemented by the accumulation of precedents and the construction of theories.In addition,the limitation of elements is to determine the external limit of dynamic evaluation,so as not to make the scope of evaluation boundless.At the same time,according to the normative guidance given by flexible system and combining with the rational legal argumentation structure,the subjective arbitrariness of judges can be effectively limited,and the socalled challenge to destroy legal stability is not insurmountable.