法律是自足的吗?--法哲学传统中的纷争与哈贝马斯的回答

Is Law Self-contained?Habermas’Answer

自然法学派和法律实证主义之间在法律的自足性问题上有着长久的争论。自然法学派否认法律是自足的,认为法律必须以高于法律的某种标准作为合法性来源,主张“恶法非法”。法律实证主义肯定法律是自足的,认为法律绝对地独立于道德、自然法等法律以外的因素,从自身的一部分获得合法性。哈贝马斯吸取了两种立场的长处,认为法律具有相对于道德的独立性,有一定的自足性,但又给法律设定了本身以外的合法性来源,即公民无限制的商谈,也就承认了法律的自足性并非绝对,法律需要受到法律以外因素的制约。哈贝马斯的法哲学适应了现代社会的要求,综合了法哲学的各个传统,较为巧妙地处理了法律自足性的问题,具有重要的理论意义。

There are long-time controversies between natural law school and legal positivism concerning whether law is self-contained or not.Scholars of natural law school reject the idea that law is self-contained.They believe that law must take some criteria over positive law itself as its source of legitimacy.They are proponents of the maxim called“lex injusta non est lex”.Legal positivists confirm the self-containedness of law and hold that law is absolutely independent from extralegal elements,such as morality,natural law,and acquire legitimacy from part of law itself.Habermas absorbs the merits of both stances.He proposes that law is relatively independent from morality and somewhat self-contained.However,he also stipulates the extralegal source of legitimacy of law,viz.,unconstrained discourse among citizens.This means that he admitslaw is not absolutely self-contained and restrained from extralegal elements.Habermas’philosophy of law fits in the needs of modern society,synthesizes different traditions of philosophy of law,and answers artfully the problem of selfcontainedness of law.All of these endow Habermas’philosophy with important theoretical meaning.