论法律规范的逻辑结构及相关的元理论问题

On the Logical Structure of Legal Norms and Related Meta-Theoretical Problems

法律规范的逻辑结构问题是一个非常基础的法理学问题。学者们大多认为,法律规范的逻辑结构是条件式的,其前件由“行为模式”构成,后件由“后果模式”充当。但其实,法律规范的结构不只是假言式的,而且包括全称式,一个完整的法律规范通常由两部分组成:一是明确规定义务或授予权利的全称规范,二是规定因违反前述义务或侵犯前述权利而产生相应法律后果的条件式规范,故其逻辑形式通常表现为“全称+假言”形式。由法律规范的逻辑结构问题衍生了一系列元理论问题,如法律规范是否具有真假值?规范逻辑是否可能?等等。为避免上述元理论的困扰,最好以“法律规范命题的逻辑结构”替代“法律规范的逻辑结构”。通过分析法律规范命题的逻辑结构,又发现:“法不禁止便允许”、“凡应当的都是可能的”等法谚并非总是正确的。这说明,封闭、静态、形式化的规范逻辑系统虽能在一定程度上揭示法律规范体系的某些特点,但它与开放、动态、现实性的法律规范体系之间仍有较大差异。

The logical structure of legal norms is a very basic jurisprudence question.Most scholars believe that the logical structure of legal norms is conditional,and its antecedent is composed of“behavior mode”and its seccedentis acted by“consequence mode”.But in fact,the structure of legal norms is not just a hypothetical,it also includes universal proposition.A complete legal norms are usually consists of two parts:one is universal norm which stipulates a kind of primary obligations,the second is hypothetical norm which specifies the secondly obligation,so its logical form is usually characterized by“universal+hypothetical”form.There derived some meta-theoretical questions from the logical structure of legal norms,such as:do legal norms have true or false values?If Legal norms have no true or false value,how to use logical methods to analyze them?In order to avoid“Jorgensen’s dilemma”,it is better to replace“logical structure of legal norms”with“logical structure of the proposition of legal norms”.By analyzing the logical structure of the proposition of legal norms,it is found that some legal maxims,such as“All which are not forbidden by law are permitted”and“Ought implies can”(i.e.“Lex non cogit and impossibilia;Lex neminem cogit ad impossibilia”),are not always correct.All in all,although closed,static and formalized normative logical system can reveal some characteristics of legal normative system to a certain extent,it is still quite different from open,dynamic and realistic legal normative system.