论法律解释目标的逐案决定

On the Case-By-Case Decision of the Goal of Legal Interpretation

传统的法学方法论文献将法律解释目标问题上长期以来的分歧总结为主观解释论与客观解释论之争。这一总结忽视了解释目标问题上观点的多样性。通过综合考察意义有哪些基本类型以及哪些类型的意义经常且可以合理地作为解释目标,可以整理出文本主义等五种法律解释目标问题上的代表性立场,但它们都无法获得充分辩护。进一步的分析表明,基于价值理想的性质与个案相关性、解释资源分配的不平均性以及解释成本等,所有一般性的解释立场都无法获得充分辩护,法律解释的目标应当逐案决定。在总结影响解释目标选择的若干因素的基础上,可以确定逐案决定的一般思路,依次是:在手头案件中,何种类型的意义可能作为解释目标;如有多个可能作为解释目标的意义类型,是否需要对不同意义类型背后的价值理想进行权衡;如需权衡,在权衡后何种类型的意义最终会胜出。

Traditional legal methodology literature sums up the long-standing disagreement on the goal of legal interpretation as the dispute between subjective interpretation and objective interpretation.This summary ignores the diversity of views on this issue.By comprehensively examining what are the basic types of meaning and which types of meaning are often and can be reasonably used as interpretation goals,five representative positions such as textualism can be sorted out.But none of them can be adequately defended.Further analysis shows that,based on the nature of value ideals and their relevance to individual cases,the uneven distribution of interpretation resources,and the cost of interpretation,all general interpretive positions cannot be adequately defended,and the goal of legal interpretation should be determined on a case-by-case basis.By summarizing some factors affecting the choice of interpretation goals,the general approach of the case-by-case decision can be determined as:What type of meaning can be qualified as the interpretation goal in a specific case;If there are multiple qualified meaning types,whether it is necessary to weigh the value ideals behind different meaning types;If weighing is necessary,what type of meaning will prevail.