法律解释的论证转向——以“目的解释”到“目的性论证”为例

Argumentative Turn for Legal Interpretation——A Case Study of Transition from Teleological Interpretation to Teleological Arguments

传统的法律解释研究专注于各种法律解释规准,伴随解释学的本体论转向及法律论证理论的兴起,法律解释的用语、观念与方法皆发生了论证转向。司法实践中,法律解释不仅对应于推导出具体的解释结论,还对应于某种解释结论的合理性证立。法律解释天然具有“论辩”属性,其实质上是评估与比较不同解释之选择的论证问题。较之于传统的法律解释方法,借由“论辩图式”表达,且遵循论证程序规则的“解释性论证”更能还原法律解释的动态过程。从“目的解释”到“目的性论证”,就是法律解释的论证转向的典型代表。

The traditional research on legal interpretation research has mainly focused on various canons of legal interpretation.However,with the ontological turn of Hermeneutics and the emergence of legal argumentation theory,terms,concepts,and methods of legal interpretation have undergone an argumentative turn.In judicial practice,legal interpretation not only involves the derivation of specific interpretation conclusions but also entails verifying the reasonableness of such conclusions.As a result,legal interpretation naturally possesses the attribute of argumentation,which essentially involves evaluating and comparing the arguments of different interpretation choices.Compared with the traditional method approach legal interpretation,the interpretive arguments expressed by argumentation scheme and following the rules of argumentation procedures are better equipped to capture the dynamic process of legal interpretation.The transition from teleological interpretation to teleological argumentation is a prime example of the argumentative turn for legal interpretation.