方法论视角下实质论据的司法运用

Judicial Application of the Substantive Argument in the Methodological Perspective

实质论据是一种依托内在理由的说服力来补强论证的论据形式,是一些能够影响司法裁判过程、具有“弱规范效力”的论据类型,可以作为裁判理由或裁判依据。基于类型化方法,实质论据可类分为目的型论据、价值型论据、法理型论据与经验型论据。在方法论意义上,实质论据具有辅助事实认定、引导法律解释、填补法律漏洞以及强化司法论证等功能。在当前司法实践中,实质论据的概念式运用呈现出用而不释的样态,主观性解释滋生用而不当的问题,简单化论证导致个案融入度的不足。作为一种论据类型,实质论据的司法运用可遵循一般性的方法论路径,即明确前提要求,考量相关影响因素,并借助法律方法提供的操作准则和技术进路,寻求不同论据之间的相互支撑与融贯,继而达成论证目标。

The substantive argument is a form of argument that relies on the persuasiveness of inherent reasons to reinforce the argument. It is a type of argument that can affect the judicial process and has “weak normative effect” on judicial decisions, and can be used as a reason for judgement or as a basis for judgement. Based on the typological approach, it can be divided into purpose argument, value argument, jurisprudence argument and empirical argument. In the methodological sense, the substantive arguments have the functions of assisting in factual determination, guiding legal interpretation, filling legal loopholes, and strengthening judicial argumentation. In the current judicial practice, the conceptual application of substantive arguments presents a pattern of use without explanation, subjective interpretation breeds the problem of inappropriate use, and simplistic argumentation leads to insufficient integration in individual cases. As a type of argument, the judicial application of substantive arguments can follow a general methodological path, that is, to clarify the premise requirements, consider the relevant influencing factors, and use the operational guidelines and technical approaches provided by legal methods to seek mutual support and integration between different arguments, thereby achieving the goal of argumentation.