通过法律议论回应司法中的政策——以“二阶证立理论”的困境与超越为线索

Responding to Policies in Judicial Adjudication by Legal Argumentation: By the Clue of Dilemma and Transcendence of Second-order Justification Theory

法律议论是关注实践主体借助法律的涵义分析来进行话语实践的动态机制。"二阶证立理论"在回应法律议论中的政策时忽视了政策复杂多变的情势,不能客观有效地描述和评价现实当中的裁判争议,这根源于它不能从实践哲学的角度解决在法律议论中对法律规则与政策的划界问题。为此,需要着眼于法律可废止性命题,承认政策理由存在于法律议论的过程性论述之中,进而以抗辩清单制度作为替代"二阶证立理论"的研究范式。

The theory of legal argumentation is a practical mechanism focusing on legal discourse among practical agents with a meaningful analysis of law. The second-order justification theory ignores the complex situation of policies in legal argumentation,so that it cannot describe and evaluate controversial judicial decision objectively. The theoretical basis is that the second-order justification theory cannot determine the boundary of legal rules and policies in legal argumentation from viewpoints of practical philosophy. Therefore,it is necessary to focus on the issue of defeasibility of law and recognize that policies lie in the procedural arguments beneath in legal argumentation. Then we can advocate institution of defense listing as the alternative theoretical paradigm.