论文部分内容阅读
对司法归类中事实与规范的关系问题,概念法学派、历史法学派与自由法学派一直存在争论,哈特和考夫曼对其均进行了批判。法官运用法律时有法律适用与法律发现两种方式,相对应的是,存在着涵摄与等置两种逻辑思维技术范式:其相同之处在于都试图将事实与规范连接起来;不同之处在于涵摄直接通过种属概念之间的包含关系来沟通规范与事实,而等置则通过比较事实是否具有法律意义的同一性来判断事实要件是否符合对应的构成要件。
There has always been controversy over the relationship between the facts and norms in the judicial classification, the concept law school, the historical law school and the liberal law school, and Hart and Kaufman have all criticized them. There are two ways in which the judge applies the law and the law. Correspondingly, there are two kinds of technical logic paradigms of connotation and equivalence: the similarities lie in trying to connect the facts with the norms; the differences Hainian directly communicates the norms and facts through the inclusion relations between the concepts of the genus, while the equivalence judges whether the factual elements conform to the corresponding constituent elements by comparing whether the fact has the legal significance or not.