论文部分内容阅读
德国联邦宪法法院在1990年的一个裁判中持如下观点:“宪法的解释(具有)商谈的性质,在其中主张一些理由有效,并提出相反的另外一些理由,最终较好的那些理由起决定作用。”~([1])这至少接近这样的观点——法律论证应被视为理性的商谈。问题是,这一观点应如何理解又如何能够被证立。我的回答分为三步。首先提出几个反对法律商谈理论的模式。第二步我随后勾勒出法商谈理论的基本特征,这一理论构成法律商谈理论的框架。最后,第三步提出以商谈理念为取向的法律论证理论的主要元素。
In a 1990 referendum, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held the following view: “The nature of the constitutional interpretation (existence of) negotiations in which some of the arguments are valid and the other grounds for the contrary are made, and those that are ultimately better decides Effect. ”~ ([1]) This is at least close to the point that legal argumentation should be seen as rational discourse. The question is how this view can be understood and how it can be substantiated. My answer is divided into three steps. First of all, I put forward several models to oppose legal discourse theory. The second step I then outlined the basic characteristics of the theory of law to talk together, this theory constitutes the framework of legal discourse theory. Finally, the third step proposes the main elements of the theory of legal argumentation oriented at the concept of negotiation.