论文部分内容阅读
在法律学者之中,安东尼·克朗曼(Anthony T.Kroiman)和戴维·楚贝克(David M.Trubek)提出了各自对马克斯·韦伯法律理论的领先性解释。克朗曼和楚贝克都赞同两个重要的观点:从根本上说,韦伯的理论存在矛盾之处;并且韦伯的理论主要关涉诸如合同这样的私法主题。本文将对以上两种观点进行辩驳。立基于韦伯的新康德式的形而上学和他的经济行动的社会学范畴之上,本文表明韦伯的法律理论从根本上说并不矛盾;与之相反,韦伯的法律理论探究西方社会自身(包括其法律体系)内部所固含的不一致。此外,韦伯的洞见可以应用到现代宪法学之中。韦伯式理论揭示现代宪法充满着程序与实体(亦即形式合理性和实质合理性)之间不可调和的张力。在很多涉及平等保护和美国宪法第十五修正案的种族歧视案件的背景下,美国联邦最高法院对约翰·哈特·伊利的强化代表性理论(John Hart Ely’s theory of representation-reinforcement)的采纳表明最高法院对形式合理性的坚定追求,这也使少数派的实质价值和需求无法得到满足。
Among legal scholars, Anthony T.Kroiman and David M.rubek proposed their own leading explanations of Max Weber’s legal theory. Both Kronmann and Chu Becker agree with two important points: fundamentally, Weber’s theory is contradictory; and Weber’s theory is mainly concerned with private law topics such as contracts. This article will be a rebuttal of the above two points of view. Based on Weber’s neo-Kantian metaphysics and his socio-economic categories of economic action, this article shows that Weber’s legal theory is fundamentally not contradictory; on the contrary, Weber’s legal theory explores Western societies themselves Legal system) Inclusion of internal inconsistencies. In addition, Weber’s insights can be applied to modern constitutional law. The Weberian theory reveals that the modern constitution is full of irreconcilable tensions between procedure and entity (that is, formal rationality and substantive rationality). The adoption by the Supreme Court of the United States of John Hart Ely’s theory of representation-reinforcement by many in the context of many racial discrimination cases involving equal protection and the fifteenth amendment to the United States Constitution The Supreme Court’s firm pursuit of formal legitimacy also leaves the minority’s real worth and needs unmet.