论文部分内容阅读
萨默斯在其《美国实用工具主义法学》中用“实用工具主义”来指称一种独特的法律理论,以早期工具主义者思想为跳板,提出欲达至的理论建构和史实性两个目标,并对该理论进行了体系化的努力。本文以萨默斯的批判性检视的三个维度为基础,将萨默斯的体系化建构概括为三个方面的问题,以不同视角再现萨默斯提出的实用工具主义法学的全貌,并在此基础上以方法论的角度审视其是否足以担纲一种独立的法律理论,进而得出结论:无论是跳板方法还是分类方法都不足以实现其目标,萨默斯拘泥于现有的研究方法,没有提出一种独立的法律理论。
Summers, in his “American Utility Law,” refers to a unique legal theory as “utilitarianism ” and uses early instrumentalist ideas as a springboard to propose the theoretical constructs and historical facts to be achieved. A goal, and the theory of systematic efforts. Based on the three dimensions of Somers ’critique, this article summarizes Summers’ systematic construction into three aspects, and presents the whole picture of practical instrumental jurisprudence put forward by Summers from different angles. On the basis of this, we can see from a methodological perspective that it is enough to present an independent legal theory, and then conclude that neither the springboard method nor the classification method can achieve its goal. Somers sticks to the existing research methods without Put forward an independent legal theory.