论文部分内容阅读
作为解释法律的理论,并非每个国家的法学方法论都一样。按照传统,在德国法中有四种解释标准。其中,文本这一解释标准被赋予了重要的意义。对于通常的法律解释来说法律专业语言中的词义更重要,与此相反,对于区分法律解释和法官造法来说,一般日常用语中词语的可能含义更加重要。刑法中禁止类推解释是十分有意义的。其(只能援引)文本进行解释的背后是这样一种立场:用这样的方法,公民可以抵御国家强权对自由的干涉,并且可以保障三权分立框架下议会的权力。事实上文义解释并不能实现这样的功能。上文中法学以及语言学上的论据说明了这一点,除了文本解释,体系解释、发生史解释以及目的解释也都很重要。首先要对此四种解释标准进行整体衡量,但在解释中还是要坚持从文本出发。
As a theory to explain law, not every country's jurisprudence is the same. Traditionally, there are four interpretive standards in German law. Among them, the standard of interpretation of the text has been given an important meaning. On the contrary, the meaning of words in ordinary daily expressions is more important for distinguishing legal interpretations from those of judges. Prohibition of analogy interpretation in the criminal law is very meaningful. Behind its cite (cite only) the text is explained by the position that in this way citizens can resist the interference of state power in freedom and safeguard the power of Parliament under the framework of the separation of powers. In fact, the textual interpretation can not achieve such a function. The jurisprudence and linguistic arguments above illustrate this point, except for textual explanations, system interpretations, historical explanations, and purposeful interpretations. First of all, we must make an overall measurement of these four kinds of interpretation standards, but we still need to adhere to the explanation from the text.