论文部分内容阅读
对于事实问题,法学中存在三种思维:(1)法学对医学、自然科学或者技术科学领域的事实,存在一个分工思维。(2)法学对社会科学领域的事实来说,综合思维是占优的。因为社会事实是规范形成的重要前提条件,所以对它的考虑不能委托给专业领域的专家,它恰恰就是法学的工作。(3)法院在确定某些普遍事实时,将该问题委托给立法者,即委托的思维。分工思维的优势在事实调查方面,但弱点在于从中无法进行规范性的推论。综合思维的优势在于能够进行规范性的推论,但是该推论并无坚实的事实调查结果作为根据。它比较少地援引事实调查,而是依赖于理论模型。委托思维则在制度层面上解决问题,它区别于综合思维而类似于分工思维。美国的特点是在司法实践中采用分工思维,法学理论中采用综合思维。德国的特点是,对社会科学采用综合思维,对自然科学则采用分工思维。美国的问题是企图在法外解决事实问题,而忽视了法学自身的论证。德国的问题则是对社会事实过度依赖综合思维,过分信任法律人的能力。所以,美国能够提供给德国的经验就是分工思维。但是,对事实问题的解决必须以法学对选择问题和评价问题的处理为前提,即去确定哪个事实在法律上是有意义的。这个所有事实调查都绕不过的最初问题,即到底哪些事实须受调查,是建立在一个规范性层面的目的确定活动之基础上的。所以,法学的任务是前置性的。
There are three kinds of thinking in law: (1) there is a division of labor law in the field of medicine, natural science or technical science. (2) Law For the fact in the social sciences, synthetic thinking is dominant. Because social facts are an important prerequisite for the formation of norms, its consideration can not be entrusted to experts in the field of expertise, it is precisely the work of jurisprudence. (3) When the court determines certain general facts, it entrusts the legislator with the question of entrusted thinking. The advantage of division of labor thinking is fact-finding, but the weakness is the inability to make normative inferences. The strength of synthetic thinking lies in its ability to make normative inferences, but there is no solid basis for factual findings. Instead of citing fact-finding, it relies on theoretical models. Commissioned thinking at the institutional level to solve the problem, it is different from the integrated thinking and similar to the division of labor thinking. The United States is characterized by the use of division of labor in judicial practice, legal theory, the use of integrated thinking. Germany is characterized by a comprehensive approach to social sciences and a division of labor for natural sciences. The problem of the United States is an attempt to solve the factual problems outside the law, while neglecting the legal self-justification. The problem in Germany is the over-dependence on social facts on the basis of comprehensive thinking and over-confidence of legal persons. Therefore, the experience that the United States can provide to Germany is division of labor. However, the solution to the factual question must take the jurisprudence of the choice and evaluation of the premise, that is to determine which facts are legally meaningful. The initial question that all this fact-finding surveys can not be overstated about is exactly what facts need to be investigated and is based on a normative dimension of purposeful activity. Therefore, the task of law is pre-emptive.