论裁判说理的"理由论证"型式
On the Pattern of"Argumentation with Reasons"of Analyzing and Reasoning in Adjudication
陈肇新1
作者信息
- 1. 华东师范大学法学院;华东师范大学社会学博士后流动站;华东师范大学长三角一体化法治研究院
- 折叠
摘要
"理由论证"能够描述裁判者依据法律规范和裁判理由与诉讼各方主体以及不特定社会公众展开话语博弈的过程,是有关裁判者围绕裁判理由展开充分说理的型式.裁判说理的"理由论证"型式与实践哲学中的"理由"概念密切相关,脱胎于图尔敏、佩雷尔曼、阿列克西等经典的法律论证理论.它以生成裁判合意为目的,基于法律的合目的性、安定性、正义等价值,揭示审判的话语实践本质,描述审判通过话语辩驳界定和寻找充足理由的过程,是法律论证与社会的普遍实践论证相互转化的中介.
Abstract
"Argumentation with reason"can describe the discourse practices between the adjudicators and the parties to the lawsuit and other social parties based on legal norms and reasons for the legal decisions."Argumentation with reason"is the pattern of sufficiently analyzing and reasoning in adjudication by adjudicators.This pattern is closely related to the concept of"reason"in practical philosophy.It derived from the classical legal argumentation theories claimed by Stephen E.Toulmin,Chaïm Perelman and Robert Alexy.Based on the value of law like justice,stability and purposiveness,the"argumentation with reason"pattern aims to generate consensus in adjudication and shows the essence of the discourse practice of trial.It describes how judges find sufficient reasons through discourse arguments.
关键词
裁判说理/法律论证/"理由论证"/充足理由/行为理由Key words
Analysis and Reasoning in Adjudication/Legal Arguments/"Argumentation with reason"/Sufficient Reasons/Reasons for Action引用本文复制引用
基金项目
中国博士后科学基金第71批面上资助项目(2022M711156)
出版年
2022
NETL
NSTL
万方数据