超然、評價與概念 ──以Joseph Raz為中心論一般法理學與法理學方法論

Detachment, Evaluation and Concepts: On the General Jurisprudence and the Methodology of Jurisprudence Targeted on Joseph Raz

王贊榮(Tsan-Jung Wang)

指導教授 ： 顏厥安

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2011年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2011.02334

摘要

當代英美法理學的重要發展之一在於，對法理學方法論的高度興趣。英語世界中最主要的法理學家如哈特、德沃金、Joseph Raz及John Finnis等巨擘都對此發展做出了貢獻。

本文試圖以Raz的法哲學論述與取徑作為線索，來探討英語世界法理學核心學群──亦即哈特所開展的一般法理學或分析法理學──中關於法理學方法論或後設理論問題的討論。Raz在上個世紀八〇年代迄今的方法論論述，提示了當代英語世界中法理學方法論主流的核心看法，並由許多主要的法理學家所共享。此一方法論路線更被認為是法理學方法論的通說。

本文第二章首先聚焦於Raz對法規範性問題的探討，並以哈特晚年與Raz關於法律陳述與法規範性等問題的辯論為線索，討論並比較哈特與Raz對法律及其規範性的理論化說明。本章尤其著重於理解，哈特與Raz的法哲學分別為法律及其規範性提出超然說明。哈特或是Raz的法理論超然路線，反映於法理學方法論層面的相關思考，第三章著眼於Dickson對Raz方法論路線的詳盡開展，以討論「後〈後記〉」方法論論述中的評價之於法理論的關係。第四章則關注Raz晚近對法理學方法論或後設理論的論述，本文並試圖在一般法理學以及Raz重要論敵如Robert Alexy、Eugenio Bulygin以及德沃金之回應中，進一步脈絡化Raz論述並指出所涉及爭點與方法論意義。第五章簡要勾勒一般法理學的提問與方法論特徵，並指出「概念先行」是一般法理學�描述性法理學�分析法理學的方法論核心。並進一步討論對一般法理學�分析法理學�描述性法理學之方法論質疑乃至於另類捍衛路線。最後則是結論。

關鍵字

Joseph Raz ； 法理學方法論 ； 一般法理學 ； 超然說明 ； 概念先行 ； 德沃金 ； 自然主義法理學

並列摘要

In the last three decades or so there is high Interest in the Methodology of Jurisprudence or legal theory flourishing in the contemporary Anglophone jurisprudence. The most important Legal Philosophers such as H. L. A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin, Joseph Raz and John Finnis and many other legal theorists have contributed to this development.

This Essay attempts to take Raz’s legal philosophy as a clue to discussions on the methodological or meta-theoretical issues in the the dominant jurisprudential community of the world--the General Jurisprudence or Analytic Jurisprudence set out by Hart. Raz‘s approach to the methodology which has be offered in the 80’ of last century, have been shared by many leading legal theorists and therefore has been considered as the Orthodox View of jurisprudential methodology.

Chapter 2 first focuses on Raz on the normativity of law, and try to compare the theorectical accounts of law and its normativity of Hart and of Raz in the light of Hart’s Debate in his late life with Raz over the legal statements and legal obligation. As Andrei Marmor has said, Hart and Raz's philosophy of law are detached account of law.

Hart's theory of law or Raz detached thoery reflect in the jurisprudence of the relevant methodological lines of thinking. Chapter 3 pays attention to Dickson’s detailed explication of Raz’s methodology—named by Dickson as ”indirectly evaluative legal theory”-- and discuss "post-Postscript" methodological Debates over the role of evaluation in the legal theory. Chapter 4 is concerned with the Raz’s methodological essay “Can The Be a Theory of Law?” which were pulished in 2005, in which Raz tried to justify the general theory of law and point out that the main task of legal theory is to offer and account of the nature of law rather than the concept of law. I try to contextualize Raz’s views in this essay within the responses from his important opponents such as Robert Alexy, Eugenio Bulygin and Ronald Dworkin, and within the further discussion of General Jurisprudence.

In chapter 5 I try to characterize the features of the questions-raising and the methodologicay of the General Jurisprudence, as many theorists and I call it the "priority of conceptual question." And I try to discuss the approaches against General Jurisprudence from Brian Leiter’s naturalized jurisprudence and from Danny Priel’s view against the Orthodox View. In addition, I try to analyze the alternative approach to defend the General Jurisprudence/Descriptive Jurisprudence/Analytic Jurisprudence, including the so-called “normative positivism” and the “pluralistic Methodology” adopted by Jules Coleman.

Finally, Chapter 6 is the concluding remark.

並列關鍵字

Joseph Raz ； Methodology of Jurisprudence (Methodology of Legal Theory) ； General Jurisprudence ； detachment account ； priority of conceptual questions (priority of conceptual analysis) ； Ronald Dworkin ； Naturalized Jurisprudence

參考文獻

1999 《台灣日治時期的法律改革》，台北：聯經。

2010a 〈來回穿梭於法律與歷史之間〉，《新史學》，第21卷第3期，頁149-198。

2009b 〈追尋當代英美法實證主義的發展軌跡— 評《法律的界限：實證主義命題群之展開》〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第31期，2009 年12 月，頁175-183。

2002 〈法律的規範性與法律的接受〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第1期，頁43-84。

2007 〈描述性法理論是可能的嗎？──一個批判性的反省〉，《政治與社會哲學評論》，第21 期，頁1-46，2007 年6 月。