【作者】 李红；

【导师】 魏东；

【作者基本信息】 四川大学 ， 刑法学， 2020， 博士

【摘要】 主观与客观,是一对既对立又彼此关联的哲学概念。魏德士指出,主观解释其实是客观的,客观解释其实是主观的。1这一观点或许有失偏颇。客观解释论中的“客观”,应当是法律文本与社会现实(客观事实)需要相结合的“客观”,而不是沉溺于文字的表面含义、不考虑司法适用的“客观”,也不是脱离文本、仅考虑社会现实需求的恣意的“客观”;前者是停留于语言语义形式层面的机械主义思维,后者则是唯解释者为核心的主观主义。刑法不是自给自足的规范体系,客观解释论将事实要素纳入规范法学中,将社会法学的成果融入规范法学的发展之中,从而使得刑法解释具有了开放属性。解释主体需要根据社会发展对刑法文本进行实践性解释,但在整体上必须受到立法目的的限制,应当坚持“以文本为中心”的解释理念,将对文本的开放性解释限制在“文义许可的范围”之内,综合运用各种解释方法,兼顾解释的合法性、安定性与客观性之统一,这是本文客观解释论“新客观说”的核心观点。刑法客观解释应正视违反罪刑法定原则、缺乏安定性与客观性、忽略人权保障等理论质疑,坚持以规范文本为核心的规范解释,禁止解释主体的恣意解释与造法解释,在解释过程中妥善处理立法与司法、严格解释与自由裁量、司法克制与司法能动之间的关系,因此,有必要通过解释原则与解释方法对客观解释进行限制,以修正与完善传统客观解释论之缺陷与不足。本文除引言和结语外,分为四章。第一章,刑法客观解释论的科学合理性与新发展。传统法律解释理论对于客观解释理论优势的论述主要集中于其独立性、发展性、实践性和合理性等特征,这些特征在现代法治社会中仍然具有积极意义,有必要进行重新梳理。刑法客观解释在我国的本土化发展,与当前我国所处的社会转型时期的社会需求与利益调整、积极的刑法立法观、刑事政策司法化以及以司法解释为核心的刑法解释体制密切相关,同时也潜藏着破坏刑法谦抑性与安定性的风险与隐忧。为打破传统客观解释论的狭隘与局限,规避其在司法实践中的任意性、突破国民预测可能性、侵犯人权等现实风险,本文提出了“新客观说”,以完善和修正客观解释理论,主张认可并包容立法者意图,将其作为探寻立法目的与文本客观含义的要素和依据之一,在法的整体性要求下,整合客观解释与主观解释,追求法律效果与社会效果的统一;并提纲挈领,从坚持“文本中心论”、建构综合的解释方法规则体系、注重合法性、安定性、客观性相统一的限制原则等三方面,对传统的客观解释论提出了系统的完善和修正方案。第二章,刑法客观解释立场下文本中心论的新展开。刑法客观解释的哲学诠释学基础应当是“文本中心论”,而不是“解释者中心论”。在解释过程中,解释者应当依据文本,并尊重文本的文义,而不能脱离文本,这是诠释学“文本中心论”的基本要求。文本具有独立自主性,同时,文本亦不能脱离立法者、解释者和事实而独立存在,其存在的基础来自于立法者,其存在的意义在于解释者对事实与文本的解读与应用。在解释的过程中,每一要素都是彼此关联而又相互独立,只有以文本为核心,合理把握各要素之间的关系,才能得出合法与合理的解释结论。刑法规范既是相对独立封闭的体系,也具有一定的开放性特征。法律文本是原则和规则的载体,法律规范的含义比文本以文字和语言形式直观呈现出来的含义更为复杂和深刻。“新客观说”主张,文本意义的塑造需要综合规范性要素与开放性要素进行综合证成。发现法律规范只能解决大前提的问题,从刑法规范到裁判规范的转换与证成,则需要与客观事实和现实语境相结合,在开放性的体系中进行论证,发掘文本客观的隐藏与模糊含义,在合法性基础上实现合理性和妥当性的目的。但是,规范性解释是解释与论证的核心,开放性论证只能起到补充和加强论证效果的作用,而不能越俎代庖,脱离规范性解释的前提基础。第三章,刑法客观解释立场下的方法运用。不同的解释目标立场对解释方法的功能界定不同。主观解释论与客观解释论均认可文义解释、体系解释、目的解释、历史解释等基本解释方法在解释方法体系中的作用,但同时,对于各解释方法的具体功能与运用规则持不同观点。二者的主要分歧在于:第一,对文义解释方法之“文义”的来源与边界存在分歧。第二,对于体系解释方法之“体系”范畴存在分歧。第三,对于目的解释究竟是主观目的解释还是客观目的解释存在分歧。第四,对于历史解释的价值和作用存在分歧。“新客观说”主张,文义解释方法具有语义范围限定功能,体系解释方法具有逻辑审视与冲突协调功能,历史解释方法具有探求立法意图功能,目的解释方法具有价值导向功能;在解释方法运用规则上,除了传统刑法解释方法理论所认可的一般的位阶性规则之外,还需要在个案中运用综合性与协调性规则,使解释方法的运用既实现方法论上的体系化,又体现具体案件适用的特殊性,真正有益于司法实践中的刑法适用解释。在刑法解释过程中,除了掌握具体的解释方法之外,还需要运用法律推理、利益衡量、价值判断、法律论证等其他法律方法予以辅助,增强解释结论的说服力。第四章,刑法客观解释的限制与限度。针对刑法解释限度的具体标准,日本刑法学界主要有法文语义说、国民预测可能性说、犯罪定型说、合目的性说、形式实质综合说等几种学说。“新客观说”主张,以刑法解释的原则为基础,以完善传统的客观解释论自身的缺陷为目标导向,从合法性、安定性、客观性三个角度对刑法客观解释进行限制。合法性要求客观解释应以保障人权为最低限度,禁止填补真正漏洞与慎重补充非真正漏洞,以法益保护和比例原则限制司法犯罪化与重刑化;安定性要求文本含义应保持适当的稳定性,应兼顾国民的预测可能性,刑事政策不可借刑法解释超越刑法边界;客观性要求在具体的适用解释中,事实判断应先于价值判断,形式判断先于实质判断;以客观制度限制解释主体的主观恣意,司法主体应当克服“有罪推定”和追求零无罪判决率的刑事司法理念;通过程序公开与公正实现从“商谈”到“说服”的解释过程之客观性;进一步强调和推进司法独立,提高司法人员的法学素养,增强司法人员对法治的责任心与敬畏心。更多还原

【Abstract】 Subjective and objective are a pair of philosophical concepts which are opposite and interrelated.Bernd Rüthers has pointed out that subjective interpretation is actually objective,and objective interpretation is actually subjective.This view may be biased.The"objective"in the theory of objective interpretation should be the"objective"that combines the legal text with the social reality(objective facts),rather than the"objective"that is addicted to the superficial meaning of the text,ignores the application of justice,and is not the"arbitrary objective"that is divorced from the text and only considers the needs of social reality.The former is the mechanistic thinking at the level of language semantic form,while the latter is the subjectivist thinking with the explainer as the core.The criminal law is not a self-sufficient normative system.The objective interpretation integrates the fact elements into normative jurisprudence and the achievements of social jurisprudence into the development of normative jurisprudence,thus making the interpretation of criminal law open.According to"the new objective interpretation theory",interpreters should make practical interpretation according to the social development,which on the whole must be limited to the legislative purpose,stick to the interpretation of the"text centered"concept,limit the openness of the texts within the permitted scope of literal meaning,apply various interpretation methods comprehensively,integrate legality,stability with objectivity.Objective explanation of criminal law should face in theoretical query,such as violation of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment,lack of stability and objectivity,neglect the human rights protection,adhere to standard specification to explain the text as the core,rather than arbitrary interpretation,properly handle in the relationship between the legislation and the judicial,between strict interpretation and discretion,and between the judicial restraint and judicial activism.Therefore,it is necessary to use interpretation principle and interpretation method to limit objective interpretation,in order to correct and improve the defects of traditional theory of objective interpretation.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this paper is divided into four chapters.Chapter one,the scientific rationality and new development of objective interpretation of criminal law.The discussion of the advantages of the traditional theory of legal interpretation mainly focuses on its characteristics of independence,development,practicality and rationality,which are still full of positive significance in the modern legal society,so it is necessary to reorganize them.Objective explanation of criminal law has developed and localized in our country,with the current our country’s social needs and interests of the adjustment during the period of social transformation,a positive view of criminal law legislation,judicialization of criminal policy and criminal law interpretation system,and also hidden risk of damage to tolerance and the stability of the criminal law.To break limitations of the traditional theory of objective interpretation,avoid risks of the arbitrariness in the judicial practice,transcendence of the national forecast possibility,violations of human rights and so on,this paper introduces"the new objective interpretation theory",in order to perfect and correct the traditional objective interpretation theory.It proposes the recognition and inclusion lawmakers intention,as a search for one of the elements of the legislative purpose and the objective meaning of text,integrates interpretation of objective and subjective interpretation,and pursuits the unity of legal effect and social effect.While it proposes a systematic improvement and revision plan for the traditional objective interpretation theory from three aspects:adhering to the"text-centered theory",constructing a comprehensive system of interpretation methods and rules,and paying attention to the restrictive principle of unification of legality,stability and objectivity.Chapter two,the new development of text-centered theory under the objective interpretation of criminal law.The philosophical hermeneutics foundation of objective interpretation of criminal law should be"text-centered theory"rather than"explainer-centered theory".In the process of interpretation,the interpreter should respect the meaning of the text,but should not be separated from the text,which is the basic requirement of hermeneutics"text-centered theory".At the same time,text cannot exist independently without legislators,interpreters and facts.The basis of its existence comes from the legislators,and the significance of its existence lies in the interpreters’interpretation and application of facts and texts.In the process of interpretation,each element is interrelated and independent of each other.Only by taking the text as the core and reasonably grasping the relationship between each element,we can get a legitimate and reasonable interpretation conclusion.The norm of criminal law has both a relatively independent and closed system and an open character.Legal text is the carrier of principles and rules,and the meaning of legal norms is more complex and profound than that of text in the form of words and language.According to"the new objective interpretation theory",the shaping of textual meaning needs to be integrated with normative and open elements.Discovery the legal norms can only solve the problem of the big premise.The conversion and proof from the criminal law norm to the judgment norm need to be combined with the objective fact and the realistic context,and demonstrate in the open system,to discover the objective hidden and fuzzy meaning of the text,and to realize the purpose of rationality and appropriateness on the basis of legality.However,normative interpretation is the core of explanation and demonstration,and open demonstration can only supplement and strengthen the effect of argumentation,instead of overstepping the presupposition and foundation of normative interpretation.Chapter three,the application of methods under the objective interpretation of criminal law.Different interpretation objectives define the interpretation functions of interpretation methods.Both subjective interpretation and objective interpretation recognize the role of basic interpretation methods such as literal interpretation,systematic interpretation,objective interpretation and historical interpretation in the system of interpretation methods,but at the same time,they hold different views on the specific functions and application rules of each interpretation method.The main differences between the two are as follows:first,there are differences on the source and boundary of the method of interpretation.Second,there are differences in the"system"category of the system interpretation method.Third,there are differences on whether the objective interpretation is subjective or objective.Fourth,there are differences on the value and function of historical interpretation.According to"the new objective interpretation theory",the method of literal interpretation has the function of limiting semantic scope,the method of systematic interpretation has the function of logical examination and conflict coordination,the method of historical interpretation has the function of exploring legislative intention,and the method of objective interpretation has the function of value orientation.In addition to the traditional interpretation method which is approved by the general theory of the criminal law status rules,we also need to make use of comprehensive and coordinated rules in the case,in order to not only realize the systematization of methodology,but also embody the particularity of specific cases,which really benefits the judicial practice of criminal law interpretation.In the process of criminal law interpretation,in addition to grasping specific interpretation methods,other legal methods such as legal reasoning,interest measurement,value judgment and legal argumentation should also be used for assistance to enhance the persuasive power of interpretation conclusions.Chapter four,the limitation and limit of objective interpretation of criminal law.In view of the specific standards of the interpretation limits of criminal law,the Japanese criminal law academia mainly has several theories,such as law semantic theory,national prediction possibility theory,crime stereotyping theory,purposiveness theory,form essence synthesis theory and so on.Based on the principles of criminal law interpretation and aiming at perfecting the defects of the traditional objective interpretation theory,this paper restricts the objective interpretation of criminal law from the perspectives of legitimacy,stability and objectivity of the"new objective theory".Legality requires that the objective interpretation should take the protection of human rights as the minimum,prohibit the filling of real loopholes and the careful supplementation of false loopholes,and restrict the criminalization and severe punishment of justice by the principle of legal protection and proportion.Stability requires that the meaning of the text should be kept properly stable and the possibility of national prediction should be taken into account.The criminal policy should not exceed the boundary of criminal law by means of criminal law interpretation.Objectivity requires that the factual judgment precedes the value judgment and the formal judgment precedes the substantive judgment in the specific applicable interpretation.The subjective willfulness of the subject of interpretation is limited by the objective system,and the judicial subject should overcome the concept of"presumption of guilt"and the pursuit of zero judgment rate of innocence in criminal justice.The objectivity of the explanation process from"negotiation"to"persuasion"can be realized through procedural openness and justice.We should further emphasize and promote judicial independence,improve the legal literacy of judicial personnel,and enhance their sense of responsibility and awe for the rule of law.更多还原