【作者】 徐宁；

【导师】 孙光宁；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 关于可废止性的研究已经有悠久的历史,已有的研究成果十分的丰富。然而,这些研究更多地关注了法律推理中法律大、小前提和法律推理结果的可废止性,没有深入研究法律规范中的法律原则是否具有可废止性。法律原则是否具有可废止性呢?如果有可废止性又有什么样的外在表现和内在原因?研究法律原则的可废止性具有什么样的意义呢?通过回答这些问题,可以发现,法律原则是具有可废止性的。本文主要论述的是法律原则的可废止性。针对的观点主要来自于卡斯滕·贝克尔《规则、原则和可废止性》一文。他在文中将可废止性作为区分原则和规则的标准,认为法律原则具有不可废止性。而笔者对此持有不同观点,认为法律原则也具有可废止性。文章分为七个部分,包括理论背景、概念界定、法律原则具有可废止性的外在表现、内在原因、意义及危害。第一部分主要介绍的是可废止性的研究现状和理论背景,研究现状分为国内研究现状和国外研究现状,国内研究起步较晚,但是研究成果已经非常丰富,从2005年起,有期刊、论文、著作、会议论文大量涌现。在理论背景部分,本文从语用学、非形式逻辑、人工智能三个方面,论述可废止性的理论基石。第二部分主要论述可废止性的基本概念和与其他相似概念的区分。可废止性不同于不确定性和非单调性,可废止性是指当前已知的语境下,根据当前情况所做出的判断是正确的、可接受的,但是由于新的条件的出现,对已有的结论进行否定和质疑,使得结论不再当然的正确。可废止性的一个特点就是溯及力,对于以前的判断具有否定效力。第三部分论述的是关于法律原则具有可废止性的疑问。贝克尔认为法律原则不具有可废止性,从对“泸州遗赠案”进行的分析得出法律具有可废止性的观点。最终通过反驳贝克尔观点,得到法律原则具有可废止性。第四部分介绍了法律原则具有可废止性的外在表现。法律原则具有可废止性,一般性的表现为法律原则与法律规则来两者间适用优先问题,实质上反映的是法律原则之间的优先适用问题。法律规则与法律原则冲突时,优先得到适用的是法律规则。但是,法律原则之间优先适用问题处理方式是衡量。法律规则的优先适用或适用时受主观影响的衡量方法,都导致法律原则具有可废止性。第五部分主要论述法律原则而具有可废止性的内在原因。分别从法的开放性、法律规范的滞后性、法律原则的特殊属性、法律原则的适用方式、法律事实的建构性五个方面阐述法律原则具有可废止性的内在原因。第六部分主要介绍了法律原则具有可废止性对于司法的意义和危害。法律原则具有可废止性有助于实现公平正义、完善司法程序、防止法律泛道德化,但也可能会导致滥诉等情形出现。第七部分为全文结论,法律原则具备可废止性。与法律规则相同,法律原则具备可废止性,可废止性不能作为区分法律原则和法律规则的标准。更多还原

【Abstract】 The defeasible research has a long history.The existing research results have been filled with sweat.However,these studies focus only on the defeasibility of legal reasoning,and do not delve into whether the legal principle is defeasible.Is the legal principle defeasible?If it is defeasible,what kind of external performance it is and why is defeasible?What is the significance of studying the defeasibility of legal principles?By answering these questions,it is proved that legal principle is defeasible.This article mainly discusses the defeasibility of legal principle.The main point of view comes from Karsten Becker’s "rules,principle,and defeasibility".In his article,he used defeasibility as a criterion for distinguishing principles and rules,and he believed that legal principles are not defeasible.The author believes that the legal principle is also defeasible.The article is divided into seven chapters,from the theoretical background,the concept definition,the external performance,the internal causes,advantage and negative impact.The first part mainly introduces the research status and theoretical background of defeasibility.The research status is divided into domestic research status and foreign research status.Domestic research started relatively late,but Research results have been very rich.From 2005.A large number of periodical,papers,books,and conference papers have emerged.In the theoretical background part,this paper discusses the theoretical basis of defeasibility,pragmatics,informal logic,and artificial intelligence.The second part mainly discusses the concepts of defeasibility and the distinction with other similar concepts.The defeasibility is different from the uncertainty and non-monotonicity.The defeasibility means that the judgment according to the current situation is correct and acceptable,but due to the appearance of new conditions,deny and questioning existing conclusions,makes the conclusion not correct.One of the features of defeasibility is retroactivity,which has negative effects on previous judgments.The third part deals with questions about the defeasibility of legal principles.Obtaining the point that legal principle is defeasible from Becker’s article,then drawing the view that legal principle is defeasible from the "luzhou Legitimate Case".In the end,by refuting Becker’s view,the legal principle is defeasible.The fourth part introduces the external performance of legal principle’s defeasibility.This is a conflict between the legal principle and legal rules.It is an essentially conflict between legal principles and legal principles.The fifth part mainly discusses the intrinsic reasons why legal principles are defeasible.The sixth part introduces the significance and harm of legal principle’s defeasibility to justice.The seventh part made a concludes that legal principle is defeasible.更多还原