摘要
刑法解释的实质化,使得目的解释成为刑法解释的"桂冠",目的解释为类推解释开了一个口子,而类推解释又为目的解释提供了足以伸展的舞台。类推解释作为一种法律解释方法,具有独立的品格,学界对类推解释的禁止并不合理。类推适用、类推解释、类比推理三个概念相互缠绕,使得对类推解释的曲解和误读不断。通过对司法实例的检讨,可以发现当前对扩张解释与类推解释模糊地带的处理表现欠佳。类推解释独立品格的确立,需要依赖于两条至为重要的线索:形式逻辑和实质立场。前者在于解决类推解释在形式逻辑上的障碍,基于此,传统"禁止类推解释"命题被重新表述为类推解释内部"允许的类推解释"与"禁止的类推解释"命题;后者在于为类推解释提供实质的理论支撑,并回答类推解释与罪刑法定原则的关系。
The functionalism of criminal law interpretation makes the teleological inter- pretation the ＂laurel＂ of criminal law interpretation. Teleological interpretation opens a gaping hole for analogical interpretation, whereas analogical interpretation provides the stage for the ex- pansion of teleological interpretation. As a type of legal interpretation methods, analogical inter- pretation has independent character. Therefore its prohibition in the academic world is not rea- sonable. Analogi twined with each cal application, analogical interpretation, and analogical reasoning are inter- other, resuhing in many misinterpretations and misunderstandings. A review of judicial instances shows that the fuzzy zone between extensive interpretation and analogical in- terpretation has not been dealt with in a satisfactory way. The establishment of the independent character of analogical interpretations relies on two important factors： formal logic and substan- tive stand. The former aims to overcome the obstacles to analogical interpretation at the level formal logic. Based on this, the traditional prohibition of analogical interpretation has been re- phrased as ＂allowed analogical interpretation＂ and ＂prohibited analogical interpretation＂ inside analogical interpretation ; the latter aims to provide substantive theoretical support to analogical interpretation, and to explain the relationship between analogical interpretation and the princi- ple of legality.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第3期5-30,共26页
Global Law Review
