摘要
自由法学、现实主义法学及后现代法学等反基础思潮,从质疑法律定义开始,用个性、特殊性否定法律的一般性、独立性、体系性等法律特征;用政治、社会、经济等关联因素破解法的自主性,进而推演出法治的不可能性。在对法律不确定的论证中,法律的稳定性被意义的流动性所替代;法律的独立性被社会关系纠缠;法律的明确性让位于模糊性,从而导致法律自主性减弱,衍生了对法治的失望情绪。然而这些反基础法学的观点,只是否定了法律特征(如一般性、明确性、独立性等)的绝对性,没有从根本上颠覆法律的自主性。虽然法律定义、规范等存在瑕疵,但定义功能依然重要,只是需要强化法律体系以及体系思维对法律自主性功能的弥补。法治需要法律定义和定义思维。
The anti-basic thoughts such as free jurisprudence,realistic jurisprudence and post-modern jurisprudence start from questioning the legal definition,negate the legal characteristics of generality,independence and system with individuality and particularity,and use political,social,economic and other related factors to break the autonomy of law,and then deduce the impossibility of the rule of law. In the argument of legal uncertainty,the stability of law is replaced by the mobility of meaning,the independence of law is entangled by social relations,and the clarity of law gives way to vagueness. However,these anti-basic jurisprudence viewpoints only negate the absoluteness of legal characteristics,and do not fundamentally subvert the autonomy of law. Although there are defects in legal definition and norm,the function of definition is still important,but it is necessary to strengthen the legal system and systematic thinking to make up for the function of legal autonomy. The rule of law needs legal definition and definition thinking.
出处
《江海学刊》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第4期143-152,255,共11页
Jianghai Academic Journal
基金
国家社科基金重大项目“新兴学科视野中的法律逻辑及其拓展研究”(项目号:18ZDA034)的阶段性成果。
