摘要
当前法律方法与法学方法的称谓之争反映出的学术失范现象说明,对于致力于息争止讼的法律方法应该遵守普遍的智力标准,保证思维的清晰性、正确性、精确性、一致性、相干性、逻辑性,深度、广度和公正。法律方法是规范、指导法官做出合理的法律结论,并对该结论予以评价的规则和标准。其应具有规范性、构建性、评估性等功能。法律方法是一个尝试性的法治悖论解悖方案,是一种立场,这种立场的核心是对法律思维予以明确的规范和约束,它比所谓的经验与智慧更能捍卫法律脆弱的生命。
In recent years, the controversy about how to denominate legal methods, or method of jurisprudence, indicates that to quell controversies, we ought to follow the general intelligence criterions, and procure a legal thinking of clarity, correctness, accuracy, coherence, logicality, depth, width and justness. Legal methods are rules and regulations adopted to regulate and supervise the judge＇s reasoning, and to evaluate the verdict based on it. They therefore should be regulative, constructive and appraisive; otherwise, no explicit verdict could be arrived at. However, every legal method is not perfect but a tentative approach to legal paradox, or a position taken only to regulate and restrict the legal thinking; be it either, compared with the so-called experience and intelligence, it is more capable of protecting the fragile life of law.
出处
《求是学刊》
CSSCI
北大核心
2008年第5期87-92,共6页
Seeking Truth
基金
山东省社科项目"法律推理的逻辑基础研究"
项目编号:07DFXZ05
关键词
法律方法
普遍智力
规范性
建构性
评估性
legal method
general intelligence
regulativeness
constructiveness
appraisiveness
