摘要
法律论证既需要运用权威理由,也需要运用实质理由来证立法律命题。法律渊源是最重要的权威理由,它通过说明法律命题之来源的方式来证明后者的初步有效性。制定法与先例构成了法律论证之权威性框架的主要部分,制定法属于规范权威,而先例属于事实权威,它们在司法裁判中一般只需被指明。同时,法律论证的正确性宣称决定了法律论证也必须运用有效的实质理由,即对法律命题内容的正确性进行证立。这种论证既可以是法律体系内的论证,也可以是超越体系的论证。法律论证旨在于平衡权威与正确性,其中权威论证具有初步的优先性但并非不可推翻,权威性的强度与相关正确性论证的负担成正比。以此来分析,我国的指导性案例介于规范权威与事实权威之间,它的效力是一种"准制度拘束力"。
legal propositions need to be justified by both of authority reasons and substantive reasons in legal argumen-tation. Source of law is the most important kind of authority reasons, which supports the prima facie validity of a proposition by pointing out its source. Statutes and precedents are main parts of the authoritative framework in legal argumentation, in which statutes belong to normative authority, and precedents belong to factual authority. Normally, both of them only need to be instructed in adjudication. On the other hand, it is the claim to correctness that makes that we should also apply sub- stantive reasons in legal argumentation, which means justifying the correctness in content of a legal proposition. This process can be justification inner a given legal system, or justification beyond this legal system. Legal argumentation aims to balance authority with correctness, in which authority arguments own a prima facie priority which nevertheless can be over- ruled. The strength of authority should be kept in proper proportion to relevant correctness arguments. Based on this analy-sis, we can see that guiding cases in China lie between normative authority and factual authority, their validity is so called ＂quasi - normative binding force＂.
出处
《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2014年第2期39-49,共11页
Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law
基金
2011年度教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(11YJC820050)"规范
逻辑与法律论证"
关键词
佐证
权威
正确性
指导性案例
应当的渊源
backing
authority
correctness
guiding cases
ought - sources
