论法律中的形式与实质
龙源期刊网 http://www.qikan.com.cn
论法律中的形式与实质
作者:夏立安 钱炜江
来源:《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版) 》2011年第12期
[摘 要] 形式与实质是当前我国法理学研究的核心范畴之一。从哲学角度看,形式与实质的对立实际上即是肯定与否定的对立。这样,形式与实质的关系就转化为肯定与否定的关系。黑格尔论及此两者的关系时指出: 一切否定都是自否定。因此, 形式与实质的关系即是一个自否定的关系。而在这一过程中易产生的误区首先是以为实质对形式的否定是外在的否定,英美法中形式推理与实质推理理论即是典型。其次是没有认识到实质必然要以形式的方式表现出来,而不断追求所谓实质,其结果是陷入否定的恶无限。而真正恰当处理形式与实质的方式是把它们的关系视为形式自己否定自己的过程,即高级形式通过实质这一中介否定低级形式的过程。
[关键词] 法律; 形式; 实质; 形式解释; 实质解释; 司法能动主义; 绝对形式
(Guanghua Law School, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310008, China)
Abstract: The categories of form and material are two core categories in recent jurisprudence studies in China.Scholars have stubbornly tried to find the corresponding items of form and material respectively in reality,but they neglect that this couple of categories do not have substantial
existence,but rather are in a state of transition towards each other.This has been realized by Weber
who pointed out that in some sense the concept of material by itself is a concept of form.If we analyze form and material is actually the opposition of affirmation and negation.Different answers to the questions of whether form or material comes first or whether form or material is the essence reflects two tendencies in philosophy: the affirmation tendency and the negation tendency.The affirmation tendency,of which Plato‟s philosophy is representative of,stresses the item itself in the same link as the idea.Further,Aristotle points out directly that form is the real essence.Based on thoughts of this tendency,the opposition of form and material is almost impossible,because the affirmation tendency holds that form is material.On the other hand,the negation tendency,of which the philosophy of Buddhist and Taoist in China is representative of,thinks that the ″Wu (empty)″,which eliminates everything,is the real essence and all the things which are fixed are not the essence and should be cleared up.The negation tendency is the origin of the opposition of form and material.It is Hegel‟s dialectical philosophy that appropriately deals with these two contradictory tendencies Hegel further
developed the idea proposed by Aristotle.He suggested that all positive parts contain negative parts
龙源期刊网 http://www.qikan.com.cn
ave been some
misunderstandings about the relation between form and material.Firstly,the negation to the material of form was assumed as a superficial negation,the thought of which can often be found in the theory of formal inference and material reasoning
that material is bound to be expressed by formal means.The result of permanently pursuing the
th
words,form is the process in which the high level form denies the low level form through the media of
Key words: law;
form; material; form interpretation; material interpretation; judicial activism;
康德曾言: 认识前须得对认识工具进行考量,以免受工具本身所限而进入认识之误区[13]。然而我国法学界却对其最重要的思想工具之一——形式(form)与实质(material)这对范畴缺乏
反思,对其认识停留于常识阶段,以致分歧丛生,“两可之词,无穷之辩”比比皆是。因此,对此作出较为系统的反思,以澄清其中的歧义和误区,实乃必要之事。
一、
韦伯视野下的形式与实质的辩证法
比较没有争议的是,形式与实质范畴在法律中的应用应当追溯到韦伯。在韦伯那里,所谓形式性的法律指追求“最高度的形式上的法律精确性,后者会使得正确预测法律后果和程序理性系统化的机会最大化”;而实质性的法律则反之,其目标在于“发现一种最适合当局通达权变和道德目标的法律类型”[2]945。对韦伯的上述论断稍加考察即可发现,形式与实质的截然二分乃是建立在法律与道德的截然二分的基础上的,但实际上这种区分根本难以维持。拉德布鲁赫在其《法哲学》第五章“法律和道德”中专门驳斥了将法律与道德二分的观点,他认为几个较为流行的区别都是站不住脚的,诸如认为外部行为受到法律约束,而内部行为即思想只受到道德约束。实际上,“作为道德对象和法律对象之间的差异而出现的事物,并不能保持其关注方向上的差异”,“正如思想被当做行为的标志即具有明显的法律意义一样,当行为仅仅被看做思想的标志而加以考虑时其与法律并无关系”[3]39。而思想作为法律对象的典型例子乃是刑法当中的“罪责形式”,刑法惩罚的并非单纯外部行为,而是内外部行为的统一,即所谓罪责加上实施行为,仅仅有行为本身并不能构成犯罪。正如拉德布鲁赫所言:“把犯罪行为仅仅看做犯罪思想的外在标志,同时认为后者才是刑罚的真正理由所在。”
现行中译本作:“如果行为只被当作思想的标志来考虑,那它以后甚至能够成为法律规定的标志。”参见[德]拉德布鲁赫《法哲学》,王朴译,(北京) 法律出版社2005年版,第39页。此译文明显不合作者原意,亦难以理解,兹根据德文原本以及英文本改译。德语原文参见
: Müller Verlag,2003, s.42;
英译本参见
K.Wilk,Cambridge : Harvard University Press,1950,p.80。虽然本文所欲讨论者乃是形式与实质