基于渊源的法律有效性判准之批判——兼评朗·富勒《解析法律》  

Criticism of the Source-based Criteria of Legal Validity——Review on Anatomy of the Law written by Lon Fuller

作　　者：邹立君[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院,江苏南京210093

出　　处：《河北法学》2008年第3期195-200,共6页Hebei Law Science

摘　　要：学者们多以"基于渊源的"来概括法律实证主义关于法律规则有效性之判准的诸论点。为法律规则寻找某种效力性的(非价值的)判准,这一努力在很大程度上源自一个更为基本的问题,即它是法律实证主义科学性努力的必然倾向,如果法律科学或法理学要被看作一门独立自足的学科和专业则必然要求其研究对象的独立性,而发现某种囊括全部法律规则的标准或总的判准,才可能凭借它将法律与非法律区分开。但是,公认的自然法学家如朗.富勒和约翰.菲尼斯等人却都对法律实证主义的法律效力观进行了层层批驳。Source-based has been widely used to generalize the criteria of legal validity of legal positivism. The endeavor to finding certain criteria of validity for the legal rules derives from another more fundamental question： it is the inevitable tendency of the scientific effort of legal positivist. If one want to regard legal science or jurisprudence as an independent disciplineand specialty, one must seek the independence of it＇ s subject. While until finding certain standards or dominant criteria of validity relate to all legal rules,one can not differentiate law and non-law. But acknowledged natural law theorists, such as Lon Fuller and John Finnis,make deep criticism of legal positivist＇s idea of legal validity.

关 键 词：“基于渊源的” 有效性 极性 

分 类 号：D920.0[政治法律—法学] D90