谁之目的,何种解释?——反思刑法目的解释  

Whose Objective? Which Explanation?:The Reflection on the Objective Interpretation of Criminal Law

作　　者：石聚航[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京师范大学法学院,南京210023

出　　处：《现代法学》2015年第6期117-128,共12页Modern Law Science

基　　金：2011年度国家社科基金项目"刑法社会化研究"(11BFX109);江苏省2014年度普通高校研究生科研创新计划项目"刑法规范与经验事实交互认定的理路研究"(KYLX_0645);南京师范大学优秀博士论文选题资助计划

摘　　要：目的解释方法在法律解释中的兴起与利益法学密切相关。刑法学中的目的解释宣称接受刑法文本的制约,但这种立场在具体罪名的解释中通常会走样。在客观解释的包装下,目的解释存在演化为随意解释的危险,解释的结论未必符合客观现实。主张目的解释的优先性可能会消解刑法用语的法律意义,突出体现在目的解释的运用会使刑法设定的个罪的构成要件失去行为规制的机能,进而导致不同罪名在刑法解释中的随意穿梭,使解释结论突破国民的预测可能性。教义学与合宪性二元约束机制存在现实操作中的诸多困境。应倡导交互性解释,在制约目的解释的过程中形成反思性平衡。The rise of objective interpretation method has close relation with the science of interest law. In the science of criminal law,objective interpretation claimed that it accepts the restriction of criminal law text,but this position in the interpretation of the specific crimes is usually abused. The objective interpretation exists risk of random interpretation. The conclusions of objective interpretation may not be consistent with the objective reality. The priority of the objective interpretation may dispel the meaning of the criminal term. It is reflected that the use of the objective destroys the function of regulation of criminal law,and leads to the arbitrary choice of different crimes in the criminal law interpretation,thus affects the predictability of people＇s expectation. There exists dilemmas in the use of control function in the doctrinal study and constitutionality. It should be advocated that interactive interpretation and reflective equilibrium are formed in the process of restricting the objective interpretation.

关 键 词：目的解释 刑法解释 利益法学 交互解释 

分 类 号：D911.05[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]