法律行为所创个别规范的效力来源再探讨——凯尔森“规范三段论否定说”之反思  

The Origin of the Legal Effect of the Specific Norms Produced by Legal Acts:Some Reflection on Kelsen's Negation of Normative Syllogism

作　　者：崔拴林[1] Cui Shuanlin

机构地区：[1]南京师范大学法学院

出　　处：《法治现代化研究》2020年第5期85-105,共21页Law and Modernization

基　　金：国家社会科学基金后期资助项目“论法律行为的本质属性”(19FFXB067)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：法学方法论上一般认为,法律适用乃是使法律的一般规范转化为个别规范的过程,该过程通常运用三段论的推理,故此,民法个别规范的产生也是三段论推理的产物,基于法律行为产生个别规范亦然。晚年的凯尔森则认为一般规范和个别规范之间不存在三段论推理关系,他提出了陈述与规范之间不可类比、推理三段论具有规范三段论所无法具有的特点、规范三段论与推理三段论存在三大不同等理由。然而,凯尔森的论证存在忽视陈述与规范之间的共性、忽视规范三段论与推理三段论之间的共性、未合理区分创制规范之意志行为的实然属性与应然属性等漏洞,故此,他提出的“规范三段论否定说”难以成立。In legal methodology,it is generally believed that the application of law is a process of transforming general norms of law into specific norms.This process usually involves syllogistic reasoning.Therefore,the generation of specific norms of civil law is also a product of syllogistic reasoning,and the specific norms based on legal acts are also produced in the same way.In his later years,however,Kelsen believed that there was no syllogistic reasoning relationship between general norms and specific norms.He argues that there is no analogy between statements and norms,theoretical syllogisms have characteristics that cannot be possessed by normative syllogisms which differ from theoretical syllogisms in three major aspects.However,Kelsen's argument has loopholes such as ignoring the commonality between statements and norms;ignoring the commonality between normative syllogisms and theoretical syllogisms;and failing to distinguish the“is”and“ought to be”attributes of the volitional behavior that creates the norms.Therefore,his negation of normative syllogism cannot be accepted.

关 键 词：推理三段论 规范三段论 一般规范 个别规范 法律行为 

分 类 号：D913[政治法律—民商法学]