自然、法律与社会:新兴权利证成的三种法哲学路径--兼驳新兴权利否定论  

Nature,Law,and Society:Three Legal-Philosophical Paths to Emergent Rights Justification

作　　者：王方玉[1] Wang Fangyu

机构地区：[1]华侨大学法学院,泉州362021

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（法理学、法史学）》2022年第10期15-26,共12页JURISPRUDENCE AND HISTORY OF LAW

基　　金：司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目“第三方参与设区市地方立法后评估研究”(20SFB2001)。

摘　　要：新兴权利的提出和证成具有多种路径,主要包括体现自然法思维的自然路径、基于法律的实证路径以及带有法社会学色彩的社会路径。自然法路径证成新兴权利契合了人自身对需要的满足,具有自然合理性和价值正当性,但容易使权利话语流于宽泛。根据实证法律证成新兴权利有利于强化新兴权利的法律权威性,并避免权利话语冲突,但是这种证成路径过于保守。而基于社会现实证成权利具有现实合理性,同样可能导致权利泛化和过于功利。新兴权利证成的不同路径反证了新兴权利不断出现的现实,否定新兴权利概念和理论会导致权利话语失去对社会现实的解释力。There are various paths for the formulation and justification of emerging rights,including the natural path,which reflects natural law thinking,the empirical path based on law,and the social path with the color of sociology of law.The natural law path of justifying emerging rights is in line with the satisfaction of human needs and has natural rationality and value justification,but it tends to make the rights discourse too broad.Positive law justification of emerging rights can help strengthen the legal authority of emerging rights and avoid conflicts in rights discourse,but this justification path is too conservative.While the justification of rights based on social reality is realistic and reasonable,it may also lead to generalization and over-utilitarianism of rights.The different paths of emerging rights justification disprove the reality of emerging rights,and the denial of emerging rights concepts and theories will lead to the loss of explanatory power of rights discourse to social reality.

关 键 词：新兴权利 自然法学 实证法学 法社会学 

分 类 号：D90[政治法律—法学理论]