方法问题即宪法问题?  

Methodological Issues as Constitutional Issues?

作　　者： 汪西兴(译) Bernd Rüthers;Wang Xixing

机构地区：[1]不详 [2]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《南大法学》2024年第3期167-188,共22页NanJing University Law Journal

基　　金：研究阐释党的二十大精神国家社会科学基金重大项目“国家治理现代化背景下保证宪法全面实施制度体系研究”(项目编号:23ZDA074)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：二战后,法学方法论在德意志联邦共和国的法学教育中处于相当边缘的地位,关于法学方法史的讨论更为寥落,甚至成为禁忌。当代法律人掌握了很多方法论工具,却对这些方法在历史上的“法律政治”后果毫无所悉。德国极权时期(如纳粹)的沉痛教训不应简单归咎于法律实证主义,当时盛行的客观解释方法也应负很大的责任。法律的客观目的只是浪漫的虚构,法律文本的客观意义并不存在,故客观解释相当盲目,释法者可以借此将自己的主观意志或者“时代精神”注入法律。德国极权时期的法律人将当时主导性的意识形态注入法律,对法体系重新解释、整体改造,使法律沦为政治的婢女。需要强调的是,方法问题关乎宪法:法官受法律的拘束是民主法治国的内在要求。以解释之名行造法之实,法官自由选择方法来追求所欲的结果,法律在被法官适用之前根本不存在的“自由法”观念,等等,方法上的恣意违反了宪法所要求的民主、平等、权力分立与法治国原则,使得司法过程不具有可证伪性和可检验性。司法造法是必要的,法官法的法源地位应得到承认。但法官不能以客观解释的名义恣意造法,而应坚持方法论的诚实,为造法行为承担更高的论证义务:只有证实漏洞存在,或者在对立法目的进行历史考察,并证明当下的情事与价值确已变迁时,才可进行造法。造法的内容也要受到宪法的控制。After the Second World War,legal methodology has been rather marginal in legal education in the Federal Republic of Germany,and discussion of the history of legal methodology is rare and even becomes a taboo.Contemporary lawyers have many methodological tools at their disposal,but have no knowledge of the historical“legal-political”consequences of these tools.The grevious lessons of the totalitarian period in Germany(e.g.,the Nazis)should not simply be attributed to legal positivism,but also to the objective interpretative methods that prevailed at that time.The objective purpose of the law is a romantic fiction,the objective meaning of the legal text does not exist,so objective interpretation is quite blind,and the interpreter can incorporate his own subjective will or the“spirit of the times”into the law.During the totalitarian periods in Germany,the lawyers incorporated the dominant ideology of the time into the law,reinterpreted and transformed the legal system as a whole,thus reducing the law to a handmaiden of politics.It should be emphasised that the issue of legal methodology is closely related to the Constitution:it is inherent in the principles of democracy and the rule of law that judges are bound by the law.Methodological arbitrariness,such as the practice of law-making in the name of legal interpretation,the descretion of the judges to freely choose the method of legal interpretation in order to pursue their desired result,the notion of“free law”that the law does not exist until it is applied by the judges,violates the principles of democracy,equality,separation of powers and the rule of law,and makes the judicial process unfalsifiable and verifiable.Judicial law-making is necessary,and the status of judges law as a source of law should be recognized.However,judges cannot make law arbitrarily in the name of objective interpretation,but should insist on methodological honesty and assume a greater duty of proof for the act of law-making:judicial law-making can be undertaken only when it is

关 键 词：法学方法论 客观解释 民主 法治国 司法造法 卡尔·拉伦茨 

分 类 号：D90[政治法律—法学理论] D911[政治法律—法学] D951.6