分析法学的法律规范性研究批判  

Critique of Legal Normativity Researches in Analytical Jurisprudence

作　　者：郑永流[1] 周洲 Zheng Yongliu;Zhou Zhou(China University of Political Science and Law,China-EU School of Law,Beijing 102249)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学中欧法学院,北京102249

出　　处：《浙江社会科学》2024年第9期37-49,157,共14页Zhejiang Social Sciences

摘　　要：在当代分析法学看来,法律规范性与法律存在着概念上的必然关联,是法律规范的先天属性,法律具有规范性意味着法律能够为人们提供行动理由。分析法学就法律规范性提出了“承认论”“道德论”和“证立论”三种方案,但这些方案均无法解决“行动—理由”悖论,故并不能真正论证法律的规范性。分析法学的法律规范性研究之所以未竟其功,直接原因在于其元理论思维方式将语言置于比人们的行动和实践更原初的地位,忽视了法律规范性最终是在实践情境中生成的。根本原因是当代分析法学始终未摆脱的沉思传统和理智主义认识论的桎梏。In the view of contemporary Analytical Jurisprudence,there is a conceptual and inevitable relationship between legal normativity and law,which is the innate attribute of legal norms,and the normative nature of law means that law can provide people with reasons for action.Analytical jurisprudence proposes three schemes for the normative nature of law:“recognition theory”“moral theory”and“justified theory”,but none of these schemes can solve the“action-reason”paradox,so they cannot truly demonstrate the normative nature of law.The direct reason why the legal normativity researches of analytical jurisprudence have not been completed is that its meta-theoretical way of thinking places language in a more primitive position than people’s actions and practices,and ignores that legal normativity is ultimately generated in the practical context.The fundamental reason is the shackles of the contemplative tradition and intellectualist epistemology that contemporary analytic jurisprudence has never shaken off.

关 键 词：规范性 法律的规范性 分析法学 理智主义认识论 

分 类 号：D90[政治法律—法学理论]